LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 804
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFTSMEN
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1788
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 793
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFTSMEN, LOCAL 5
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFTSMEN
CONTENTS
Monday 29 November 1993
Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1993, Bill 80, Mr Mackenzie / Loi de 1993 modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail, projet de loi 80, M. Mackenzie
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 804
Tom Keagan, assistant business manager
International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen
Brian Strickland, director of Canadian operations
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1788
John Sprackett, business manager
Tom MacLean, vice-president
Jim Frolick, member
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793
Richard Kennedy, president
International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Local 5
John Haggis, business manager
George King, former business agent
Robert Forbes, president
Labourers' International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council /
Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506
Nick Barbieri, council business manager and secretary-treasurer, Local 506
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association
Larry O'Neill, international representative
Ontario Provincial Conference of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen
Jerry Coelho, secretary-treasurer
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
*Acting Chairs / Président suppléants:
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)
*Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)
*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND)
*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:
Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud ND) for Mr Huget
Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L) for Mr Offer
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1544 in committee room 1.
LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL
Consideration of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 80, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail.
The Acting Chair (Mr Daniel Waters): I call the meeting to order. This is the standing committee on resources development and we are here once again meeting on Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I move that the committee be authorized to sit beyond 6 of the clock this evening and Wednesday evening to accommodate the presenters who are on our list.
The Acting Chair: Is there any discussion on Mr Cooper's motion?
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I just want to make it clear that the reason it's necessary to extend sittings is not the fault of the presenters, but because the government brought in a motion of closure, a motion of time allocation, and effectively shut this process down. Whatever side of the issue you're on, you've just been told that if you haven't presented yet, your time for the presentation is going to be reduced, a time, I might add, that was agreed to by all three parties, by all members on the steering committee, in an attempt to make sure everyone had an opportunity to be heard.
Your time has been reduced and the only way we can accommodate the presentations is by extending into evening sittings. This creates problems, frankly, for me as the critic. I have other commitments that are long-standing. I'll be able to be here for some of the presentations and not be here for others. That is not a function of whether they are in favour of or against Bill 80, but clearly a function of timing conflict.
The government has shut it down. For those of you in favour of Bill 80, you will get your wish. On December 6, there will be a vote and the motion will carry. This whole thing is a waste of time, but it's a charade we're forced to go through with. As far as I'm concerned, if you want to sit tonight, I'll be here when I can, and when I can't, you can recognize a quorum without me.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm quite concerned, because as Mr Mahoney has suggested, both the Liberal and the Conservative parties have pushed for more extensive hearings over this bill. We recognize there's concern on both sides and we believe we should be listening to the merits of both arguments.
The problem we have in extending these hearings today is the ability to provide the manpower for the committee. We are the smallest caucus, so we have fewer people available. We would like to hear it, but I don't know if it's possible physically to provide anybody. I am sitting here by myself today and I will not be available in the evening, due to a prior commitment. I would suggest that the appropriate thing would be for the government to provide more time in a more organized way.
Mr Cooper: Just in response to a few of these things that have come up, we've already tentatively scheduled some people for this evening starting at 7:30, so we could have some presentations and we've already tentatively scheduled some people for Wednesday. Wednesday will obviously be a little longer because it's more likely that people will come in then.
One of the things I'd like to express right now is that the government has made a commitment to do Bill 80. There has been a commitment for a fair while now. From the presentations, we feel it would be really unfair to leave it hanging out over the winter. That's why we are trying to bring it in now and get it through third reading, so we create some stability in the construction industry.
One of the other concerns that was raised was whether the critics are here or not. One of the things in the standing orders is that the government can call for extended night sittings for the last two weeks of the regular, scheduled sitting. So for members to be scheduling then for personal things in their ridings -- they are under the assumption that they could quite possibly be here. It is nothing extraordinary that we've scheduled committee sittings for the evening because the House should be sitting anyway. There is that expectation there.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Cooper, we're not into midnight sittings today. We've had no notice of this motion. I want to strenuously object to any suggestion that in some way we don't want to hear these presentations. We do. From the very beginning, we pointed out that we should have more time available. It's all very well for you to whistle and tell us we should have extended sittings tonight. We have commitments. What are you telling us, that we should ignore our constituents? I'm not sure what you're saying with that. You know quite well that we don't go to midnight sittings tonight.
Mr Cooper: Just because of a technicality. The last time the government proceeded with some changes to the standing orders there was a slight oversight in the wording. It says "the last two weeks in December," so we're caught on a small technicality. But our commitment is to hear as many people as possible and that's why it was included in the motion that we would sit late.
Mr Turnbull: Let's just discuss these --
The Acting Chair: One at a time, Mr Turnbull, please. Are you finished, Mr Cooper?
Mr Cooper: Yes, I am.
Mr Turnbull: The changes to the standing orders were so that the last two weeks of the sitting would be earlier than they had been in previous years because the government reduced the sitting time of the House by one week. But due to the incompetence of the government in terms of ordering its business, we won't be finished at the time they said we had to be finished by, and we're now told that we will be sitting to the 16th, which is fine by us, but please don't try to suggest it's some slight technicality. You made the changes and quite frankly we're not sticking with the changes you made. We're not rising in two weeks' time; we're rising in three weeks' time.
1550
Mr Mahoney: If we're lucky.
Mr Turnbull: If we're lucky. Please don't try to confuse an otherwise very clear issue. Your government has not brought this with the adequate amount of public hearings, which both the Liberals and the Conservatives called for, and now you're trying to save your own bacon by going to extended sittings in the evening, with no notice whatsoever.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Just a question for clarification purposes here: Was I not correct in understanding that the time slots were filled until the House rose, with an additional 12 on the waiting list to be heard, and that they had all been filled right up till 6 o'clock Mondays and Wednesdays of every week? Is that correct?
The Acting Chair: As I am, shall we say, an Acting Chair, I will ask the clerk to clarify that for you.
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Tannis Manikel): Yes, last week we did have people on a waiting list. Based on the motion in the House, I contacted the Vice-Chair and we agreed that I would contact all the people on the agenda as well as everyone on the waiting list. As of this afternoon, we had been able to reach all but four groups. We've left messages and/or faxed these groups, but we haven't heard a response from them.
Ms Murdock: Of the 12 that were on the waiting list?
Clerk of the Committee: Of the 12 that were on the waiting list, plus all the people who were scheduled this week and next week. We've been able to reach them. A lot of the people have said they will send in written submissions. As you'll notice, there are a few on your desk today and I expect there will be more written submissions coming in.
Ms Murdock: What time was the plan? When you say "sit past 6 of the clock," what time were you thinking of?
The Acting Chair: If you're looking for some historical references to what was indicated, I would ask the clerk once again to search her memory, as I am substituting.
Clerk of the Committee: When Mr Cooper and I discussed it, what I suggested doing was, Thursday afternoon there were 20 groups on the agenda and waiting to be scheduled. We would try to schedule 10 for today and 10 for tomorrow, also realizing that we could put more on in the afternoon sitting because the order of the House reduces the presentation time to 20 minutes from 30 minutes, which the committee had originally scheduled.
Based on that, we tried to contact people. At this point in time, we don't have as many people scheduled for this evening because we just couldn't get people to come on the short notice. Right now we have things scheduled till 10:30 on Wednesday.
Ms Murdock: And the plan is that we're sitting till approximately 8 this evening in the House?
The Acting Chair: To give you all the information, I would ask Jerry, our legislative researcher, if he has a comment.
Mr Jerry Richmond: I didn't want to curtail the --
The Acting Chair: Oh, I see.
Mr Richmond: I was thinking of speaking when we're finished.
The Acting Chair: Okay. Then there was someone over here. Was it Ms Witmer?
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Yes. I'm very disappointed at the process that is being used in this committee. We had originally had a meeting. It had been determined that this committee would sit for approximately four weeks, listen to delegations and each delegation would be allocated 30 minutes. Now I see us changing the rules in midstream. I think it's extremely unfortunate, because I can tell you that personally I have other commitments that I have made and I cannot change those commitments. I'm already having a hard time. The government has seen fit to go ahead with Bill 79, employment equity, and this Bill 80 at the same time. I simply haven't been able to be in two places at the same time to begin with.
Mr Mahoney: Both by closure.
Mrs Witmer: Yes, and both of them are going to come to a conclusion by closure by this government.
Do you know, this whole process of sitting here listening to the people who are making representation, I see it each day as more and more of a farce, ever since I came here. I just find it totally unbelievable. The government will make absolutely no changes to the legislation whatsoever, and now we say to people, "Listen, you'll be here till 8 o'clock." At the last minute, you expect people to jump. It's simply not fair. You've said to people, "You can't speak for 30 minutes; you'll only have 20." If this is democracy, it's not the same definition of democracy that I'm familiar with.
I find it totally inappropriate to be pushing this legislation through just because the government has decided it wants it through before Christmas. I think the appropriate way we should have handled it is that we should have had these hearings after Christmas, in January or February. We should have had all-day sittings, and we could have listened to the presentations. They are important presentations. There is a huge majority of people in this province who are opposed to Bill 80. We need to make sure we record all of those viewpoints.
What we're doing is that we're trying to shove it in. The message we're giving to these people is, "It really doesn't matter as long as we said we've heard you; we've accomplished what we want." But I think it's disgraceful the way in which we've treated the people who are making representation regarding Bill 80. I just do not believe they're going to get the audience and the questioning they so rightly deserve, and I don't think the government's going to be aware of all the concerns at the end of the day and we're not going to have the best piece of legislation possible. I urge the government to be fair and to treat all the presenters in the same way.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): As to the debate I hear from the members of the third party, I was under the impression that this was a decision made in the House on time allocation and closure.
Mrs Witmer: You out-voted us.
Mr Wood: Why are we debating it here again now in committee when the decision has already been made in the House that this is the way we're going to proceed, with 20 minutes per presenter, and that the legislation will be brought back into the House?
Mr Mahoney: The reason we're having the debate here is because we want all the presenters who don't sit in the Legislature to understand (a) why their time is being curtailed and (b) why their schedule is being changed to require them to give up their evenings when they may also have additional responsibilities and things they need and families they'd rather be with than sitting here spinning their wheels talking to a committee that isn't going to do anything on either side of the issue. I don't know how many are left to present in favour of Bill 80, but on either side of the issue.
This committee now has to decide whether or not we're prepared, and for how long, to sit evenings, and the scheduling and everything else.
The member is correct. The decision has been made. It's going to the 6th. For all that's going to be accomplished -- and you've got the majority -- you might as well just disband the hearings, cancel them. What's the point? You're clearly saying to people that you've made up your mind, and obviously that was made up before.
The thing that is so incredible about this, more than any other closure motion I've ever seen, is that this bill is retractive to the day it was introduced in the Legislature. So what's the difference if you pass it on December 6, December 8, December 25, February 3? There is no difference. The bill is completely retroactive. The people who want it will win the day. The day it receives royal assent, it becomes law the day it was introduced. So if there are any problems that need to be dealt with, they'll have the hammer they're looking for to deal with it.
It's absolutely impossible for opposition members to understand, and you recognize that we raise points of order all the time in the Legislature about the rights of the minority. Your party used to be a party that cared about the rights of the minority. We are the minority, we in opposition. We are trying to speak on behalf of the majority who are opposed to the bill, because that clearly is our job. As we see it, that's our responsibility, and we're being told that our rights as the minority in Parliament are going to be trampled on and at the same time the rights of the people who want to express their views on either side of the issue are being curtailed.
1600
So let's just make sure we understand the significance of this. We've had four time allocation, ie, closure, motions in six days of sitting of this Legislature, and I'm told there are two more coming today. This is the mentality. You can't run the government, you can't make agreements, you can't get legislation passed, so you've got to bring in closure and muzzle everybody.
If either the Chairman or members of this committee think for one minute that we're going to sit here and just quietly put up with that and agree to rescheduling our entire lives and the lives of the people who are coming here to present, you're sadly mistaken. This is an absolutely unjustified outrage against democratic principles and the members should know it. I believe even the members opposite are embarrassed by the minister coming in with this motion, because you cannot give me one argument that holds any water that says this is the way we should deal with it.
When the bill is retroactive, you should allow everybody to have their say, even allow the 12 to come back in the new year. I'm prepared to come back into this place in January or February or whenever the hearings need to be set and sit here even if the House isn't sitting and listen to the concerns of those people. I don't understand for the life of me why the government members on this committee don't tell the minister that they're prepared to do it as well.
So you set your schedule. You guys are the boss, you're in charge, you're the big heavy hitters, you've got the hammer, you've got the majority, you chair the committee -- Mr Chairman, this is not your fault -- and you guys set the schedule. My position is that the Liberal caucus, the critic or a substitute member, will attempt to be here to listen out of due respect for the people, but I can't guarantee you that there will be a member from our caucus here at all times during the evening sittings.
Mr Cooper: In response to Mr Mahoney's comments first, I think Mr Perruzza stated it quite eloquently in the House. You talk about the rights of the minority. What about the rights of this New Democratic government to govern? Basically, they've gone on and on in opposition and tried to delay. Where previous Liberal and Tory governments have been able to put through 30 bills a session, we've only been able to manage to get 13 to 15. That's why we have had to call closure, because the opposition doesn't believe in the right of this government to govern.
I would suggest to the member that also, if you look at Bill 80, this is representing the minority out there. As you can see from most of the representation that has come through, it's the minority that is calling for this legislation, not the majority, so we are still defending the rights of the minority.
As for Ms Witmer's comments, one of the things we've suggested as the government is that we want to get rid of Bill 80, get it passed through the House because of the chaos she talked about in her opening statements on Bill 80, the chaos out there in the industry and the infighting between the trades. The idea of this government is to get it done because we've made a commitment that we are going to do it, and I think the opposition members should allow us to proceed with that.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Chair, I move that we put the question now.
The Acting Chair: Mr Turnbull has moved that we put the question. So the first vote is, do we put the question?
All those in favour of putting the question? All those opposed? Seeing none, we will put the question.
Now we shall consider the question put.
Mr Mahoney: You don't get to vote.
Mr Cooper: I'm a member of the committee.
The Acting Chair: Just a second, so that everybody's very clear. Mr Cooper's motion was that the committee agree to meet beyond 6 pm this evening and Wednesday evening to hear the presentations. That's the motion we're voting on.
Mrs Witmer: Recorded vote.
The Acting Chair: All those in favour? Keep your hand up; it's a recorded vote.
Ayes
Cooper, Murdock (Sudbury), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.
The Acting Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Fawcett, Mahoney, Turnbull, Witmer.
The Acting Chair: I'm going to call a five-minute recess because I want to make sure I call this one correctly. I think you can understand that.
Mr Mahoney: How can you do that in the middle of a vote?
The Acting Chair: I have the right to reserve my judgement for five minutes. Thank you.
The committee recessed from 1607 to 1614.
The Acting Chair: I am going to call the committee back to order. After a short deliberation, I'm going to be supporting Mr Cooper's motion because it indeed allows more discussion on Bill 80. On that premise, I will be supporting Mr Cooper's motion.
Mr Turnbull: Can I have an unequivocal commitment from the Chair and from the members of the NDP that because there won't be opposition members here tonight to hear these important presentations, the government will not be in some way suggesting we weren't interested in this process?
Mr Cooper: If I may, I understand the interest the opposition has in this. I went to Ms Witmer and Mr Mahoney and I discussed it with them on Thursday. They did say they have commitments and it's not that they're not interested if they're not here and can't provide substitutes. The presentations will go on. I understand they do read Hansard and have research people who read Hansard and they will be following all the presentations on their own if they're not here and present in committee.
The Acting Chair: Mr Mahoney was up next.
Mr Mahoney: I just want to point out that as I understand it, and I don't consider myself by any means an expert on parliamentary procedure or the rules of this business, the Chair of a committee has basically two choices in deciding how to vote in a tie vote. One is to uphold the status quo, which would have meant you would vote against the motion and it would have been defeated, the status quo being that the committee sits till 6; the second is that you want to allow further discussion, which is a bit of a loophole in parliamentary procedure to allow the Chair to vote to support the motion.
