WINDSOR AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
WINDSOR AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
CHATHAM AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
GREATER WINDSOR AND ESSEX COUNTY HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION
JOHN MCARTHUR
EDWARD BAILLARGEON
CHATHAM AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 1
CONTENTS
Tuesday 18 August 1992
Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 40
Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce
Larry Bannon, board chairman
George King, chair, labour relations committee
Windsor and District Labour Council
Gary Parent, president
Nick LaPosta, secretary-treasurer
The Bay
Jerry Nicholls, human resources manager, Ontario
Gary Hills, store manager, Windsor
CAW Canada
Basil Hargrove, president
Chatham and District Chamber of Commerce
David A. McLean, president
Tom Wells, first vice-president
Greater Windsor and Essex County Hotel and Motel Association
Charles Kobryn, president
Zarco Vucinic, president, Chatham Hotel Association
Colasanti Farms Ltd
Joe Colasanti, president
Terry Colasanti
Aids Committee of Windsor Council
Steve Lough, executive director
John McArthur; Edward Baillargeon
Chatham and District Labour Council
Derry McKeever, president
Rick Kitchen, recording secretary, CAW Local 127, Chatham
Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 1
Mike Walsh, president
Dorothy Greenway, president, staff support branch
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North / -Nord L)
*Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South / -Sud L)
*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)
*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North / -Nord L)
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgianne ND)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L) for Mr McGuinty
*Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Klopp
*Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Wood
*Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South / -Sud PC) for Mr Turnbull
*Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mr Conway
*Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC) for Mr Jordan
*Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Waters
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Decker, Todd
Staff / Personnel:
Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
577
The committee met at 1330 in the Hilton International, Windsor.
LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI
Consideration of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): We're ready to commence this afternoon. I want to tell people a couple of things first. There's coffee outside on the side table. That's for people who are visiting us this afternoon. Make yourselves comfortable. Second, there are French-language translation devices available for people for simultaneous translation, these little units and earphones. Those are available to people who want to make use of them.
WINDSOR AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The first participant this afternoon is the Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce. Gentlemen, please tell us your names; tell us what your titles are. You've got half an hour. Please try to save the last half of that half-hour -- the last 15 minutes at least -- for exchanges and conversation. Go ahead.
Mr Larry Bannon: My name is Larry Bannon. I'm chairman of the board of the Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce. I was about to say something else. I would like to recognize and introduce today here with us as members of our labour relations committee Tony Pappa, Greg Merner and Vancho Cirovski. At this time I would like to ask George King, chairman of our committee, to make our presentation.
Mr George King: Thank you for allowing the Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce the opportunity to address you today on the topic of legislative reform to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
Unfortunately, Mr Chairman, as your party has repeatedly announced its unbending commitment to amending the act, we have concerns. We understand the politics that underlie your decision. We are, however, most distressed that the government's commitment to organized labour is more important to you than the survival and prosperity of Ontario business, but we do understand the politics.
Given that the NDP has publicly stated that the legislation is going to be passed, we are going to direct our comments today to the Liberal and Conservative members of the committee. We are doing this not to be rude or impolite to the current government but because since last year we've been asking the government to answer one fundamental question, which it's refused to answer publicly, and that question is: Can you name one jurisdiction in North America that has a more comprehensive package of labour and employment laws than Ontario?
Since this question has gone unanswered, our approach today is to provide all of you, but particularly the Liberal and Conservative members of the caucus here today, with a series of questions which we hope will be asked in the Legislature. We submit they must be asked in the Legislature. Hopefully these questions will compel this government to stop politicizing this process. It's time to stop accusing business of being threatening when all we're doing is telling the government what is going to happen -- in other words, being truthful -- if this disastrous legislation is passed, and get on with the joint business of maintaining Ontario's competitiveness.
Second, and perhaps more important, our aim is to hold you, the Liberal and Conservative members of the respective caucuses, responsible for repealing any and all of this retrogressive legislation immediately upon either of your parties' return to office.