It should just be clear that a Chair -- that's one thing I do know, having been a Chair in the former government -- is supposed to be completely impartial and neutral and not show any partisanship or bias either on the issue or on any party lines. Clearly, I think you opted for the decision, Mr Chairman, with all due respect, to support the motion based on your partisan responsibilities to the government.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Oh, that's unkind.
Ms Murdock: It's imputing motives.
Mr Mahoney: I find that unfortunate, and when you're in a majority government with a minority in opposition, the more appropriate ruling would have been to uphold the minority, in this case the opposition, and to vote against it.
Mr Klopp: No debate. Close down debate.
Mr Mahoney: There is no debate on this. Don't come in here and start this nonsense, when you weren't even here for the vote. If you had been here for the vote, you wouldn't have put your colleagues in the position they're in, so don't give me that nonsense.
Mr Klopp: Don't give me that game. I've seen it before. I come from the real world.
The Acting Chair: Mr Mahoney, I'm not in the habit of justifying my rationale and getting into a debate. My ruling is my ruling. The committee was told the reasons for my ruling, and that's it.
Mr Mahoney: And you cut that off too.
Mrs Witmer: I would just like to indicate that, unfortunately, we were not aware that the House would be sitting. I had asked today for a copy of the agenda and received at 1:37 pm today an agenda that showed presentations from 3:30, with the last one beginning at 5:10. Unfortunately, we do not have any members of our caucus who will be able to be here beyond 6 o'clock this evening. I find it extremely regrettable, because although we can read the Hansard, we will not have anyone here to do any of the questioning. Obviously, we cannot jump when this government says "Jump." People do have other commitments and, unfortunately, are not able to be here this evening. I just wanted to say it's regrettable. We can read, but it doesn't give us an opportunity to ask those very important questions.
The Acting Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, there's something else I have to deal with. Legislative research had something they wanted to enlighten us on.
Mr Richmond: Very briefly, I just thought I'd bring to your attention that in your package of material you have a summary of the deputations as of last week. There's also a memo I put together on the jurisdictional assignment plan and the umpire. There was a question on this issue by Mr Hope last week, so if any of you are interested, that material is there. On the jurisdictional plan in BC, I received this morning a detailed package from Vancouver. If any of the members should be further interested, I'm willing to make this available through the clerk or to individual members.
1620
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 804
The Acting Chair: I call the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 804. Could you introduce yourself, please, sir, and then carry on with your presentation. I apologize that we've eaten up a lot of the time this afternoon, but those things happen in committee.
Mr Tom Keagan: Thank you. Tom Keagan, assistant business manager of Local 804, IBEW in Kitchener, Ontario. My brief is fairly lengthy. I have no way in heck of being able to read it in half an hour, let alone 20 minutes, so I will be skimming over it and highlighting a few parts. I would ask everyone to read it, though, please, because the information backing up the parts I will highlight is in the brief.
The first part, the overview, will be very difficult for you to keep up with me on, again because I'm going to be jumping over a lot of things.
It's my opinion that the following facts will show that Bill 80 is the most discriminatory, ill-conceived, unwarranted and unsubstantiated piece of labour legislation in the free world. I've quoted from four constitutions: one international construction union, an international industrial union, a national industrial union and, finally, a national service union in this brief. The reason for leaving the space is that if we believe the government's rhetoric, the heavy-handed, overbearing constitution of the international construction union will be very obvious. I find that you will probably not be able to see that.
After reading it, it would appear that there is no difference in unionism, that is, to improve the life of all members, regardless of race, sex, creed or nationality. It does not have political boundaries.
Skipping to page 5, after reading the previous excerpts from the various constitutions, it should be quite clear that in all cases the supreme power is in the constitution and, ultimately, the delegates to the individual conventions which amend the constitution. It therefore matters not whether the authority to administer the constitution comes from Washington, Toledo, Ottawa or Toronto: All members are treated equally.
In all four unions the delegates who attend the convention are democratically elected by the rank-and-file membership of their local unions. In all four unions there is a multilevel appeal system on charges, penalties and jurisdiction etc that flows through to the convention floor. This final appeal is therefore controlled by the rank-and-file members through their democratically elected delegates.
I'll now be referring to the material in tab 1, "Trusteeship and Removal of Officers." To go to page 9, I want to point out one item, because it has been made in reference to the construction unions because of their type of work and hiring hall. If you look near the top, it says, "In the case of a workplace in which union membership is a condition of employment, expulsion from membership shall require removal from the job." That, my friends, is in a constitution that is not a construction union constitution, so there's just as much heavy-handedness in the industrial unions.
Mr Cooper, in trying to justify the bill, then uses two examples of the Labourers union in Toronto and London. If the internationals are so heavy-handed, why is there not a long string, right up to the present day, of trusteeships? Let's not forget about the removal of Cec Taylor, the head of the United Steelworkers local union in Hamilton. Should not the officers of the Minister of Labour's own union be offered the same democratic protection as the officers of construction unions? Why are we all of a sudden so privileged?
Cec Taylor was in exactly the same position as Brother Joe Fashion of Toronto. They were both removed from office; they were both presidents of their local. Why the difference?
The latest Statistics Canada records of trusteeship show there were two by construction unions, two by the government unions, six by industrial unions. Further to that, in March 1993, at tab A you will find, on the highlight from the Ontario Labour Relations Board, another four trusteeships by the Paperworkers, a Canadian industrial union.
It seems like the non-construction national unions have an equally heavy hand. Where is the democratic protection for their members? Mr Cooper's two examples pale by comparison to the above statistics.
One only has to read the statement of the Labour minister's parliamentary assistant, Mike Cooper, in the October 16, 1993, Kitchener-Waterloo Record: "But Kitchener-Wilmot MPP Mike Cooper says Ferguson's move to oppose the government might come back to haunt him if he seeks to return to the NDP caucus. Cooper said there is no doubt that Ferguson will pay later for his independent stance if he returns to the NDP caucus."
That's some democracy, and by the person who is supposed to be sheep-herding this bill through the Legislature that is supposed to bring democracy to the construction unions.
I refer you to tab 2, dealing with pension and health and welfare plans. In the majority of cases in the construction unions, pension and health and welfare plans are controlled by a local board of trustees or jointly trusteed. These have all been set up in the past by the trustees, not by management, not by government. It is not necessarily the case in other sectors, where quite frequently the plans are controlled by management.
Also, to operate a pension plan in the province of Ontario you must meet the requirements of the Ontario pension act. If this act is good enough for the industrial, service and government unions, why is it not good enough for construction?
Following you will find a list of 20 cases which are laid out at tab B. These are 20 cases that went to the Ontario Supreme Court, one of which involves six unions and hundreds of millions of dollars. Not one of them was involved with a construction union. You're trying to tell us we have problems?
As a matter of fact, of the 14 building trades unions in Ontario eight have their own locally controlled pension plans and health and welfare plans. Five are provincial, which is strictly within the boundaries of Ontario. To my knowledge, there is only one that has a problem. Are you going to try to bring in legislation to correct that one problem, with all these other problems in the industrial sector? Not only that; you risk the two plans with the Boilermakers and the Pipeline pensions, which are country-wide, and that could end up screwing up two plans to save one.
There's one other incident I would like to bring to your attention and that involves the merger of B.F. Goodrich and Uniroyal and the sale of a third plant, Epton Industries, all in the city of Kitchener, Ontario. Local 677 of the Rubberworkers lost $3.5 million from its pension plan, Local 73 lost $1.5 million and the salaried employees of all three plants lost $23 million. The $3.5 million that the company claimed as a surplus and refused to turn over to the members is now listed as a $5-million deficit. Where is the government's concern for these fellow union members? Where is Minister Mackenzie's concern for his own brother workers in the Steelworkers union? Where is Mike Cooper's concern for the brothers and sisters in the Rubberworkers and fellow citizens and voters of Kitchener?
Joe Fashion, business manager of a Toronto local who supports Bill 80 and is a trustee, claims it is needed to give more control to trust funds of the local union. This is the same Joe Fashion who backcharged his local's trust funds over $250,000 in administration fees. How much more control does he need -- $500,000, $1 million? Where's his concern for his trust fund members?
I refer you to tab 3, which deals with jurisdiction. To accuse the internationals of exercising arbitrary power, as Mike Cooper did in the Legislature on October 5, 1993, is simply untrue and only shows a complete ignorance of the facts. Two of the jobs referred to, one of them which Mr Cooper didn't refer to but which is known as Greenbelt and was alluded to earlier in proceedings by Joe Fashion from Toronto -- it is not true. Nicholls-Radtke did not want to bring its men onsite. Those men came from the hall. As a matter of fact, two Local 353 members remained on that job from Local 353 as foremen. There is a further explanation of it there.
The one that Mr Cooper referred to was a Local 1788 project involving miscellaneous hydraulic projects. You will see there is an explanation as to how this came about. It was a long-standing problem. It was not an immediate problem.
Now I refer you to page 14. On page 14 you will find laid out, from both the line sector agreement and the generation agreement, the parts that, if you refer to them, will point out exactly where this problem arises. By shifting the work to the line sector agreement, Local 1788 is now claiming work done by contractors, even though in the 1988 agreement the work excluded in a generation agreement was work performed by Ontario Hydro on a miscellaneous hydraulic project, not work performed by a contractor. Yet they are trying to claim it.
As further proof of 1788's encroachment on other work, I draw your attention to the addition of microwave and repeater stations which now appear in the 1988-90 line agreement, even though they are still covered and included in the recognition clause of the generation agreement. For your information, only workers from the 13 other locals work in the generation. We do not work in the line. By shifting it to the line, they take it out of our hands, thereby claiming other work which is really ours.
To finalize things, I would like it to be noted that Local 1788 was chartered to supply men to Ontario Hydro only and never was intended to supply men to contractors. There has never been an attempt by anyone to take that work away from them, and that is contained in a letter by John Sprackett on page 2, which you will find at tab E, on the second page, "At no time has there been any discussion whatsoever concerning Local 1788 jurisdiction over all work done directly by Ontario Hydro employees."
1630
As you can see, the document referred to by Mike Cooper came after many years of input by both sides on a very complicated issue. It was anything but arbitrary.
I refer you to tab 4 dealing with successorship. As I understand it, this will be removed, so I won't spend much time on it other than to point out that one of the statements made by the Minister of Labour in introducing the bill was: "No avenues currently exist to change these bargaining agents. Yet, in every other industry, other options, such as decertification, would be possible." I'll refer you to tab F at your leisure to find a decertification application which was successful, and tab G, a change in bargaining agent, which was successful. So much for the misinformation being spread by the government.
Mr Mahoney: This could come back in by regulation one day, by the way.
Mr Keagan: Oh, great.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your input, Mr Mahoney.
Mr Mahoney: You're welcome. I just thought you might like to know that.
Mr Keagan: I'll refer you to tab 5, the amendments. Adding the words "just cause" in several amendments to me is no more than a slap in the face and an insult upon the integrity of construction unions. Even the courts, which are not exactly a bastion of union support, would not stoop this low as indicated by Justice Reid of the Ontario Supreme Court. "If the courts were too ready to intervene in the internal affairs of unions, they would, in my opinion, demonstrate an inappropriate disrespect for the union movement and all that it has achieved." Following you'll find four other court decisions which have upheld the internal procedures of unions.
Go now to tab 6. I'll try and summarize everything. All unions, national, international, industrial, construction or others, are governed the same. You will find that by reading all the information in the overview. Trusteeships of locals and removal of officers are similar in all constitutions. There are more trusteeships in the industrial unions and other unions than in construction; that is supported by the evidence at tab 1 and tab A. Pension problems in the industrial and other unions far outweigh the construction problems; that's at tab 2 and tab B. Jurisdictional problems have been very few and dealt with only after proper investigation. The courts have recognized the appeal systems of the unions.
Because Bill 80 is aimed at construction only and there are more problems in the industrial and other areas, the government has lost credibility in this matter. Further credibility is lost when one considers the misinformation being spread and the totally unprofessional way the government has handled this bill.
Example: Minister Mackenzie's statement to the Legislature about Bill 80 on June 25, 1992, "My ministry has also sought advice of the bipartite Construction Industry Advisory Board and major employer organizations." I refer you to the letter from the Construction Employers Coordinating Council of Ontario on behalf of all management members of the CIAB dated July 2, 1992, and the letter from Mr Ken Woods and Mr Jim Phair, CIAB members, dated July 6, 1992, at tabs 8 and 9. I refer you to tab 8 for one minute, please, second page of the letter from the contractors. Not only do they have a concern with it, but, "We would suggest, Mr Minister, that you set the record straight." I haven't seen him set it straight yet.
I also draw your attention to the minutes of a meeting held in Ottawa on July 22, 1992, between the Canadian Executive Board of the Building and Construction Trades Department and Mr Brendon Morgan, at that time the special assistant to the Minister of Labour, "Question: There was a perception in the press release of the minister that the CIAB had supported Bill 80. Any comments?" Brendon's answer? "The press release was inaccurate. If I had seen it, it wouldn't have got out."
Now let's look at the minister's own words in a speech to the Ontario provincial building trades convention in Kingston in October 1992: "I want to say also that one of the criticisms, and I accept it, is that there was not enough consultation on it. I think there's some legitimacy to that charge."
The next page is page 19 in Hansard on October 4, 1993. Mr Cooper said: "A number of unions are on record as supporting the bill.... The London and District Building and Construction Trades Council." I met with Mike at his office in Toronto on Tuesday, April 6, 1993. At the time of the meeting, I explained the London situation to him, that the London building trades council does not support Bill 80. I refer you to tab 10. It has a letter from the London building trades. The bottom paragraph is, "It is our majority position that Bill 80 in its present form cannot be supported by the London district building and trades council." The letter that is being circulated and referred to that is supported by the London building trades council is signed by only three members of the executive and does not reflect the total council's position.
Even more credibility is lost when you consider the involvement of a full-time CLC staff representative in this matter. I will read to you. There was a presentation by Mr Barry Fraser, who appeared here earlier. Here is an excerpt from his speech given to the Kitchener and district building trades council held in March 1989:
"At the last convention of the Canadian Labour Congress a resolution was passed for the congress to render operational a Canadian structure of building trades unions in all provinces of Canada. The congress wants to have all of the construction unions to reaffiliate so that we may build a stronger central body in Canada. Because of the foregoing, the Canadian Labour Congress has assigned me to work on the reaffiliation of the trades in Canada," and then he appears at this hearing supporting Bill 80.
Conclusion: The evidence shows that all unions in Ontario operate the same and wield the same power, yet there are more difficulties in the industrial and other sector unions, but Bill 80 is aimed at construction only. It must be therefore concluded that the government is participating in partisan politics by paying back the CLC and its sympathizers within the building trades. It also appears that with the government's confrontational "my way or the highway" approach to consultations, it is willing to spread whatever misinformation is necessary to justify this bill.
Opinion: Bill 80 is biased, discriminatory and an infringement on the democratic rights of a union to form its own rules and constitution. In order to restore its credibility on this issue, the government should withdraw the bill in its entirety. However, if the government insists on passing this piece of unnecessary legislation, I challenge it to include all unions. Let all rank-and-file members of all unions in Ontario enjoy your so-called democracy. The reason I include that is because I don't think it would go through if you included all unions, because they don't want it.
I would like to refer to one other article. This is a quote by Ontario Premier Bob Rae, who resents Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's "confrontational `my way or the highway approach' to constitutional negotiations." How can this government operate and resent being dealt with in that way and turn around and deal with us in the same way when you would not let us consult with you? You never met with us. You held two years of meetings behind our backs with the people in favour of Bill 80 and then through closure reduced us to 20-minute presentations.
On behalf of Local 804, I'd like to thank the committee for its time. I also would ask you to please read it because there is far more information in there that I wouldn't have time to read and present.
Mr Mahoney: How much time have we got?
The Acting Chair: About three minutes total. You've got about one minute each, so if you can ask very quick questions, I'll allow one question.
Mr Mahoney: I could ask him really quick and get more than one in.
Ms Murdock: You can have our time.
Mr Mahoney: I'm not surprised. Thank you very much. So we get an extra half a minute.
We heard someone last week, one of the presenters in favour, say that if they had a choice, they would never give any money to Mr McCambly's organization, the Canadian Federation of Labour. We've heard that this is a battle between the CLC and the CFL in an attempt to increase the membership in the CLC and bring people back into the fold. That of course would translate into a fair amount of money, I would think, not to mention power and influence.
We in opposition have tried to understand what it is that's driving this, promises made by Mr Mackenzie when he was doing the job I currently do as Labour critic in opposition and commitments that he made. Other than the fact that you've identified a full-time staffer from the Canadian Labour Congress, do you have any other evidence that would lend credibility that this indeed is important, because those people in support of the bill would have you say: "Do you think Bob White really cares about Bill 80 or really cares about the members in the construction trades, whether or not they belong? That's small potatoes to big-hitter Bob and it's not very important to him." Can you tell me your feelings?
1640
Mr Keagan: He probably doesn't care about us, but he certainly would like our money. That was very evident when he was president of the CAW and raided the UFCW and the fisheries in the Atlantic provinces. He didn't go through a vote of the membership. He went to an area representative, and through that representative scooped all their cash in the locals. Some of them have left since and gone back and had their own locals set up. Yes, he's interested in our money. Is he interested in us?
Mr Mahoney: How much money is involved?
Mr Keagan: I couldn't even begin to guess.
Mr Mahoney: Guess. What do you think?
Mr Keagan: I wouldn't want to. I really wouldn't. Probably hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Mr Mahoney: Hundreds of thousands of dollars?
The Acting Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Mahoney, you've eaten up way more than your minute.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much, Tom, for an excellent presentation. It's obvious that you've done a tremendous amount of research. I just have one question for you. Mr Cooper is in the room here. I wonder, if you had an opportunity to ask him one question and get a response, what question would you like to ask Mr Cooper.
Interjection.
Mrs Witmer: We're all from the same community.
Mr Keagan: Yes, I realize that, and Mike had a visit from us on Friday, I'm sure everyone knows.
I really don't know if I have a question for him. I had quite a meeting with him. At that time Mike explained to me that he couldn't understand the bill. At that time no one had brought it out. Even Mike Cooper didn't know much about it. It hadn't been discussed in caucus. He's shaking his head, but actually that's what he told me at the time.
Mr Mahoney: Is that what you said?
The Acting Chair: Mr Cooper had a question.
Mr Keagan: He's doing his job.
Mr Mahoney: Say it isn't true, Mike.
Mr Cooper: I did not say I did not understand the bill.
Mr Keagan: At that time you did, Mike.
Mr Cooper: When it first came out, I was having difficulty with it. I didn't know where it came from.
The one question I'd like to ask is, we keep having reference to the CLC. If everybody in the construction trades is opposed to Bill 80, why would they disaffiliate from the CFL and join the CLC?
Mr Keagan: I'm sorry, run that by me again, Mike, please.
Mr Cooper: There are constant references being made that this is a Bob White thing and that the construction trades will all go back to the CLC. Wouldn't they have to disaffiliate from the CFL and then at an election or a motion or something agree to affiliate with the CLC? If people are opposed to Bill 80, why would they do this?
Mr Keagan: That's right and that's where the successorship comes in. With that out, it takes a lot of it away, but it's my belief that successorship's in there. That's why Bill 80 was brought on, because then the sympathizers within the building trades could spend all their time attacking the other building trades unions and the CLC could spend all its time trying to take disaffiliation votes, which could be taken 365 days of the year. We'd be spending so much time defending ourselves we wouldn't have time to take care of normal business.
Mr Cooper: So the CLC thinks it's a non-issue.
Mr Keagan: I believe that with that out of the issue now, they're just trying to save face with what's left of the bill, because nothing in the bill has any substance.
Mrs Witmer: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I hear Mr Keagan saying that successorship is out. There's no guarantee that successorship is out.
Mr Keagan: That's right. That was my understanding.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Keagan, for coming before the committee. I know they will take your presentation into consideration. It has been most informative.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFTSMEN
The Acting Chair: The next group to come before the committee is the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, if they could come forward and if you could introduce yourself for the sake of Hansard.
Mr Brian Strickland: My name is Brian Strickland. I am the director of Canadian operations for the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen.
Some of the background to the international union is that we're the oldest continuously chartered craft union in North America, organized in 1865. The international union has over 425 chartered local unions throughout the United States and Canada, including 15 locals in Ontario. Five of the 15 locals in Ontario have charters that have been in existence for over 100 years. Over 5,000 members are represented by our locals in Ontario, and the work jurisdiction includes bricklayers, stonemasons, tile setters, terrazzo and mosaic workers, cement finishers, plasterers, refractory workers, marble masons, resilient floor layers and cleaners, pointers and caulkers.
BAC unions in Canada, including Ontario, are governed in their operation by three constitutions: (1) the international union constitution, (2) the Ontario provincial conference constitution and (3) their own local constitution. I didn't reproduce those constitutions for you, but they are on file with the secretary of the committee. These constitutions have been developed, perfected and followed over many years, and Bill 80, as written, will interfere with them.
The next page and a half deal with BAC's involvement with the International Labour Organization body and quotes statements of ILO principles, standards and procedures which are appended to this brief as exhibit 1.
If the members of the committee would turn to page 3 and go down to the third paragraph, in 1948 the freedom of association and protection of the right to organize convention, number 87, was adopted, and in the following year the right to organize and collective bargaining convention, number 98, was adopted. Those are the basic instruments concerning freedom of association adopted by the International Labour Conference.
ILO convention 87 is affixed to this brief and is shown in exhibit 2. I'd like to read to you a couple of excerpts from that particular convention, in particular dealing with freedom of association, article 3:
"Workers' and employers' organizations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programs.
"The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof."
Article 8 of the same convention says:
"In exercising the rights provided for in this convention, workers and employers and their respective organizations, like other persons or organized collectivities, shall respect the law of the land.
"The law of the land shall not be such as to impair, nor shall it be so applied as to impair, the guarantees provided for in this convention."
It is my belief that the proposed Bill 80 is in violation of ILO convention 87. A complaint has been lodged by the Canadian building trades executive board with the appropriate authorities in Geneva. Responses to the complaint are attached as exhibit 3. Canada adopted ILO convention 87 in 1972.
Due to the time limitations placed on this presentation, I will comment briefly on general problems concerning the proposed legislation.
It is alleged that Bill 80 was introduced as legislation to increase democracy in the international building trades unions. To this day, I am not aware of the problems or grievances within the Bricklayers union or any other building trades union that this legislation would purportedly correct. I believe that any remedial legislation should clearly identify the wrongs that the statute is attempting to rectify.
I have heard that one of the reasons no examples of wrongdoings have been documented is that there is a fear of retribution from the international unions if a local officer or a union is supportive of Bill 80. I am aware of two BAC officers who will be making presentations to this committee in support of this bill. I will say very clearly that I have had discussions with both of them fully reviewing our differences of opinion.
Freedom of opinion in relation to the exercise of trade union rights calls for a free flow of information, opinions and ideas, and workers' and employers' organizations should enjoy this freedom at their meetings, in their publications and in the course of other trade union activities without fear of retaliation. I fully support this philosophical statement.
As a basic right, locals within the BAC structure are democratic in nature, governed by written constitutions adopted by the majority of their voting membership.
A major concern that I have is that the thrust of Bill 80 is focused on construction unions. I do not see any justification in treating construction unions significantly differently than any other unions. International constitutions governing labour organizations in both the industrial and construction sectors generally reflect similar provisions in respect to trusteeship and discipline.
Attached to this brief is an excerpt from the international union, the Steelworkers' constitution, exhibit 4.
The legislation gives the Ontario Labour Relations Board a broad range of new powers, and taken together, the provisions of Bill 80 give the OLRB substantive powers that should rightfully be vested with the executive boards of all the construction trades unions.
1650
If the committee would turn to page 6, please, the third paragraph down, the commencement of the bottom paragraph, in the background to this submission, I pointed out to the committee that BAC has 15 chartered locals in Ontario. Ten years ago, there were 23 locals and in order to improve member services, collective bargaining, efficiencies and industry stability, eight locals were merged into adjoining locals. All these mergers, with one exception, were involuntary mergers. All involuntarily merged locals had less than 100 members and had no full-time union representation. The procedures for mergers are found in the BAC international union constitution, article 16, and documented as exhibit 5.
These mergers were also supported by the Ontario provincial conference board and were reinforced by a resolution submitted by Local 10, Kingston, to the 68th convention of the Ontario provincial conference held in Windsor, and this is indexed in exhibit 6. The resolution was referred to the 69th convention in St Catharines and the following debate was approved, documented in exhibit 7.
In all instances, the mergers gave rise to full-time representation, better health, welfare, dental and pension funds, protected union security and gave rise to increased member participation on the local executive committee.
Section 138 modifies all the constitutions of the building trades unions. It removes from the parent union the power to control the jurisdiction of affiliated locals unless the locals consent to the exercise of this power. In the absence of consent, it places this power in the hands of the OLRB. A more difficult problem arises from the fact that a local union is an economic entity. In order to have full-time staff, it must contain a sufficient member base to be financially viable.
As construction methods and location of projects change, certain locals grow and other decline. One of the functions of the parent unions has been to rationalize local jurisdiction so that locals remain viable entities. This problem was recognized by our union and was addressed by a committee of union members from across the two countries. This committee was formulated at the 1983 general board meeting, and the report was presented and adopted at the 1985 international union convention. A part of that report deals with restructuring and is appended to this brief as exhibit 8.
If decisions of mergers and jurisdiction are put in the hands of the OLRB, how will the board come to a rational decision on this matter? It will have to go through the same investigations and considerations as a parent union and will no doubt have to deal with the same complaints and challenges that a parent union has to deal with.
Supervision: BAC records show that over the past 100 years, there have been two cases of supervision over BAC locals in Ontario, and I recall the stats on other trusteeships, receiverships that were quoted by a previous delegate.
This legislation states very clearly that the OLRB must first consider the provisions of the trade union constitution and yet says it is not bound by it when determining just cause. The constitution of a local union and the parent sets out the relationship between the two, and as an incidence of membership, any individual member is entitled to have the constitution enforced on his or her behalf.
This legislation tends to negate any constitutional actions of a parent union in the area of supervision and replaces the constitution with a notion of just cause. The OLRB can say under this legislation that an act was done with just cause because constitutional provisions were followed. On the flip side of the coin, if the OLRB does not care for the provisions of the constitution, they can ignore it and substitute its own idea of what is deemed proper: tenuous to say the least.
Administration of benefit plans: The members of the 15 BAC locals in Ontario are covered by a myriad of benefit plans that cover health, welfare, pension, legal supplementary unemployment benefits and dental. Nine locals have 11 different plans and six locals have coverage under the auspices of the provincial health and/or dental plan. All locals have a joint labour-management board of trustees and formulate their own policies independent of the international union. Each local plan adopts its own procedures with respect to either the appointment or election of its trustees. The union trustees on the provincial plans are appointed by the Ontario provincial conference executive board. Article 17 of the current collective agreement makes reference to jointly trusted plans, exhibit 9.
The members of the BAC locals in Ontario also participate in a pension fund entitled Bricklayers and Trowel Trades International Pension Fund Canada. In addition to the Ontario members participating, all BAC locals in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and at our tile local in Alberta participate. The plan is registered with Revenue Canada and also with the Pension Commission of Ontario. The relevant registration numbers are documented here.
The plan is a multi-employer pension plan and conforms to the definition outlined in chapter 35, section 1 of the Pension Benefits Act of Ontario. The pension act decrees that "if the pension plan is a multi-employee pension plan established pursuant to a collective agreement or a trust agreement a board of trustees appointed to the pension plan of a trust agreement establishing a pension plan of whom at least one half are representatives or members of the multi-employee pension plan and a majority of such representatives of the members shall be Canadian citizens or landed immigrants."
The joint labour-management board of trustees of IPF Canada are six in number, four of whom are Canadians and Ontario residents. Additionally, the fund has an advisory board consisting of employer and employee representatives from the six provinces that participate in the pension fund.
The proposed legislation, in particular 138.7(3), states: "If benefits under a plan described in subsection (2) are provided to members of trade unions outside of Ontario or to their dependants or beneficiaries local trade unions are entitled to appoint a number of trustees that is at least proportionate to their member numbers in the plan exclusive of trustees appointed by or on behalf of employers."
Such a trustee structure as envisaged by this legislation is impracticable and unnecessary. Full review and consultation on behalf of all participating employers and employees is working effectively and efficiently. IPF Canada has grown to $53 million in assets and provides over $2 million annually in benefits to members and their families. This proposal would dramatically increase the number of trustees, both employer and employee, and would be expensive and inefficient. There's an old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I would respectfully ask the members of this committee, what incident or complaint triggered this piece of legislation? From a practical and rational viewpoint, it would seem to me that if the minister's concerned that a problem exists, then he or his designate should sit down with the concerned organizations and find ways of correcting the situation. The Bricklayers are always open for dialogue with government, and if there are or have been concerns expressed to government with respect to our pension fund, then we would be only too willing to sit down and address them. I don't feel this legislation is addressing a problem but rather creating one.
In conclusion, notwithstanding that all my comments are essentially negative towards Bill 80, I believe that a compromise could be reached. I support the brief presented to you by the Canadian building trades executive board and suggest that the recommendations contained therein can be adopted.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Strickland. We have, by the looks of it, about six minutes, so I will start this time with Ms Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: Brian, it's an excellent brief that you have presented here and we certainly will be able to use the information if we have a chance to debate the legislation further in the House. You indicated here you're not sure what incident or what complaint triggered this piece of legislation.
Mr Strickland: No.
1700
Mrs Witmer: We've asked this question. I've asked Mr Mackenzie time and time again. In fact, for months I didn't get an answer and then there was an attempt by the parliamentary assistant to respond. What do you think really happened?
Mr Strickland: I wish I knew. We met with Mr Mackenzie I guess it would be over a year ago and asked him the same question: What triggered this?
As far as I'm concerned, with respect to the Bricklayers, we've never had a great deal of problems within our organization. We've had two trusteeships in over 100 years, and in both instances the first one was brought about by provincial bargaining when a local wouldn't come along with us and it was put under receivership, and in both instances the business manager was kept on. I've never had cause to have any complaint lodged against myself or our organization with respect to any pension legislation on a pension plan we've had, or any fringe benefit plan. They're all jointly trusteed by members of the local unions and management.
I really don't know. I have heard that there were some incidents, I don't know how many years ago, 15 years ago, with a Labourers' union in London, and I've heard of some problems with, I think it was, an Iron Workers' local. I really don't know what brought it about. There were all kinds of rumours. You've heard some of it being discussed by the previous delegation, about some suggested input from the now president of the Canadian Labour Congress. I really can't say that's a fact. I really don't know.
Mrs Witmer: If there were problems, I think, as you indicated, it's unfortunate that they couldn't have been resolved through dialogue, as opposed to putting before us a piece of legislation which unfortunately does have the potential to divide the industry and to contribute to some further chaos.
My final question to you is, what do you find the most offensive about Bill 80 and absolutely needs to be removed? I want to tell you, there is no guarantee that those amendments that have been talked about will be made. What is the most offensive and must go?
Mr Strickland: I think it's most offensive, for example, that there are some examples being brought before the provincial government of domineering by an international union and probably everybody's being tarred with the same brush. I think it's enunciated quite clearly here. I firmly believe it's a contravention of ILO convention 87.