We'll start our presentation by answering our own question. The answer to that question is there is no jurisdiction in North America that has as comprehensive a set of labour and employment laws as Ontario. Query, then: Why the need for change?
Are we, as Ontarians, so smug and confident that our highly skilled, highly educated and highly productive workforce can outcompete everyone else in the world, regardless of cost, that we can afford to pass this legislation that can only reduce our competitiveness? If this is our collective attitude, then we are headed for certain economic disaster. We should be focusing all of our collective energies on reviving our stagnant economy, not passing legislation that will curtail investment and stifle recovery.
On to our questions:
Question 1: If the NDP government and Premier Bob Rae are so concerned about purported job losses because of free trade with the US and Mexico, have they considered shelving the Bill 40 legislation until the full economic impact of a North American free trade zone can be assessed?
Question 2: On a similar note, can the government explain how removing trade barriers with either the US or Mexico will negatively impact on our economy and cost Ontario jobs, but passing labour reform that tilts the balance of power at the bargaining table decidedly in favour of unions won't cost us jobs?
Question 3: Is the government considering legislation to provide retraining and economic relief to the approximately 250,000 Ontarians the firm of Ernst and Young claims will be lost due to the passage of this legislation?
Question 4: If the government believes choking the economic lifeline of a company by legislating against replacement workers is going to promote economic harmony and level the so-called negotiating playing field, is this government also going to table legislation that would make it illegal for a striking worker to be gainfully employed elsewhere during a strike so as to make the economic consequences of a strike equally fatal for all concerned?
Question 5: Outside of additional Ministry of Labour staff and a few new positions for union organizers, how many jobs will this legislation create?
Question 6: Has this government done a study to assess how devastating the legislation will be to Ontario's ailing restaurant and hospitality sector? Does this government realize that many of the people the government claims need help, ie, women and visible minorities, work in this industry, and it is their jobs that will be threatened? To put it in the vernacular, under Bill 40 restaurants will be unable to plan for a strike like manufacturers because you cannot build an inventory of restaurant meals.
Question 7: Has this government assessed how the legislation will impact on those firms involved in the production of automobile parts for automotive assemblers in Canada, the US and Mexico? More specifically, does this government realize that these firms supply on a just-in-time basis and that any disruption in that supply halts production? Accordingly, if the supply is at risk, the customer is at risk and ultimately the employees' jobs are at risk.
Question 8: Has this government any statistical data on the number of present Ontario businesses, particularly in the auto parts sector, that are presently establishing operations in the United States as a hedge against this legislation? Has this government any idea that the passage of Bill 40 will make it virtually impossible for any Ontario parts manufacturer to maintain a single-source operation exclusively in Ontario?
On that point, I would like to add that I am a member of the bar. I practise here in the city of Windsor. My practice is restricted exclusively to the representation of employers in labour relations and labour law matters. I can tell you that if you were to rifle through my office and find the number of letters I've written to clients advising them on this very issue, it would shake you to the core. It would shake you to the fundamental core to realize exactly how many of our existing businesses are looking at leaving Ontario because of the potential passage of this legislation. That's not a threat; it's simply a fact and it can't be ignored.
Question 9: Has this government considered the negative impact the replacement worker amendments will have on highly capitalized, highly technical firms that are thinking of investing in Ontario but won't when faced with the possibility that their facility will be shut down in the event of a strike and their expensive, dedicated or immovable equipment rendered legally inoperative? On this point I'd like to defer momentarily to Mr Bannon, our president, who works for Lamb Technicon. He can explain how this particular piece of legislation will dramatically impact on his firm's business.
Mr Bannon: Lamb Technicon operates the industrial automation division of Litton Industries. Our concern relates to both the placement of jobs in Canada and the continuance of those jobs that we have on the floor. The nature of our business is that we build major systems for the automotive sector, both metal-working and structural body welding. Those systems span a time frame of two to three years, in some cases, from the time the order is received until the systems are installed in our customer's plant and running: very large operations, you might say the size of a single plant, in some cases. Our concern would be that in the final year of a given contract, once it's on the floor, should a labour disruption take place, we would virtually be compelled to settle any grievances, and we see that as a potential threat to the continuance of any work beyond that point.