I also think it's rather abusive, an abuse of powers by the New Democratic Party, to simply focus on construction unions. There are all kinds of examples that we could bring to this committee's attention, and obviously to the government's attention, of other heavy-handedness within industrial unions. But I certainly don't want to say to you, as a committee, do it to the industrial unions as well, because they'd sooner be without it too. Isn't that right, Mr Cooper?
Mr Mahoney: That might kill it.
Mr Cooper: Brian, I want to commend you for your presentation and commend your union. Obviously you don't seem to have too many problems.
Mr Strickland: I don't know. There's a couple who are going to be speaking after me, Mike.
Mr Cooper: Internally in your union, from your presentation, it doesn't appear that there are too many problems, and I would suggest that Bill 80 isn't going to affect you. I think if you look at a lot of legislation that does happen, such as Bill 40, everybody was talking about the chaos it would create in the manufacturing sector, but basically most people settled their contracts without going on strike. I think internally in your union you do settle most of your problems without having these problems. I would suspect in most cases Bill 80 will never be brought into the process and the international will be doing it internally.
Mr Strickland: I'm not so sure if you're right, Mike -- I'm sorry, Mr Cooper. I don't think you can just say, "Brian, it's not going to affect you." When you look at it in total, rather than just say, "It's not going to affect you," or "It's not going to affect another international union," I just don't see it. I think it's a blatant intrusion on internal constitutions. I really do.
Mr Cooper: I realize we have that difference, but in fairness to Mr Mahoney, I think we should carry on to him. I don't know exactly what's going on in the House right now and we might be called in at any moment.
Mr Mahoney: Thank you very much for your presentation. Along with several others, it's very detailed and very helpful for us to understand the issue.
Dispute settlement is something that concerns me. Currently the situation, as I understand it, is that if there is a geographical dispute or a work dispute, that would be settled by the international, which would come in and sort this thing out. If that kind of thing happens after Bill 80 is passed, how do you see dispute settlement working?
Mr Strickland: I would say probably the authority that flows through us under the constitution will be taken away and that it probably would mean appearances before the OLRB on all of these issues. Obviously our work jurisdiction usually ends up there anyway.
Mr Mahoney: It says, as I understand it, that a dispute could still be settled by the international if there's agreement by both parties.
Mr Strickland: Exactly.
Mr Mahoney: Would you see that kind of thing happening on a practical level? If one local has claimed the work, as an example, why would it then put at risk that claim and voluntarily agree to the international making a decision?
Mr Strickland: Would I see it be expanded to the OLRB, you're saying?
Mr Mahoney: No. I'm saying, would you see the parties agreeing to an international referee to the union making the decision, or would they dig their heels in?
What I'm concerned about is sort of the civil war that we've heard as a possibility in this thing when you take out an impartial judge and you put in a government agency -- which presumably would be impartial; I wouldn't dispute that -- but I just think of the length of time. The job would be over by the time the OLRB made a decision on it. I don't see how this is going to be smoothed out.
Mr Strickland: Mr Mahoney, if a couple of international union representatives had come to a decision on a jurisdictional dispute and if there was an alternative there for a local union to challenge that agreement before the OLRB, if they were the dissatisfied party, I would assume that's where it's going to end up.
Mr Mahoney: Do I have any time left?
The Acting Chair: Very quickly then, please.
Mr Mahoney: Could you touch on the pension issue? We've heard allegations of missing moneys and all kinds of problems. The proponents of the bill sort of wrap themselves in the Canadian flag and we're all anti-Canadian, I suppose, if we're against the bill. That's what you get thrown at you. What are your thoughts on the pension fund?
Mr Strickland: Our pension fund was developed over 20 years ago. All our trustees -- we have six trustees, four of whom are Canadian and four of whom are Ontario residents. All our money is invested, with the exception of the foreign investments we're allowed by law, in Canada. Our money manager is in Canada, our board of trustees meets on a Canadian basis, the membership is kept informed by the annual audit and also by reports to conventions. I've had no complaints about the pension, with only the exception that we don't pay enough. That's a general complaint anyway.
Mr Mahoney: Thank you very much.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Strickland, for coming before the committee with a very insightful presentation.
I'm in a bit of a quandary here as to whether to proceed. We are expecting a vote momentarily in the House and I would hate having somebody just nicely get in full flight and shut them down.
Mr Mahoney: Mr Chairman, I don't think it matters anyway. You've already invoked closure, so let's hear them.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 1788
The Acting Chair: It seems to be carrying on; there seems to be some discussion in the House, so I would ask that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1788, come forward.
While they're coming forward, for those of you who are sitting here and who are booked, you should know that there will be a vote in the House some time in the next few moments. It's my understanding that it's going to be a five-minute bell, so the members will have to leave almost immediately, and when the vote is completed and as soon as the members get back we will pick up where we left off and carry on with the list. I know that could create some inconvenience for some people, but unfortunately, when the bells ring, we must attend the House.
I welcome you here to the committee, if you could introduce yourself and the gentleman with you for the purposes of Hansard and for the committee members and start your presentation, knowing full well that when the bells ring I will have to interrupt you. I apologize in advance for that.
Mr John Sprackett: I'm John Sprackett and I'm business manager of Local 1788 of the IBEW. I'm also the president of the Electrical Power Systems Construction Association of Ontario within the IBEW. I'll let my colleagues here identify themselves.
Mr Tom MacLean: My name's Tom MacLean. I'm currently the vice-president of Local 1788.
Mr Jim Frolick: My name is Jim Frolick. I am representing myself and not my home local, IBEW Local 303 in St Catharines. I have been an IBEW member for 27 years and held office until three weeks ago, till I was removed.
The Acting Chair: Thank you. You can continue on now with your presentation.
1710
Mr Sprackett: I'd like to thank the government and the committee very much for allowing us this time to speak. We'll make it as quick as possible. We have prepared a brief, but we won't read it to you. We urge you to take the time to look through it. We don't have time to cover every point in the brief in our verbal presentation.
Local 1788 is a province-wide local union. We do construction industry work in the electrical power system sector. Most of that work is done by Ontario Hydro, and some of it is for Ontario Hydro through contractors. We supply contractors under our transmission systems agreement and we supply all direct-hire Ontario Hydro electrical construction employees. That includes about 1,300 members, 900 of those being electricians and apprentices, and the remaining 400 linemen apprentices and groundmen.
Over the past year or so we have discussed this bill a lot within our local union. We have, at local union meetings across the province, voted to support this bill unanimously. That support was reconfirmed at a meeting here a month ago that we held in a central location. Remember, we are a province-wide Ontario local. We had 503 members come out and renew their support for this bill, which is an excellent show of support for this bill when we're spread out geographically from border to border across this province.
The members in our local union have sent letters to all MPPs and the Premier on a couple of occasions in support of the bill. The bill's made up of two main components. One is the disaffiliation language, which we're now told is likely to be removed. This would have allowed for local unions of one particular trade across the province to collectively decide to choose the organization that would represent them. That is currently almost impossible.
Local 1788 supported the disaffiliation language in the bill. However, even in the revised version, with that language deleted, Local 1788 can continue to support the bill, providing the other sections remain strong.
The other sections form a package. If you have to live within an organization -- and understand that Local 1788 has had no interest in leaving the IBEW. But if you do not have the opportunity to leave under any circumstance, basically you must have some rules of fairness to allow participation for members of the local union in their local union.
This package in Bill 80 would include a provision around bargaining rights or shared bargaining rights when those bargaining rights are held by the internationals. It would provide for just cause, the test of just cause being demonstrated prior to changing a local union's jurisdiction without its consent. It would require the demonstration of just cause in the situation where locals are put under trusteeship by their internationals or local union elected officers are removed from their offices, such as my colleague Jim Frolick here was just recently. It would also provide for better participation in benefit plans.
The constitutions of the international unions provide wide-ranging powers to the international president and his delegates. The reliance of the member on fair play within the organization depends totally on the benevolence of the international president.
I've enclosed in our brief, in the first section, a copy of our constitution, some highlighted portions of that -- and I wish you'd take a look at it -- to show the authority that the international president of our organization has. The bill would only provide that in exercising that authority, the international president be prepared to demonstrate just cause for his actions. International unions, all unions, should embrace these principles of fairness.
I'll go through the sections of the bill.
Bargaining rights, 138.2: In the ICI sector, province-wide bargaining has been in place since 1978. Those workers in that sector enjoy shared bargaining rights through legislation now. In the electrical power systems sector, as in other sectors, that's not the case. In the power sector, which makes up about 20% of the construction industry, 50% of the construction workers under collective agreements do not get a vote on their collective agreement. They do not participate in the bargaining process for their collective agreement. They're not included in the ratification process. It kind of makes the term "collective bargaining" ring hollow.
Bill 80 will ensure that workers, members of local unions, will be allowed to participate in the collective bargaining process by sharing bargaining rights with their internationals.
In 1984, the general presidents maintenance assist agreement was implemented at Ontario Hydro, an agreement between the international IBEW, along with other trades, and Ontario Hydro. This was done without the consent of the local unions and without the participation of the local unions in the negotiations. It set substandard wages and working conditions and benefits for employees. This agreement was used by the internationals to move in under the guise of moving in on maintenance work contracted out by Ontario Hydro.
The scope of this collective agreement overlapped with existing construction collective agreements and led to a number of disputes between the construction locals and the employer over construction versus maintenance work and which international agreement applied, so it created a lot of chaos in the industry. On the other end of things, CUPE 1000 looked at it as an attack on its territory by the international unions. Eventually, after a lot of disputes, the agreement was shelved, but even today the relationship between CUPE 1000 members who do the maintenance work and the construction union members is tenuous at best.
Jurisdiction, 138.3: It must be required of the internationals to show just cause prior to changing a local union's jurisdiction. If jurisdiction of a local union can be changed without consultation, without just cause, the local union is at the mercy and under complete control of the international. Local 1788 is facing that exact problem right now.
Up until 1982, Local 1788 was the only IBEW local union that had any bargaining rights in the power sector. We had a direct collective agreement with Ontario Hydro for direct-hire employees. In 1982, that bargaining relationship changed and Ontario Hydro agreed that all subcontracted work as well would be done under the IBEW collective agreements. The international was the driving force in this arrangement.
The arrangement and the subsequent collective agreements that resulted provided that contracted work on the large generation projects would be done by the regional IBEW local unions around the province. The direct-hire Ontario Hydro employees on the generation projects would continue to be Local 1788. On the transmission systems, which is the transformer stations, the transmission lines and so on that you see, all work was solely under the jurisdiction of Local 1788. Those collective agreements were approved by the internationals. The internationals were participants in the negotiation of those collective agreements.
In 1989, after a lot of discussion, seven years, as a matter of fact, the international changed the Local 1788 bylaw, the jurisdiction bylaw, to reflect this practice. I would urge you to take a look at that section in the brief. It's section III. It outlines our jurisdiction as approved by the international. There's some lead-up correspondence to the actual wording. The second letter is the preface to the bylaw.
The Acting Chair: I have to apologize, but the bells have started to ring. I believe it's going to be a five-minute bell.
Mr Mahoney: Should the deputation hang around?
The Acting Chair: I will have to recess the committee until the voting procedure is over, at which time we will once again come back and sit in session and hear the rest of your brief.
Mr Sprackett: Any estimate on how long that might take?
The Acting Chair: It can take anywhere from five minutes to half an hour.
Mr Mahoney: It's usually 15 to 20 minutes.
The committee recessed from 1722 to 1757.
The Acting Chair (Mr Paul Klopp): We'll resume the presentation. There are approximately four minutes left for Local 1788 to finish up, and then we'll carry on. You have approximately four minutes of the original 20 minutes.
Mr Sprackett: If I could be allowed a little leeway, because of the interruption, just to recap where I was, we were on section III in the appendices and I wanted to point out the approved bylaw from March 1989 that was the result of much discussion.
If you look at the bottom of the first paragraph of that bylaw, it's describing the jurisdiction of Local 1788 and says, in the fourth sentence from the bottom of the first paragraph, "Employees of Ontario Hydro and all outside and inside work done by the Electrical Power Systems Construction Association on Ontario Hydro property for the transmission systems and miscellaneous hydraulic projects of Ontario Hydro." That includes all contractors under the Electrical Power Systems Construction Association in Local 1788 jurisdiction.
There was no challenge to that jurisdiction until 1992. Now the international is saying that Local 1788 has no contractor jurisdiction at all, and in fact the international is taking jobs away from Local 1788 right now and giving those jobs to members of other IBEW local unions in the province. We've been given no reason whatsoever. We've asked.
But I can tell you that about six, eight months prior to Ken Woods putting us on notice that he was going to amputate portions of our jurisdiction, we ran a candidate, the business manager of our local union at that time, Joseph Mulhall, for an international office. He ran for the international executive, he was narrowly defeated by the incumbent, and six months later we were put on notice that portions of our jurisdiction were going to be taken away and given to other local unions.
This is just unacceptable to Local 1788 members, to have their livelihoods taken away and given to others with absolutely no justification whatsoever. We asked for the opportunity to have these types of problems heard at the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the appropriate, knowledgeable, experienced body in construction affairs. We asked to have a third party that's impartial deal with these issues and render decisions.
I've been directed, as business manager, to cease claims for all this work by the international office. The international recruited letters, as was included in Ken Woods's presentation, from the other local unions, disputing Local 1788's jurisdiction over the work. He admitted that he recruited those letters, and the benefits to these local unions are obvious. They will gain jobs at Local 1788's expense; they will gain a dues base at Local 1788's expense. Many of these local unions don't even have linemen in their membership.
I'll pump it up here a little. There are a couple of important points I've got to get to.
When we received notice that our jurisdiction was under attack, we requested meetings with other local union executive boards. We met with St Catharines Local 303 executive board; they granted us an audience. Jim Frolick -- I spelled his name wrong in the brief; I apologize to him -- is the chairman of the executive board. They subsequently wrote a letter to Ken Woods supporting our position on our jurisdiction and asked Ken Woods to review his position.
Subsequently, the whole executive board was put under charges, was convicted, and Jim Frolick was removed from office three weeks ago. He is barred from office. He's barred from attending union meetings for a three-year period. The same thing happened in Windsor local. The president of the local union, for simply granting an audience to a delegation from Local 1788 to come and outline this problem, has been charged. He is awaiting the verdict from the international vice-president now.
Where's the recourse for these people? There is no recourse now internally within the IBEW. The appeals process does not work. You don't even get to attend your appeal. You do a written submission and you send it off to the same international that just removed you from office.
The Acting Chair: I appreciate your excitement for the bill. I apologize that we did get cut off. I allowed a little bit more leeway -- I hope everybody allows that -- but we really do need to cut it off.
Mr Mahoney: Could we have one question each?
The Acting Chair: If that's okay with all parties, that's fine with me.
Ms Murdock: As long as you don't take five minutes to ask.
Mr Sprackett: If I might, I won't extend my presentation, but I didn't get a chance to get through my stuff. I would beg you to read this brief.
The Acting Chair: For sure. Okay, one question each very quickly.
Mr Mahoney: You realize it's because of the government's closure motion that you're not getting a chance to get through your stuff.
Mr Sprackett: And you used up a lot of time talking about it earlier.
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: Don't duck it. That's exactly why it is.
Can I ask the question? Very simply, would you support an amendment to make this bill, which is going to pass, complaint-driven? You say there's no recourse, and I appreciate your concerns there. If Jim, for example, were allowed to file a complaint with the government over his treatment and be given a hearing at the labour board, would you support that kind of amendment?
Mr Sprackett: Under the jurisdiction section, I would not. I wouldn't have a problem with it being a complaint-driven system as long as, if there is a complaint, no jurisdiction changes hands until that complaint is heard.
Mr Mahoney: You would support the amendment that's been put forward then, just to be clear, which is to make it a complaint-driven process.
Mr Sprackett: I haven't seen an amendment to that effect.
Mr Mahoney: It was put forward by Joe Maloney and his people.
Mr Sprackett: Oh, no. That amendment would make it strictly a complaint-driven process and the jurisdiction change could take place prior, regardless of the complaint.
Mr Mahoney: So you come down in the middle of that. As long as the status quo were maintained while a complaint was being heard, you wouldn't have any problem with that.
Mr Sprackett: That's right, and the criteria remain the same.
The Acting Chair: Any questions from anybody else? Thank you very much for your presentation. Again we apologize for the interruption, but I think your points were taken, and everybody does read these briefs.
Mr Mahoney: We take them to bed with us.
Ms Murdock: Some of us do.
Mr Sprackett: Thank you.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 793
The Acting Chair: We'll call on the next presenter, the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, which is represented today by Richard Kennedy, who is the president. Would you please come forward and state your name and your official position to get on the record in case I made a mistake, sir?
Mr Mahoney: Mr Chairman, before they start, could I just point out, further to our conversations earlier, that I have to leave. I'm sure you're disappointed. It's not because I don't wish to hear; I do wish to hear. Ms Fawcett will be staying, and if I can come back, I will.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. The Chair will allow you to go.
Mr Mahoney: I don't much care if you allow that; I'm just putting it on the record.
The Acting Chair: Mr Kennedy, as I said, you have about 20 minutes, and I'll try to be as fair as possible.
Mr Richard Kennedy: I'd just like to say that we have presented a small brief. I'm not going to read from that brief -- it would take all of the 20 minutes and then some to go through it -- but, like the other participants, I urge you to read it. I'd like to summarize that brief. I'm going to speak briefly on some of the issues raised by some of the previous presenters and make a specific comment re one of the amendments.
My name is Richard Kennedy. I'm the president and assistant business manager of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793. I'm a 21-year member and third-generation operating engineer. We have representatives of our local here: our business manager, various executive board members. We are a provincial local representing 8,500 members from border to border. We employ, as a union, approximately 125 people. We not only represent workers in all the recognized sectors of the construction industry, but also in many other sectors, including municipal employees, waste disposal, utility contractors and so on, so you would have to call us a very multisector union. We are members of all the regional Ontario and Canadian building trades.
We are known as a training local. Our commitment to training is evident. We have just purchased a brand-new, 66,000-square-foot facility situated on 130 acres near the St Lawrence River. It features classrooms, libraries, lecture halls, offices, and room and board facilities in order to facilitate a learning environment for the students, this industry and the province for many years.
We are a very strong, stable, conservative organization. We cannot sit here and tell you tales of abuse of privilege by our international. That said, Local 793 is totally in favour of Bill 80 as originally proposed. What is wrong with a made-in-Canada democracy guided by a set of minimum standards?
We are a democratic union. We hold 17 district monthly meetings per month, plus two special-called and two general membership meetings per year. At each of these district meetings, the previous monthly meeting minutes and the executive board minutes are read out, corrected and/or adopted and approved, a total of 206 scheduled meetings per year. This is the grass-roots process by which the members of Local 793 have endorsed their overwhelming support of Bill 80.
1810
Anti-Bill 80 presenters have asked you to throw out or water down this legislation. We ask that you endorse this legislation in its entirety. Bill 80 is about freedom of speech, choice and association. It is not, as you have been told, about the restrictions of these said freedoms. Our members have no meaningful say in where their per capita tax dollars are spent. Some 35% of our monthly dues paid by Local 793 members goes directly to the international union. Our members deserve a meaningful say in how their Canadian dollars are spent.
There have been a number of specific comments made by anti-bill presenters which I would like to deal with. The first one is that the Ontario Labour Relations Act, through sections 105, 108 and 120, has all of the powers to deal with the issues Bill 80 is supposed to address.
I ask you to turn to exhibit 1. This is a letter from Jack Slaughter, who receives recognition from the then chairman of the OLRB, now Chief Justice George Adams, for his contribution and research into the publication known as Canadian Labour Law. It is a very comprehensive review of Canadian labour law. Mr Slaughter, now our in-house counsel, states that these clauses have little or no substantive impact on the OLRB's ability to act on the matters presented in Bill 80.
Number two, the Labour Relations Act has adequate mechanisms to deal with trusteeships. Exhibit 2 from the previously mentioned Canadian Labour Law book states, and I quote from the emphasized portions, numbers 6 and 7 -- I won't quote that. They are emphasized on that page, and I'll have you read them at your own leisure.
We have heard of chaos and economic instability as a result of this legislation. As I previously stated, we are a provincial local. We administer all of our collective agreements in force in Ontario. We negotiate singularly almost every agreement that our members work under. We see no economic instability or chaos coming as a result of this continuing.
We've been told, number one, that the courts have been reluctant to delve into fraternal organizations' constitutions and, number two, that after extensive research, the constitutions and bylaws of industrial unions were found to be fundamentally the same as those of construction unions. To tend to the first part of this, I'll quote from the emphasized portion of exhibit 3, which is from a very recent OLRB decision regarding a merger:
"The fact is that while at common law a trade union may still be only a voluntary association, under the Labour Relations Act it is much more than that, and when considering the acquisition, exercise of transfer of rights rooted in the statute, one cannot ignore either the practical or legal differences."
From the bottom of exhibit 3, from in this case the local's bylaws and constitution: "A special convention shall be called by the executive board of the local if a merger or similar move is considered by the international or the local."
In this OLRB case, which involves the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, retail workers, the department store union and the Steelworkers, are quoted 16 separate, different cases where the locals' constitutions and bylaws were adhered to as they pertained to mergers and amalgamations. I would suggest to you that the research they conducted was selective, not extensive.
While on the point of the differences between industrial and construction unions, I would like to point out that a previous speaker today hammered away at how industrial unions' pensions had been abused, but not the building trades' pensions. I might remind you that multi-employer pension plans come under a much more stringent guideline than single employer, industrial-type plans. These pensions, for the most part, are employer-dominated and not jointly trusteed -- a significant difference.
In the interest of conservation, I have not given you the full board case that I quoted from. It's some 47 or so pages. Any of you who would like that to verify or look at that case, I will supply it.
The complaint-driven legislation: We could agree to this if long enough notice was given. As the grieving local would then have the burden of proof on it, the standard 15-day expedited hearing is not enough time to find out the true and full nature of the complaint, do your research, get your lawyers on stream and, along with that, prove the case that you are grieving, which is the burden of proof. The time limits must be extended beyond the 15 days.
On behalf of the members of Local 793, we thank you for the opportunity to address this committee. We urge you to support the principles of the democratic process embodied in Bill 80. I would also like to thank the government for having the foresight to introduce this progressive legislation. I thank you for your attention.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, sir. We will now entertain questions.
Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Thank you for coming and presenting your views. Do your people work in other provinces or other countries?
Mr Kennedy: Yes, they work in other provinces.
Mrs Fawcett: Do you see, with the passage of Bill 80, any problems then with your people wanting to go out of Ontario to work? Will this restrict you in any way?
Mr Kennedy: The only restriction on that will come from the internationals. We do have a national agreement that we work under that has a provision for taking people, through that particular collective agreement, across Canada. That's a Pipeline collective agreement.
But I don't think that's really the issue at hand. The issue is that people have talked about getting people work in the United States. It wasn't too many years ago that the flow was all this way into southern Ontario, bringing workers from all over the place into this province and into this country. That may affect it. I would have to say that would be solely up to the international. They would be able to control whether people were accepted by other than Ontario locals.
Mrs Fawcett: If there was some opposition then, would you be able to hopefully do something about that? Would you then be restricted? Do you feel you could put forward a good argument and a good case?
Mr Kennedy: Short of withholding per cap tax, no.
The Acting Chair: Any other questions? There is time.
Ms Murdock: It's sort of interesting, because so far all of the people who have come out in favour of Bill 80, when they tell their stories, basically have had just horror stories occur between them and their international. Yet I'm getting this distinct feeling from your presentation -- and I'm a quick reader, so I have read the presentation -- that you have a very good working relationship.
Mr Kennedy: Well, I'll say it could be better. They do not interfere with our collective bargaining. They do not interfere with our pension or benefit plans that we administer on behalf of our members. Our members don't know who our international is.
Ms Murdock: Don't know -- sorry?
Mr Kennedy: Who our international is; they know Local 793.
Ms Murdock: So you have a lot of Canadian -- I mean, it's basically not owned and operated, but it's operated out of Ontario, yours?
Mr Kennedy: Yes.
Ms Murdock: And your pension plan has your own representatives?
Mr Kennedy: Solely.
Ms Murdock: There are amendments being proposed, and I don't know if you know, because there is no indication from here as to whether or not --
Mr Kennedy: I've read them.
Ms Murdock: Do you see that if a union, a local, has a good working relationship with its international -- I know that a lot of them have moved towards getting more Canadian representation on their international side and so on while others have not -- if that's the case, in the provisions of this bill, Bill 80, where would you see a problem arising in terms of changes to a constitution with an international?
Mr Kennedy: I'm not sure I get your question.
Ms Murdock: For instance, I can see that there would be a change, say, in the pension plan. If your constitution was such that you didn't have Canadian representation and trustees, then obviously Bill 80 would require a change to the constitution, right?
Mr Kennedy: You're talking about the unevenness of a constitution, one jurisdiction over another jurisdiction, or are you talking about the actual problems that would --
Ms Murdock: The problems that would ensue.
Mr Kennedy: I'm probably the wrong person to ask that because we don't have an international plan that our members work under. I can see some administrative problems, but I don't think it would be any more than any other administrative problem that we run into on a day-to-day basis. But I'm still not quite sure what the question is.
1820
Ms Murdock: That's okay. My own feeling of this is that I would think if you have a good working relationship and there isn't a problem, with the exception of the trustee section, you would really not ever have recourse to the amendments as they will be put forward. But if, on the other hand, you do not have a good working relationship with your international, then you would probably use the sections of the act a lot more often.
Mr Kennedy: That's right.
The Acting Chair: We have one question from Mr Cooper.
Mr Cooper: We seem to have a fair bit of time here left for questioning, so being as the other presenters in most cases didn't have a lot of time, how long are the jobs that the unions go out and do? Are we talking short-term, some of them only last three months, some of them 10 years?
Mr Kennedy: In many, many instances, we're in the crane, bulldozer, back hoe; that's primarily where we make our living. We are multisectored, as I said. But in the crane and small back hoe industry, it could be hour to hour. They're out there putting an air-conditioner on the top of this building now and putting up some steel somewhere else in the afternoon. We also have multifaceted jobs: Ontario Hydro, Darlington. But in general, when you get away from the downtown type of job, the industrial-commercial-type job, they're more of a short-term, ranging three to four months.
Mr Cooper: So, technically, under the appeal process through the constitution, the job would be done before you got through the appeal if there was a jurisdictional dispute.
Mr Kennedy: In most cases it would be, yes.
The Acting Chair: Go ahead, Ms Murdock.
Ms Murdock: If I may on that point, was it the Sheet Metal Workers who were here the other day, who said that by the time they would have gone through all of their appeals it would have been well over four years, something like that? They make the appeal and then they go to the general president.
Mr Kennedy: Our general convention is every five years, and if you had to get to the appeal process, depending on the timing of any charges or any appeals, if you had to go to an appeal it could be up to five years if you made it in that time frame, but if you just missed that time frame to appeal it, from the time the charges were first laid it could be much longer than that.
Ms Murdock: So you would, if the complaint-driven system was used, be also in favour of no change in jurisdiction, work sector or whatever until after the decision is made by the OLRB.
Mr Kennedy: That's right. Further to that, on the jurisdiction, there have been comments made about charging officers and trusteeships and so on. I don't ever expect it to happen, but when you're sitting on the outside looking in, you have no resources to use. I think that should be taken under consideration. If I, as the president, was removed from office, I have no resource except my own pocketbook to defend my actions. There's why just cause and notice should come in.
The Acting Chair: Any other questions? We can gain a little bit of time here, but I don't want to rush anybody. Everybody is happy, all sides? Okay, thank you, sir, for taking the time to come out. I'm sure you'll follow this bill with interest as it moves along.
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFTSMEN, LOCAL 5
The Acting Chair: Our next presenter is the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Local 5, John Haggis, business manager, Bob Forbes and George King. Could you please get yourselves on record in Hansard, introduce yourselves, state your position and then get into your brief. You've got 20 minutes.
Mr John Haggis: First of all, I apologize for not having a large brief like most of the current presenters, but this will be short and sweet. My name is John Haggis, business manager of Local 5, International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, London, Ontario. We are one of those local unions in the Bricklayers that have been around for over 100 years.
I have brought with me two other members of Local 5, who I will ask to introduce themselves so everyone can see that they can speak up at any time if they disagree with what I'm saying or if later you wish to ask them a question.
Mr George King: George King, the former business agent for Local 5.
Mr Robert Forbes: Bob Forbes, the present president of Local 5.
Mr Haggis: We are here today on behalf of Local 5, IUBAC, with a present membership of 340 brothers, to speak in favour of Bill 80. Although we have now and have had in the past a good working relationship with our international, and in particular our Canadian director, Brian Strickland, there is a dark cloud over our head. This cloud is called regionalization.
As you may have heard earlier, my friend and brother Brian Strickland mentioned that as far as the Bricklayers are concerned, there have been few trusteeships imposed here in Canada or Ontario without the consent of the local union first. All that is about to change. That change is our international's plan and mandate to implement regionalization here in Ontario with our 15 local unions.
Regionalization has been implemented in approximately 60% of the BAC, Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, in North America. Some of these mergers have been done smoothly and have been received well, whereas some have not been received well, with local union opposition. In some areas, 16 locals have been merged into one and in other cases there have been more local unions being clustered together into area district councils.
There is said to have been plenty of consultation before this took place, but with or without consultation, regionalization was most definitely going to be implemented, even if the local union strongly opposed it. Last June, at our provincial convention here in Ontario, we were told by our Canadian director that regionalization was to be implemented here in Ontario by January 1994. This date has since been moved back, and I firmly and gratefully credit this to Bill 80 and its democratic belief that local unions must be treated as partners by the parent union, not children.
This type of legislation is long overdue, and for the life of me I cannot see why anyone would oppose a bill which would allow local unions the autonomy and security they deserve. I would understand their right for freedom of speech and thought, if it was not a thought or speech that was dictated to them by someone they feared. We look at Bill 80 as insurance for our local autonomy. Like automobile insurance, you hope never to have to use it while operating that vehicle, but if there was to be an accident, it would be there for your wellbeing and the wellbeing of others affected.
In Canada, we as bricklayers do not have an elected Canadian to represent us. Brian Strickland is both a friend and a competent leader as our director of Canadian affairs, but our right to elect him or his successor was taken away from us by our international. He is here today speaking against Bill 80, not because we the workers asked him but because his job title dictates him to do so.
Letters have also been sent by our provincial bargaining unit, the Ontario Provincial Conference of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, in opposition to Bill 80. I see our secretary-treasurer, Jerry Coelho, is also here to speak to you later. We did not ask them or give them permission or direction to speak on behalf of us. Business managers do not have the authority or the right to make decisions that would jeopardize the autonomy of the very charter they were sworn to protect. To quote my president, "Those guys in Washington at the IU and the OPC work for us; we don't work for them."
1830
Last but not least, during second reading of Bill 80, Steve Mahoney stated that he would like to see where all these supporters of Bill 80 are. I was very pleased when I saw Steve Mahoney show up at the last provincial building trades convention, where he once again commented, "Looking forward to all the debate coming up on Bill 80." Unfortunately and conveniently, and now I see repeatedly, he left just before the debate started, because there was plenty of debate and support for Bill 80 there on the floor of the convention centre.
But the really important feelings are not just at conventions; they are in the trenches with the unionized working men and women, in the local union halls around Ontario and on job sites where the word "democracy" means the passing of Bill 80.