I would like to emphasize that the overriding concern is that with this kind of climate we would have to be very careful to recognize that our potential to receive the jobs initially -- on a personal basis, the team that I work with here in Windsor, we're the largest machine tool operation in Canada. We're the only presence for Litton in Canada in that division. We work diligently with both our employees and our customers and our people to try to continue and to support this work. It's been very successful. As I sit here today, we're in the throes of an order in the proportion of $50 million that's going to be shipped to Russia, built right here in Windsor. I want to do all possible to try to ensure and improve and foster the continuance of that kind of activity. I thank you.
1340
Mr King: Question 10: Does this government believe that these labour relations act amendments are necessary and justified because of organized labour's failures at a few high-profile locations such as Eaton's? Our labour relations history is filled with wins and losses on both sides. Surely we don't need to hand out a death sentence to all Ontario businesses to rectify what this government perceives is improper conduct on the part of a few employers.
Question 11: Is it the position of this government that Ontarians are not intelligent enough to make a reasoned choice in a secret ballot vote for certification? If not, why is this government proposing to eliminate the already insignificant steps of a $1 membership payment, the right to sign a petition and change one's mind about a union, or the secret ballot vote which exists in most other North American jurisdictions? Why is this government and the labour movement so afraid of secret ballot votes?
Question 12: Has this government studied the proposed labour relations act amendments presently pending in Manitoba? If not, we urge you to do so before passing any amendments to our labour relations act.
Question 13: Has this government done a study to consider the negative impact that the strike replacement legislation has had on both Quebec labour relations, through increased strike activity since the passage of the law in the late 1970s, and the economy -- significantly slower growth than Ontario's during that same corresponding period?
Question 14: If eliminating picket-line violence is a major aim of the replacement-worker amendments, has the government done a study to determine that picket-line problems occur with increasing regularity even where replacement workers are not being used? Furthermore, why grind our economy to a halt when law enforcement issues are what are at stake?
Question 15, our last question: Finally, when is this government going to realize that business can no longer continue to be the principal agent of social change in our society? This legislation is unnecessary. It is unwanted by both business and workers in Ontario. The threat of the passing of this legislation has been hanging over our collective heads like the sword of Damocles for almost two years now. The promise of this legislation has already cost the province jobs and investment. Please ensure that this does not occur. Our future depends on it. Enough is enough.
Thank you. We'll be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Dadamo. Five minutes per caucus, please.
Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I have been waiting for a face-to-face like this for a long time. We seem to have found the right forum to do this and I want to throw a couple of things at you.
You talk about letters that come to your office that you say would shake us to the core.
Mr King: I'm talking about --
Mr Dadamo: Pardon?
Mr King: I'm talking about letters I've written to clients.
Mr Dadamo: Okay. But "shaken to the core" -- I'd like for you to talk to some people who have spoken to me and people in my office over plant closures in the last two and three years in this city, and especially Local 195, which seems to be the one that is most affected.
I'd like to talk about people who are on picket lines, and you make mention that there is maybe some chaos on the picket lines. What do you expect when scabs come in to perform these jobs? What do you expect from the workers who are out there? How do you want them to react?
Mr King: There are very few instances where replacement workers have been used, certainly in this area, in the last few years. I think you have to appreciate that it's not necessarily the practicalities of what's going to happen on a picket line; it's the message that we send to the rest of the world, to the people who invest in Ontario, that we're not open for business.
Picket-line problems occur regardless of whether or not there are replacement workers involved. They occur regardless of whether or not supervision is doing work during a strike. They even occur when nothing more is happening than supervision is going in for security purposes or to do paperwork or to do the things that they normally do and there is not one single product leaving the workplace. Those problems exist, Mr Dadamo, in all strikes. That is not the exclusive domain of situations where replacement workers are involved. Really you're trying to stamp that out when it's a very small percentage of the strikes where replacement workers are even used.