Thank you for your time and patience in listening to this bricklayer who is better with a brick trowel than a pen.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. We'll now open for questions. I guess you'll start, Mr Cooper.
Mr Cooper: Question: What is likely to happen to you, if Bill 80 doesn't go through, for coming forward the way you have?
Mr Haggis: If Bill 80 comes through?
Mr Cooper: If Bill 80 doesn't get passed.
Mr Haggis: To myself, probably nothing. I'm confident of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and how it operates.
Mr Cooper: What about the general feeling out in --
Mr Haggis: The general feeling is, if Bill 80 does not go in -- I think the fact that there are only two Bricklayers speaking here to the committee tells you that they are either in agreement or possibly even intimidated, and not by the international but by the very fact that some of them have not taken it back to the local unions. We've taken it back to the local unions. In our constitution, we would not be doing our job if we did not inform our membership of current legislation.
Ms Murdock: You're a business manager for the London local?
Mr Haggis: Yes, I am.
Ms Murdock: I know that in the other presentation, Mr Strickland said there would be other business managers speaking against. But you implied, I think, in your presentation that he was only speaking out in favour of it because of --
Mr Haggis: Against.
Ms Murdock: -- speaking out against it because of fear of the international, or repercussions from the international. I got the impression you were saying that.
Mr Haggis: Against Brian Strickland?
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Haggis: Brian Strickland, I believe, is not afraid of anyone, and I'm sorry if I implied that. What I implied is that because he is appointed by the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, it would be his job to be here speaking against it, because the international union is just about to merge the local unions in Ontario.
Ms Murdock: Because he is the Canadian rep?
Mr Haggis: Yes, he is. He is appointed.
Ms Murdock: And you're elected by your membership?
Mr Haggis: That's right. Our whole executive board is elected by our membership. We have been told by the vice-president of the international, who was at a meeting I believe about two or three weeks ago, that when regionalization comes in, our local executive boards will cease to exist, even if they were elected. We will then be appointed -- maybe.
Ms Murdock: How many Canadian reps do you have on your international board?
Mr Haggis: One.
Ms Murdock: Out of how many?
Mr Haggis: Now, because of corporate restructuring and downsizing, there are five, I believe, on the executive board. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there are five. There were nine vice-presidents, one of whom was a Canadian, Brian Strickland, whom we elected to be there. They all had to resign when our international restructured and appointed them as regional directors.
Ms Murdock: Okay. So you have no say then in who these regional directors are?
Mr Haggis: Not now, no. We did at one time. We were allowed to elect our Canadian --
Ms Murdock: Was that allowable under your constitution, the restructuring and the appointment?
Mr Haggis: Yes. As Brother Strickland has mentioned, there was a committee struck up, Project 2000. I've read the reports from Project 2000, where they took quite a few brothers and sisters from around the country and asked them what things we could do in order to make this a better union, a more efficient union. Of course there were all kinds of input and there were all kinds of answers, but in reading the report, I never saw anywhere that it said that all local unions were going to be merged whether they liked it or not. That was something that came out of it.
Ms Murdock: What kind of representation do you have on your pension plan? Do you have control over it?
Mr Haggis: As far as our pension plan is concerned, Brian Strickland, by virtue of his position, is a trustee in the pension plan, along with a few others. I think they're appointed. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Through provincial bargaining, the local unions have dental, welfare and vacation pay. All the trustees are appointed by a provincial bargaining unit, and if you're not flavour of the month, you're not a trustee. I'm obviously not flavour of the month.
Mrs Fawcett: I thank you for coming. I'm going to try something really novel here and, as a politician, I'm going to try and be honest and say that I really do not have the knowledge that some members on the committee have of this bill and how it's going to really affect us. I guess in support of my colleague Steve Mahoney I would have to say to you that we really did not know we were going to be sitting this late. We do make other commitments at times and, really, I feel that he would be here if he could.
I was interested when Mr Cooper asked you how this was going to change or whether this was going to change anything for you. Correct me if I'm wrong. Did you say you didn't see that it would change anything for you?
Mr Haggis: First of all, it's changed already, because if there was no Bill 80 in Ontario --
Mrs Fawcett: Proposed, you mean.
Mr Haggis: I'm sorry; that's right. Wishful thinking. If there was no --
Ms Murdock: Retroactive.
Mr Haggis: That's right. If there was no such bill ever brought in as Bill 80, then there is a good chance you might not be seeing us here, but you would probably be looking at 15 local unions in Ontario merged down into either one or four. That is not decided yet. The only thing we can say is that because Bill 80 in effect is alive, that has all been put on hold.
If Bill 80 is passed, then I believe if regionalization is to come in, there will be true input from local unions if that was the best route to take. Last but not least, it will go back to the membership to decide if that's what they want. That's where it all started and that's where it should end.
Mrs Fawcett: So right now you feel that you don't have input. If Bill 80 was not -- we know it will be law because they have the majority -- you really then would not have any effect, you wouldn't be consulted on anything, you wouldn't have a real say?
Mr Haggis: Of the 450-odd locals that Brother Strickland mentioned, I would hazard to say that it's probably down substantially from that now. Some 60% of those 458 locals have been either merged or restructured into megalocals, if you will, or area district councils or whatever.
There is always consultation, because that's the nice thing to say, when there's consultation. But when the ultimate goal is going to be mergers whether there's consultation or not, then that's what's happened. Some 60% of North America has been merged or restructured already under the regionalization.
1840
Mrs Fawcett: And that's bad?
Mr Haggis: The only thing that has stopped it in Ontario right now is the fact that Bill 80 is here in Ontario right now.
Mrs Fawcett: You really feel that you will definitely lose in mergers and so on that would take place without Bill 80?
Mr Haggis: I believe that we most definitely would lose if we had no say in whether it was to happen. I think that's not democratic. I'm elected by the members to do their wishes. If they wish to be merged, then merger might be the way to go, but that comes from the rank and file.
Mrs Fawcett: I hope the government members are listening to that answer, because in some ways, with closure and so on that they're invoking on all of these bills, it does prevent people from having their say. I hope that message gets out there. I am learning. I'm very glad I'm on this committee right now, because I certainly am learning.
The Acting Chair: We'll entertain one more question. There are a few minutes left here. Go ahead.
Ms Murdock: Just to follow up on Mrs Fawcett's question --
Mrs Fawcett: I knew it.
Ms Murdock: No, no. I'm not even going to make a partisan political statement; it's not my style. Just in terms of that, though, the mergers sound sort of negative, but in actual fact I think one of the presenters earlier this afternoon was talking about how in every instance where they merged they were under 100 members, with no business rep and that the international ordered mergers.
Now, all that would happen under Bill 80. The way it would end up would be that if the international ordered a merger, then the local, if it didn't like the idea -- this is on a complaint-driven system -- would then appeal to the OLRB. An independent body would then make the decision as to if just cause had been shown etc. They would be then able to do that. I mean, that's ideally. Now, if the local was totally in agreement with the merger, then no one would apply to the OLRB. They would just go ahead with it. In actual fact, what you're saying still would happen under Bill 80 and now you cannot do that.
Mr Haggis: Right now, through regionalization. "Regionalization" is a nicer word; it's actually a more colourful word than calling it "merger." "Merger" is much harsher. If you take the word "regionalization" to the rank and file, they're not frightened.
Ms Murdock: It's like companies downsizing.
Mr Haggis: That's right; they're not frightened. You take the word "mergers" and, sure, they're frightened. The fact of the matter is that I believe that with Bill 80 being passed the rank and file will have the ultimate decision. I believe it has to go back to the membership. There has to be input through the membership. Without Bill 80, the mergers that are about to or are inevitably going to take place here in Ontario -- although there would be consultation, there did not necessarily have to be consultation. The fact of the matter is that through the constitutions they're allowed to merge and restructure local unions.
Ms Murdock: Most internationals, though, particularly those that are opposed to Bill 80, would seem to have a very good working relationship with their locals and would involve them in the decision.
Mr Haggis: We have a very good working relationship with our international and in particular with Brian Strickland. But when Brian Strickland is not there any more -- and we have no say when he will be there any more -- then that relationship might not be the same. We hope he's there for a long time. We'd like the opportunity to be able to elect him there again.
Mr Forbes: Could I say something?
The Acting Chair: Sure.
Mr Forbes: I'd just like to point out, whether it's true or not, that there is a perception that if you go against the international, you may in some way be punished for it. I know there's more than just the two Bricklayers locals that have come forward that are for Bill 80, but unfortunately some guys are scared of losing their jobs. Whether this is true or perceived, it still bothers them and they won't speak up.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much for taking the time to speak out and come here.
LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL DISTRICT COUNCIL
LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 506
The Acting Chair: The next group is the Labourers' International.
Applause.
The Acting Chair: Is the applause for me? Labourers' International, please come forward and get yourself on Hansard, sir. You've got approximately 20 minutes. Take it away.
Mr Nick Barbieri: My name is Nick Barbieri. Mr Chairman, I was under the impression that I would be given two options here, let's say, two consequent presentations, one on behalf of the Labourers' district council and one on behalf of my home local, which is Local 506.
The Acting Chair: That's my understanding too. Do you get 20 minutes each? No, 20 minutes for the whole thing.
Mr Barbieri: That won't be necessary, Mr Chairman. I think I can do both in 20 minutes as long as it's clear that I'm speaking on behalf of two different bodies.
The Acting Chair: Yes. It's for all the groups you're representing. Sorry if I cut myself off there. Announce it for everybody and take it away.
Mr Barbieri: Thank you. As I said, my name is Nick Barbieri. I'm the business manager of the Labourers' International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council. Our council is made up of 15 local unions in the province, from Toronto, Kingston, Timmins, Sudbury, Ottawa, Oshawa, Thunder Bay, Windsor, Hamilton, the Sault, London, Cambridge and Sarnia. The Toronto area has three locals. We have a total membership of about 30,000 in Ontario and we are the largest single such council or union affected by Bill 80.
The position I'll table today is the official position as debated and approved by the delegates representing the above local unions and, in turn, by definition, our membership in the province.
This council has stated and gone on record as opposed to Bill 80 in its original form as tabled in the Legislature on June 25, 1992. This version of the bill contained provisions on successorship, merger and jurisdiction to which this council was strongly opposed as tabled then. I should remind you that I included a revised portion of the bill, and my comments will be in accordance to the revised portion. I should add that they've changed somewhat from the beginning to now.
To be exact, the delegates of the Labourers' International union, Ontario council, adopted by majority the following position:
"In regard to Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, the Ontario Provincial District Council of the Labourers' International Union of North America cannot support section 138.6 (successorship/merger) in any form. It must be deleted. We do not support section 138.3 (jurisdiction) in its present form. Jurisdictional assignment should remain the purview of the parent organization with the right of appeal to the Ontario Labour Relations Board by the affiliate, if such right is exercised unjustly. Further, the...council is very concerned with the potential for ministerial discretion to interfere with internal union affairs throughout the bill and asks that it be deleted. Here again, access to the Ontario Labour Relations Board could be substituted. Last, the lack of any regulations to the bill makes it impossible to deal with, as many sections are unclear as to application. Clear regulations should be attached to the document."
Again, I'll remind you that these comments and this motion of our delegates were passed in relation to the original bill.
This position by the Labourers' district council still applies, noting however that some sections of the original bill have been dropped and others amended according to the document herein enclosed entitled Proposed Revision.
With regard to the attached version, we are still opposed to section 138.3, which is jurisdiction in its revised form. We believe that jurisdiction should be the bailiwick of the parent union, in order to avoid chaos and confusion as well as intralocal disputes. However, we also believe that an affiliate must have recourse to the Ontario Labour Relations Board if it feels that such right by the parent union is exercised unjustly.
I will draw your attention to section 138.4 in the attached document and express our concern over its perceived meaning. As I comprehend it, this section also deals with jurisdiction. Particularly, it means that given certain scenarios, complete authority would be given to a local union to expand its jurisdiction qualitatively and geographically at will.
I cannot underestimate the potential danger and confusion which may occur if these two sections on jurisdiction pass as they are, given my understanding of section 138.4. Such provisions may lead to one large or belligerent local union muscling in on the qualitative and geographical jurisdiction of its own sister locals or other locals in the province, a sure ingredient for chaos. It's a form of cannibalism.
I wish to express further concern about the Proposed Revision, as the language in this document is incomplete. There are stated intents for future wording throughout the document, and in those areas taking a position is to say the least difficult. We would like the option of further consultation when such language is complete; otherwise our position is as above.
1850
In conclusion, LIUNA district council is in general support of the bill. However, I must emphasize our concern over section 138.3, which is jurisdiction, reiterating that control should be in the hands of the parent union, with recourse available to a local union if it deems any action to alter its jurisdiction was not justified.
Section 138.4 is of great concern, as it is very difficult to understand. If it means, as I understand it, that local unions have absolute right over jurisdiction as defined by certain collective agreements, this could be contrary to our constitution and contrary to our position on jurisdiction, as outlined above.
Again, I express concern over the incomplete language of the proposed revision and ask that when such language is finalized further consultation be afforded.
This is respectfully submitted on behalf of the 15 local unions making up the Ontario provincial district council.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, sir. We will now entertain questions. Mrs Fawcett, if you wish to start off.
Mrs Fawcett: I haven't any.
The Acting Chair: No questions from the Liberal Party. Do we have any questions from the governing party, Ms Murdock?
Ms Murdock: I'm confused about your argument on 138.4, which reads:
"(1) This section applies if, on the 1st day of May, 1992,
"(a) a parent trade union was party to a collective agreement whose geographic scope included the province and which applied to employees described in subsection 138.2(1); or
"(b) a parent trade union had given notice to bargain for the renewal of such a collective agreement."
Then:
"(2) Sections 138.2 and 138.3 do not operate to authorize a local trade union to enter into a separate collective agreement...or to alter the geographic scope of the collective agreement."
I don't understand how that moves into local unions muscling in on qualitative and geographical jurisdiction of their own sister locals.
Mr Barbieri: I'll explain that. The section is, first of all, very confusing; I agree with you. The only way I can make sense of it is to reverse the meaning of each clause, and then it becomes totally different.
The first two sections would apply if a parent union is party to an agreement or has given notice to bargain. Therefore, if they're not party to an agreement or if they have not given notice to bargain, then it does not apply. In that case, the local union can do whatever it would like with its jurisdiction, whether it's expand it or give it away.
Ms Murdock: Yes, "a parent trade union was party to...." If it was a party; it only applies --
Mr Barbieri: Ask yourself what would happen if it was not.
Ms Murdock: The whole section only applies if on May 1, 1992, a parent trade union was party to a collective agreement whose geographic scope included --
Mr Barbieri: Or if it gave notice to bargain.
Ms Murdock: Or "a parent trade union had given notice to bargain for the renewal of such a collective agreement."
Mr Barbieri: But if it was not party to the agreement or it had not given notice to bargain --
Ms Murdock: It doesn't apply.
Mr Barbieri: Not the whole section doesn't apply.
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Barbieri: The third part of it would still apply.
Ms Murdock: Subsection 138.4(l): "This section applies if...." Meaning, then, the reverse is that it doesn't apply otherwise.
Mr Barbieri: I think the whole section refers to the third part of the section, which would tell me that if a parent union was not party to an agreement or if a parent union did not give notice to bargain, then the third section would apply. Then you also change the meaning of that. It becomes completely the opposite of what is stated there.
Ms Murdock: I don't find the language of that section confusing.
Mr Barbieri: If you are right, I have no problem with the section. But if you're wrong, I have a lot of problems with the section.
Ms Murdock: I'm reading that and I don't see what you see in it. That's why I'm saying that I'm confused.
Mr Barbieri: I'm very sceptical. As I said, if you're right, I have no problems with that section.
Ms Murdock: The only other thing is that I note that a complaint-driven system would be fine with you.
Mr Barbieri: Complaint-driven?
Ms Murdock: Well, you say -- where is it?
Mr Barbieri: I stayed away from making comments about whether the act should be complaint-driven or not. What I would like to see, as far as the Labourers' union, is that once certain items have been dropped our biggest concern is the part on jurisdiction and its combination with merger.
Ms Murdock: Section 138.3.
Mr Barbieri: Right, or with 138.4 and in combination with that. What we would like to see is that the jurisdiction remain in the hands of the parent union, but that if that right or that authority would be unjustly exercised, there would be recourse. If you call that complaint-driven --
Ms Murdock: That's complaints-driven.
Mr Barbieri: Well --
Ms Murdock: That's what it is. The only time it would go before the OLRB or an independent body would be if the local had a complaint about how it was being done.
Mr Barbieri: Still, I would ask that the local union be given a strong say in what happened in that case, whether it would be complaint-driven or whether it would be the opposite.
Ms Murdock: Okay. The only other thing is that I want to go back to your other position on -- where is it?
Mr Barbieri: Our whole position is the schedule on page 2, and again I must remind you that was based on the original bill.
Ms Murdock: It's actually on page 2, under the section in the quotes.
Mr Barbieri: That's right.
Ms Murdock: Right, in what was adopted. See, the plan is to delete the successorship provision in what I call the disaffiliation section, but I was interested in your successorship/merger line, because I see 138.3 as applying to that situation.
Mr Barbieri: The Labourers' union has an unusual position on those sections and there's a reason for it. First of all, although we're opposed to the section on merger in its original form, I don't place a lot of emphasis on that. After all, I see no need to give someone the right to move out of your house if they need permission from you in the first place, and that's the way the original act was written. The merger section of it, combined with jurisdiction, will have that effect, of allowing someone to leave an international union without seceding.
If a local union is completely empowered over its own jurisdiction and it can do anything it wants with it, all it has to do is affiliate with another local union from another denominational union, if you will -- it could be an independent union, it could be another trade union -- and they would in effect secede by combining the two unions.
What would be left of a local union under LIUNA is only its charter, without members and without collective agreements, if those two sections went through as originally planned. That is why we're alarmed about the way it originally was, and I'm hoping that what we're talking about here is a proposed revision, as opposed to the original bill.
Ms Murdock: I know how important it is because Joe Mancinelli came up to Sudbury and spoke to me for two hours. I figure anybody who comes from Hamilton and goes to Sudbury for the whole time is -- and then Art Adams. I know him well. Thank you very much for taking the time and being so succinct.
The Acting Chair: Seeing no other questions, I guess we're done then, sir.
Mr Barbieri: My submission on behalf of the local is shorter and almost the same.
The Acting Chair: Oh, okay.
Mr Barbieri: I do have a submission to make on behalf of the local. Do I have any time left?
The Acting Chair: You've got a few minutes.
Ms Murdock: I'm sorry. I shouldn't have asked so many questions.
Mr Barbieri: That's all right. As well as being the business manager of the council, I'm secretary-treasurer of one of our largest local unions, Local 506 in Toronto, for which I'm making this submission.
Local 506 has a membership of over 5,000 and is one of the largest construction locals in Ontario and the largest Labourers' local with jurisdiction over ICI work in the province.
Local 506 is in general supportive of the bill, but wishes to go on the record as being greatly concerned and strongly opposed to sections 138.3 and 138.4 as contained in the proposed revision hereto attached. Actually, it's not attached to this document but to the previous one. As we share geographical areas with two sister locals in Toronto, we feel jurisdiction should remain in the hands of the parent union, with recourse to the Ontario Labour Relations Board on any unjust or arbitrary decision to alter the same.
If section 138.3 remains as is, and in particular if section 138.4 is kept as is, the act would facilitate the expansion of jurisdiction both geographically and sectorally by one local union at the expense of another. A combination of these two sections would empower any local union to keep and/or dispense of its jurisdiction as it wishes, to the detriment of its parent union or sister local.
One possible negative outcome would be that jurisdiction under certain collective agreements could be given or moved to another local union or to a different union, thereby making it possible to actually secede from a parent union by giving away all its work or the work as covered by certain collective agreements.
In short, under these collective agreements, where the parent union is not a party to or has not given notice to bargain as prescribed in section 138.4, that local union could give away its jurisdiction, leaving it only with a meaningless charter from its parent union. That is a form of secession. A local union which has either given away its jurisdiction and/or the members covered by certain non-ICI agreements in reality ceases to exist or in fact has seceded from its parent union.
The recipient of such jurisdiction or collective agreements would then actively pursue this concept, creating further chaos and upheaval in the affected sectors.
I urge you to examine these two sections of the bill very carefully and amend them to empower the parent union to hold jurisdiction and authority over collective agreements and prevent chaos and possibly indirect secession.
Naturally, any unjust or arbitrary decisions by the parent union should be afforded recourse of appeal by the local union to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
This is respectfully submitted on behalf of Local 506 in Toronto.
The Acting Chair: Are there any questions on that? Seeing no questions, I appreciate your time, sir, and I know you'll be following this with interest.
We can now move on, if it pleases everyone. It pleases me, and I'm the Chair.
1900
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
The Acting Chair: The Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, would you help us out and continue on with a presentation. Announce yourself and who you are for the record, for Hansard. You've got 20 minutes.
Mr Larry O'Neill: Mr Chairman and committee members, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you to express some of the concerns regarding Bill 80.
My name is Larry O'Neill. I am a sheet metal worker. I am a member of Local 537 in Hamilton. I am also an international representative for the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, representing some of the locals and their members in Ontario.
What is a sheet metal worker? In our union, a sheet metal worker is a sheeter/decker installer, a welder, a production worker, a roofer or a person who has a certificate of qualification in the sheet metal trade. In Ontario, the Ministry of Skills Development issues a certificate of qualification under the rules and regulations of the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act.
The sheet metal worker is a compulsory certified trade. To become a licensed sheet metal worker, you must serve a five-year apprenticeship or prove to the Ministry of Skills Development that you have worked in the trade for at least four years. You must pass a demonstration of skills test and then write and pass your C of Q test. Then you become a licensed sheet metal worker.
As a sheet metal worker I want to belong to the union that represents my trade, and that is why I am a member of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association. I have been an active member of this association for the past 26 years. As soon as I became eligible to become an executive member of 537, I did just that. I have been on the different committees within Local 537, I have been a trustee of the health and welfare pension plan, and I have been one of 537's business representatives for eight years, up until May 1, 1992, all of which are elected positions. In March 1992, I was asked and I chose to work for the international association starting May 1.
I believe I have a pretty good knowledge of what has been going on in Local 537 and in Ontario regarding the sheet metal workers and our international. I can honestly say that the international has never interfered with the running of 537 or any other local in Ontario. The international did, however, tell me that I could no longer be on any of the committees within Local 537 or a trustee of its health and welfare pension plan because the international did not want to be interfering with the running of the local's inner structures.
It has been said that Bill 80 will give us more democracy. You have already heard about the resolution at the provincial building trades convention this year and last year, where the vast majority of the delegates there were and still are opposed to Bill 80. This is democracy, trying to push a bill that the vast majority of members are opposed to?
It has been said that Bill 80 will cause chaos in the construction industry and people have asked, "Will it and how will it?" Believe me, it will. It already has started. Right here we have heard members against their internationals, locals against locals, members against members, all over a bill that the majority are opposed to. This bill will not provide one job for the rank-and-file members. In fact, it may do the opposite; it may cost them jobs.
Last Wednesday, the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference, along with Local 30, Toronto, Local 397, Thunder Bay and Local 537, Hamilton, appeared before this committee. They used up all the time allotted them, therefore not allowing any time for questions, so you as a committee would assume everything presented before you was fact. There are some things I would like to inform you of about their presentation that could be construed as maybe a little misleading.
In the very first paragraph of the first page it states: "We are the provincial body of all 13 construction, sheet metal and roofer locals in Ontario. The membership of the conference is approximately 10,000." I would like to inform you that there are 12 construction unions; of the 12, one is a residential, and there is one production local. The total construction workers in Ontario with the Sheet Metal Workers are 8,266 members. They also stated that since the proposed revised amendments there are now 10 of the 11 locals in support of Bill 80, instead of the seven that were previously in favour. The seven were Local 30, Toronto; Local 235, Windsor; Local 269, Kingston; Local 392, Peterborough; Local 397, Thunder Bay; Local 504, Sudbury; and Local 537, Hamilton.
As I previously mentioned, since May 1, 1992, I have been representing some of these locals and I have attended many of their regular meetings. I know that the membership in Peterborough, Kingston and Hamilton have never had a membership vote regarding Bill 80, yet the Ontario conference is saying that these locals are in favour of Bill 80. As for the 11 locals that they state are now in support of Bill 80, the abovementioned three still have not had a vote on this bill, and last Friday in Kitchener Local 562 demonstrated against Bill 80 at Mike Cooper's office, which shows they are not in favour of Bill 80 either. Their statement of having 10 of the 11 locals supporting Bill 80 is not correct.
George Ward told you that the last dispute settled by the international was back in 1978 and 1979. He also stated that internationals don't solve jurisdictional disputes. The truth of the matter is that this morning I received a jurisdictional dispute by fax from Washington regarding the Hamilton local, and I also have a list of 10, starting back about 1988 up to this date, that I found this morning through the files.
1910
One was with the association over Resin Deuter & De-deuter Vent ducts. We went to arbitration with that, with the conference and the international to Washington, and we won that work for Local 30 and Local 537.
I won't read the rest of them, but they're in your kit. You can go through those since our time was cut down somewhat.
As for the accusations that George Ward made regarding misappropriation of funds in our international, at our recently held business agents' conference, our newly elected general president, Arthur Moore, gave the nearly 300 local union delegates a detailed report of the findings of the general executive council's investigation on that matter and the action taken and planned. He also stated that the general executive had formally appointed a standing finance committee to ensure checks and balances on the expenditures of the organization.
This problem could arise with any union or organization, and I feel that sheet metal workers have done everything in their power to quickly rectify the situation. It is in our constitution that there is a system for checks and balances for each individual local by electing trustees from the membership who are not on the executive of the local union.
It would appear that this couldn't happen at a better time for some individuals, the ones who will take advantage of just such a situation for their own personal gain or cause. This is something that nobody in the union likes to hear, but it is doubly shameful when a high-ranking union official brings it to the public's attention. This is certainly not needed for the image of all unions.
The Ontario conference also suggested there should be checks and balances to prevent this from happening again. This year at their annual convention, which I was not invited to because of the hard feelings that Bill 80 has created between the international and the Ontario conference, there was a resolution dealing specifically with the abovementioned method of ensuring the checks and balances of the conference. The resolution dealt with having trustees of the conference who are not executive members voted in by the delegates at that convention.
The Ontario conference held that vote to bring in this resolution within its own organization. It was a tie vote, with the president having the power to break the tie vote, and he voted against it. So what they have suggested the international have to ensure misappropriation of funds wouldn't happen again, they feel they don't want or need for their own organization.
Internationals, justifiably, have put a few locals under trusteeship, but that certainly does not justify Bill 80, considering there are 146 construction locals in Ontario.
In conclusion, I have sat through these hearings and listened to the reasons as to why this bill has been introduced, and in my opinion there is no strong reason why we need to have government policing or interfering with the workings of our internationals. Our internationals have made provisions democratically within their membership by means of their constitutions that will cover any problems that could arise within their own organizations that supposedly Bill 80 is trying to address. This is a democratic way of letting the membership have their say in what goes on in their own organization, not the government.
Thank you, and please consider the true wishes of the construction workers before you decide on this very important issue.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, sir. There are five minutes; we'll split it up between the two caucuses. Go ahead, Mr Mahoney.
Mr Mahoney: Thank you, Larry, for that presentation. The issue of dispute settlement on agreement by both parties agreeing to settle the dispute seems to be cumbersome, but tie that in with the amendment that Joe Maloney and his people put forward in their presentation to make this whole bill complaint-driven.
If this were complaint-driven and a complaint arose -- and I'm assuming, as you well know, that this bill is going through; that's reality -- in an attempt to try and improve the thing and settle down the feelings within the labour movement, how would it work, or would it work if it were based on complaints received and a hearing went -- whatever it is, whether it's a trusteeship, whether it's removing someone from office, whether it's anything that the international does, if there's a complaint and you go to an OLRB hearing, how would you react to that?
Mr Larry O'Neill: At the present time, there is an ongoing dispute between Local 537 in Hamilton, and it has been going on for quite a while, about the boundary of the town of Milton. The members of Local 537 have their minds set on where the boundary is and the members of Local 30 have theirs.
Now, Local 537 has requested the international to come in and settle this dispute. Local 30 has requested the international to come in and settle the dispute. The international is investigating that dispute. They have not settled it because they really don't know what's going to happen if they settle a dispute when Bill 80 is there. What happens? Do we have the authority because the locals have come in and asked us, and do we not if one does not? And if we do decide, do we then have to go to the board and justify what we're doing and explain?
Your question was on the complaint-driven. To my line of thinking, with the complaint-driven, if we were to decide and come in and award the area to Hamilton or Toronto and the other one didn't like it, then with the complaint-driven, they could file that complaint with the labour board.
Mr Mahoney: Even though they requested you come in in the first place?
Mr Larry O'Neill: Even though -- exactly.
Mr Mahoney: If there was a system in place where both parties agreed to the international coming in, and then because they didn't like the decision -- there might be a bit of a credibility problem there.
I'm wondering if there's some way of, again, trying to play down some of the rhetoric and settling down some of the apparent hard feelings within the labour movement, if a system could not be devised where you could continue operating as the referee in the international. But if there were a complaint about an international being heavy-handed and coming in uninvited or doing something, adjusting boundaries, any number of things, and a complaint was filed, is it a softer position for the movement to then have, on a complaint-driven basis, an OLRB hearing to ultimately decide? You may have many, many times when there are no complaints filed at all and everyone's happy.
Mr Larry O'Neill: Exactly. I think it would be a waste of time to go to the labour board every time there was a decision made by anybody, and that's the way it would be right now. But with a complaint, if one of the people were not in agreement, then they would complain and that would eliminate an awful lot of them, I'm sure. In this particular case I think both have requested and both would most likely live with that answer, providing it was a not a setup for Bill 80.
Mr Cooper: Thank you for your presentation, Larry. A couple of things: When two locals invite the international in to resolve a dispute, that's the way it should happen. Bill 80 doesn't cover that. It covers a unilateral decision by the parent to come in and alter one local's jurisdiction. That's why Bill 80's there.
The other thing is, on page 4 you talk about the labour relations board and the disputes that were settled in favour of the Sheet Metal Workers. Bill 80 doesn't address this; it addresses intratrade disputes, not intertrade. So if it was two sheet metal workers against each other, that's what Bill 80 addresses. It doesn't address the Iron Workers against the Sheet Metal Workers.
1920
Mr Larry O'Neill: I hear you, but there's a little bit of a cloud there because when the word "work" comes in, if there was a complaint, then who controls the word "work"? Let's just look at it and say that there is a complaint between the two unions and now the international goes in and settles the complaint. The work is really the carpenters' work and the sheet metal workers have said, "Yes, it is the carpenters' work; give it to them." By our records of agreements over the years, it is their work. Now the individual in that local says, "Wait a minute, by Bill 80, you're giving away our work, and you can't do that, because it's in there."
Mr Cooper: But it's still intratrade, not inter-trade, that Bill 80 deals with. The dispute system is already set up to go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board if it's, say, the Iron Workers against Sheet Metal Workers. There's no coverage for sheet metal worker against sheet metal worker, and that's what Bill 80 addresses.
Mr Larry O'Neill: I really have a problem. I don't think it is that simple and clear. I think there will be a presenter here tomorrow night --
Mr Cooper: Wednesday.
Mr Larry O'Neill: -- or on Wednesday, pardon me, and he is going to touch on a lot of issues that I have not even touched on, because I couldn't in the time allotted.
Mr Cooper: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Okay, and maybe you can help clarify that point for all sides; it seems like an interesting one. You sound like you both had your discussions. The time is up; it's been over 20 minutes. I don't want to be too heavy-handed, but I'm going to be. Thank you, sir, for your time.
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFTSMEN
The Acting Chair: The next group is the Ontario Provincial Conference of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen. Would you please come forward and announce yourself and get on Hansard, sir, and anybody else that you have along with you. You've got 20 minutes.
Mr Jerry Coelho: My name is Jerry Coelho. I'm the secretary-treasurer of the Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen. But before I go on, I'd like to give you a little bit of background on who I am. I am the former business manager of Local 7 Canada IUBAC, which had mergers into it quite a number of years ago. I also have had two jurisdictions in two areas, and I'm also the vice-president for the bricklayers of the provincial building trades. But no matter what I'm going to say today, I'm speaking on the proposed revisions, and I see revisions which I haven't seen. I'm just going to speak about them. As far as my former local goes, they were against Bill 80 in its entirety, just to go on record.
This brief is presented on behalf of the Ontario Provincial Conference of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen. It is made up of 15 local unions and represents about 5,000 members who are bricklayers, stone masons, tile setters, marble masons and terrazzo mechanics and various apprentices.
In submitting this brief, we must first note that there is a major problem concerning the actual text of Bill 80 as proposed by the government. We have the original text of the bill as tabled, and we have proposed revisions which apparently the ministry is prepared to make to the legislation. These changes significantly alter the legislation. To date, however, we have not seen the legislation in any final form proposed by the ministry.
Since we must assume that the minister was acting in good faith when he circulated these amendments to members of the building trades, we will confine our comments to the proposed Bill 80 as amended by the revisions proposed by the minister.
Since the revisions remove section 138.6, the successorship provision, from Bill 80, this will make our representations on this matter considerably shorter. That provision was the most upsetting and mischievous aspect of the whole bill.
As a general matter, we cannot accept the notion that this kind of legislation is desirable or reasonable. Governments generally have no business interfering in democratic associations such as trade unions and we resent this kind of intrusion by the government. Further, what has not been demonstrated by the government is the need for such drastic legislation interfering with our internal union affairs.
Turning to the specific provisions in the bill, section 138.2: This provision does not affect our union since we only make collective agreements in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector or the residential section.
Section 138.3, jurisdiction of the local trade union: This is a provision which the ministry intends to change. Whereas the original legislation limited the power of the parent trade union to resolve jurisdictional differences, the proposed amendments, as we understand it, allow the board to permit the alteration of the jurisdiction of a local union if there is just cause for the alteration. The provision defines just cause as referring to the provisions of the constitution and the ability of a local union to carry out its responsibilities and the wishes of the members of the local trade union.
This change is a significant improvement of this provision. The important aspect of the change is the reference to the ability of the local trade union to carry out its responsibilities under the act. In fact locals do become, for various reasons, too small to be viable entities. In such circumstances, the parent trade union is forced to merge them with other locals in order to maintain viable local unions.
Closing or merging a non-viable local is simply an act that has to do with the efficient running of a trade union. Although local members may object to losing their local union, it is often in their best interests that such an amalgamation be made. The act as originally proposed would have put unions in an impossible situation in attempts to improve the viability of small locals.
Section 138.4: This section appears to limit the effect of the previous two sections, and I have no comment.
Section 138.5, interference with a local trade union: Again, this is a provision for which significant modifications have been proposed by the ministry. The original Bill 80 provided that the Ontario Labour Relations Board was not bound by a union constitution where a parent union tried to penalize an officer of a local. The changes proposed by the ministry now direct the Ontario Labour Relations Board to the union's constitution when evaluating the parent union's action.
This earlier form of the legislation was most offensive in that it altered the constitution of all the construction trade unions. The proposed amended legislation also amends trade union constitutions by making the Ontario Labour Relations Board an appeal tribunal for officers of local unions if they have been penalized by the parent union, but the Ontario Labour Relations Board has already done that on its own. Just going back, I think it was the Iron Workers, and there is that case in the 1980s.
We further note that the revised legislation deletes subsection 4, which would have protected the wages of individuals regardless of the offence they were charged with. Thus, under the original subsection 4, a person could be fired for stealing from the local union, but his wages and benefits would be continued until the board ordered otherwise.
1930
We are not certain that there is any real necessity for this type of intrusion into the internal affairs of a trade union. However, what is clear is that if there is to be intrusion, then the modifications proposed by the ministry are a substantial improvement over the earlier bill.
Section 138.6, successorship by local trade unions: It is our understanding the ministry has withdrawn this section. In the event that they have not, we most strongly oppose any intervention into the affairs of the construction unions along this line. The only reason for such a provision is to introduce instability into the collective bargaining relationships which were working well in the past. By allowing this kind of internal raiding at any time, the government would only be destabilizing the construction industry.
Section 138.7, administration of benefit plans: This provision raises a number of problems. Since most of our benefit plans are locally trusteed, such a provision would not make much difference to our union. However, one wonders whether or not the original reason for this provision wasn't tied in with the previous successorship provision. If that is the case, if in fact the reason for this provision was to get at funds of predecessor trade unions under the previous 138.6, then it might be better to just remove this provision from the act completely at the same time as section 138.6 is dropped.
The reason for this suggestion is that the section is not directed at the labour relations board or the Ministry of Labour, but appears to be one of general law, which one assumes would be enforced through the courts. It must be remembered that these plans are for the benefit of the members of the various local unions. The trouble is, if an application is made to the courts under 138.7, the courts might very well apply money from the funds to cover the costs of those appearing in court. Anybody appearing in court under the provision is acting as a union politician trying to become a trustee on a trust fund. It is questionable that they should be entitled to use the member's money in a trust to pay for political action on their part.
The alternative to not dropping this section would be to add a further subsection which would direct the courts or any tribunal administering this provision from paying the cost of activities under this section from the funds in the plan. If people want to engage in this kind of activity, they ought not to do it at the expense of members whose benefits are tied up in these plans.
In summary, I hope the committee recognizes that we have tried to be constructive in our approach to this act. In particular, we have relied on the proposed changes that will be made by the ministry and we trust they will be made. Thank you for your time and consideration.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, sir. We will now open up the discussion and introduce Margaret Marland, representing the Conservative Party, who stepped in and listened to the debate. We welcome her. We will now have Mrs Fawcett from the Liberal Party.
Mrs Fawcett: Thank you for your presentation. I was interested -- at the beginning you talked of mergers -- that you had been a part of mergers. Would you please expand on that for me?
Mr Coelho: I've been a member for almost 23 years and this happened before my time, I suppose. Brian Strickland, I think, knew about this a long time ago. We are Local 7, Canada, and at that time we took in two small local unions that couldn't be viable today and wouldn't exist in any condition, which was Local 11, a Cornwall local, and Local 13, Pembroke. At that time we did have discussions or they did have discussions with the BAs of those locals and today they are surviving with the help of a bigger local. That's why I stand here today; why I phrased that I was from Local 7, Canada, at the time.
Mrs Fawcett: So really this business where possibly regionalization -- I guess was the word that some were using. You don't feel that's going to be a detriment.
Mr Coelho: Going down to the basic facts, there are people with concerns of regionalization and what it means. We still have to have meetings with those local officers. We're trying to have those meetings. We are trying to see how we can protect the best interests of the membership -- I shouldn't say "we"; I should say the executive board or the executive board of the internationals -- for locals that won't be able to survive which have 50, 100 members and don't have a BA on the road. It might go further than this. Right now we don't know. We haven't had too many meetings on regionalization.
There's a lot of rhetoric. There's a lot of hearsay. I appreciate that other locals are concerned because I was one of those who was concerned as well, as Project 2000. This Project 2000, before my time, took in other locals across the province. That's how this became fact. They did have consultation with those locals. This comes from the grapevine, so I can't go into any more detail at this time. I answered as best I could.
Mrs Fawcett: Yes, you have. Certainly, in anything, bigger is not always better, but then there are some advantages as well. We're hearing both sides and it is quite interesting how this all works out. I still wonder, when we hear of one local pitted against another within the same sort of group, do we need provincial legislation to settle this, you see, and that's what I'm trying to wrestle with right now.
If you have one local in the Bricklayers against another local in the Bricklayers it sounds like a family squabble to me, but I realize it's far greater than that and I shouldn't make light. I just wonder myself why you would need Bill 80.
Mr Coelho: In my opinion, we have the democratic system today. We have locals that are for and we have locals that are against. We have councils that are for and we have councils against. We wouldn't be in this position with any government if we had the proper consultation. Why go by the back door when the front door is open with open arms?
We understand. Personally, I understand. If there are people and they're blaming internationals or they're blaming local union leaders, if they really, truly believe that they represent the members, then let them all stand, because I came from the tools myself. I came from the bottom and I'm working up. The membership voted for me in the position I have today. I came from the grapevine. I was business manager of the local. From that, the business manager of every local voted for me to represent them as secretary-treasurer, which I am today. If they didn't want me, I wouldn't be here today anyway.
Bill 80 shouldn't even have been on the table, because there were already protections before but nobody knew how to use them. In the Ontario Labour Relations Board, as far as I remember, and I can see and I can read, there were already provisions. I'd like to hear comments that there isn't or there wasn't. The CAW certainly got away from its parent organization. Nobody has jumped and screamed about it. But that's only my opinion.
I was speaking on the original bill in its entirety before because I remembered my members said they didn't want any part of it. I can't speak at that time for any other organization.
Mrs Fawcett: Thank you very much.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Coelho, I want to apologize and I'd also like to apologize to Mr O'Neill. I was asked to attend this committee meeting on behalf of Ms Elizabeth Witmer. I was told the meeting was starting at 7:30, so I came at 7:30 and found I'd missed Mr O'Neill with the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association completely and you had already started when I came in.
This evening's schedule, as you know, depended on whether a motion was passed at 4 o'clock this afternoon, and Ms Witmer had other commitments for this evening in her riding of Waterloo, so I was here in her place. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to be a part of it because the committee started ahead of the scheduled 7:30, but I will assure both of you that in the morning, at our caucus meeting, I will give Ms Witmer the copies of your briefs, which I have before me now, and I do apologize.
1940
The Acting Chair: Thank you, and Mr Cooper has a question for sure.
Mr Cooper: I don't have a question, but I'd like to make a comment at the end if Ms Murdock has a question.
The Acting Chair: Okay, I'll allow that. Go ahead. Ms Murdock, do you have a question?
Ms Murdock: I don't have a question: Is that what you're saying?
The Acting Chair: I'll decide who has a question around here. Go ahead.
Ms Murdock: I just find the whole construction industry so interesting, and until I was in this position, I knew absolutely nothing about it. One of the first functions I had as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, when there was just one parliamentary assistant, was signing the peace treaty between the International Labourers and the Carpenters. That's when I started getting briefed on how different the construction industry was.
I guess that's the point I would make in terms of one of the comments you made to Mrs Fawcett, which is that the provisions for the CAW to have moved out is certainly under the OLRA. But there's a whole section in that act that deals only with the construction industry because it recognizes the construction industry is so different, and there's nothing in those provisions.
Mr Coelho: Well, I tend to agree with what you said, but also the Bricklayers know -- sure, there's a peace treaty with the Labourers, I suppose, and the Carpenters, you say?
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Coelho: Well, we have a big problem today. The Bricklayers have a problem with them. Who's going to sign that peace treaty?
Ms Murdock: Oh, it took years. My understanding was years of negotiation.
Mr Coelho: Well, we have a problem too, and going to some of the sessions in here, there's going to be 365 days of raiding. I have that problem already in Ottawa.
Ms Murdock: Of raiding?
Mr Coelho: Of raiding. It means it doesn't matter if you have an agreement or not --
Ms Murdock: You raid.
Mr Coelho: They're taking people who belong to our organization. We know that better than any other local or any other organization right now.
Dealing with jurisdictions, Bill 80 doesn't do one darned good to some of the other parts, like Ottawa, when they are across the border with Quebec.
Ms Murdock: No. It's true. Well, it would be provincial legislation.
Mr Coelho: That's two different legislations right there.
Ms Murdock: Other than the bill that we're bringing forward on the Quebec legislation, of course.
Mr Coelho: That's right. So on one side you'd have Bricklayers; on the other side you'd have Labourers. You know, I have big problems. This is my own viewpoint, and I'm speaking on this proposed bill as revised now. I had a big problem in its entirety when it was in the original matter. So I wish you people would read the submission and the sections I quoted and then you can cross-reference it with the original bill.
Ms Murdock: Well, yes. It's a different --
Mr Coelho: And we don't know if that -- well, whatever. Just excuse my speaking out. It was lack of consultation between governments and all groups. It really was. If every group was consulted, and everybody says, yes, they were consulted --
Ms Murdock: No, I don't think that's true. I think even the minister has said there were some groups that were not consulted and he apologized for that.
The Acting Chair: To finish up, Mr Cooper?
Mr Cooper: Yes. This isn't exactly directed to your presentation, but it does tie in. You were talking about the proposed revisions through your presentation. Some of the problems that have come about are the way the consultations have taken place because of the fear that was out there.
When we introduced second reading of the bill, there some proposed revisions that weren't sent through legal counsel, weren't in the correct form, but I was trying to facilitate it for the House and for the committee so they could deal with Bill 80.
Now it seems that there are some government motions sent out to the House leaders, which I just received. These haven't gone through the entire process yet. They haven't gone through caucus approval, and obviously we still aren't finished with the public consultation. These were put out to try and also facilitate discussion in the committee so that the opposition would know what direction we're taking and make it a little more concise.
These are not tabled as government motions yet, but I'm sure they'll be brought up Wednesday in committee hearings. But just to let everybody know, these haven't gone through the proper process and haven't been approved by caucus yet. It's just to facilitate for the committee so it knows what direction the government is taking.
Mr Coelho: These proposed revisions haven't passed anywhere, or they were just tabled?
Ms Murdock: It has to be tabled here.
Mr Coelho: They have to be tabled here, these revisions.
Ms Murdock: Going into clause-by-clause.
Mr Coelho: Yes. So there is no guarantee whatsoever that what I'm doing here today means anything.
Mr Cooper: One thing: The minister has given his assurance that section 138.6 will be dropped.
Mr Coelho: You people advise me, and I know the minister very well. I know a lot of people very well, and they said they would be consulting us. I didn't get these proposed revisions from anybody, except some people who would give them to me so I can comment on them. So today I'm going to go back and speak my mind to the membership I represent in my local area, with no guarantee.
Mr Cooper: It was just to give a direction of which way the minister was heading.
Mr Coelho: Either you go one way or you go the other way.
Mr Cooper: That doesn't happen till clause-by-clause.
The Acting Chair: As it is the legislative process, nothing is final till it's final and people are being as brutally honest as they can. We'll leave it at that. Mrs Marland, very quickly.
Mrs Marland: Just for the clarification of the people who are here as deputations, first of all, the government has moved closure on this. Is that so?
The Acting Chair: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Don't you find that very interesting, at the same time that the parliamentary assistant is putting on the record that the minister has apologized for not fully completing consultations? Now we have the other parliamentary assistant saying there are further consultations, the consultations aren't complete. We've got government amendments. Why don't you put your house in order and bring the bill in a clean, well-drafted state so you don't have to have more amendments?
Mrs Fawcett: We don't need closure from you too.
Mrs Marland: Also, the fact that you have the gall to move closure and you haven't even done the housekeeping on your own bill. It's absurd.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. I asked for one more comment and next time as the Chair, I'll remind myself of people taking a lot of leeway, which is only hurting themselves, not me.
I'd like to thank all the presenters who came here today to make their points known and for the committee to allow the leeway that we could work over suppertime, and the presenters who worked over suppertime.
We adjourn this meeting. We're back at 3:30 on Wednesday. Glad to see everybody again.
The committee adjourned at 1948.