Chrysler, Ford and GM, for example, could never operate their plants if they had a strike. It would be physically impossible to hire people, to bring 2,000 people into a facility to try to run a plant, forgetting about the logistical nightmare of having pickets outside and transportation. You just couldn't get the people to do that.
Mr Dadamo: And they've made some strong commitments in this city, for example, all three of the automotive giants, and they don't seem to have a problem with this. The chamber of commerce seems to have a problem with this. I'm saying to you simply if people are on a picket line and you bring scab labourers in to do that kind of work or supervision or whatever, how are you ever going to get to the crux of the problem and try to fix it up?
Mr King: We get to the crux of the problem at the table.
Mr Dadamo: We see that here. We saw what happened with the strikers at the Windsor salt mines a couple of years ago. You left them out in the cold. You left them out in January, February, March and April without even talking to these people. Now imagine if you had people coming in to do their jobs. You'd never have settled that strike. That went on for ever.
Mr King: Let me clarify a couple of things here. First, there was no production going on at that facility. There was not one single grain of salt mined while that strike went on, and that's the kind of example I'm talking about, Mr Dadamo. If you have a perception that there were people in there mining, you are wrong.
That strike went on because the negotiator for the union and the negotiator for the company, who happened to be me, were in complete agreement that, given the issues that divided us, there was no point for a meeting, and that was a mutual agreement that there was no point. We had mutually exclusive positions. They had nothing to do with working during the strike. And if it wasn't for the timely intervention of the Ministry of Labour, that strike could still be going on. The third-party intervention helped and we got a deal and things are much better there. We're about to head into negotiations for a new contract and hopefully we'll get through it without any problems. But that strike was not prolonged or in any way caused or was the fact that anyone was working in that plant a factor in that strike. It simply was not occurring.
Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): Mr Chair, two points I just want to make to the chamber, and I certainly do appreciate their presentation, as do all members of the committee.
They would have a hard time convincing Statistics Canada that investment is drying up in the province of Ontario. According to the February 1992 data that was released from Stats Canada -- and you can question them about this -- out of the $45 billion worth of investment in this country in the past year, $20 billion came to Ontario. Not only that, they're projecting a 3% increase for 1992 in investment in Ontario after going out and talking to the business community. So very clearly, the economy of the province of Ontario is not going to come to a grinding halt because you happen to change a couple of labour laws.
We are being told that even Mexico has a law prohibiting the use of replacement workers. My goodness, I think what we're suggesting here is that we bring the act into the 1990s, and after 17 years, given the horrendous changes that have taken place in the workplace, that is about time. Don't you think it's time we bring the act into the 1990s?
Mr King: I think it's time, sir, that we remain competitive, and I can tell you that there are a number of automotive plants, parts-manufacturer plants in this community, who have already established satellite operations in the United States because they cannot risk having a single plant operation in Ontario that could be shut down in the event of a strike. That's what's happening.
Mr Bannon: Mr Chairman, I just wanted to indicate that the position of our chamber, and I believe I speak in conjunction with the Ontario chamber, is not so much the economic issue; it's the job issue. When we see, as the Premier reported yesterday in one segment, a 20,000 job loss in a particular segment out of 70, that's what we're trying to address. We feel that this legislation does not improve or even approach holding our position in terms of additional jobs.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation. Just before Mr Phillips asks a question, I would like to ask an opening question. I note on page 2 you talk about it being the time to stop accusing business of being threatening, and you go on speaking about what might happen as a result of these changes.
I think it might be interesting for you to know that as we are now in the third week of these hearings we have heard concerns about the legislation and its impact, but it's not just come from what might be referred to as the business community; we've heard concerns from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies, from school boards, from municipalities, from municipal hydro services, all with various concerns as to what this legislation means and the way in which they're able to conduct and meet their responsibilities. So those concerns are not just from the business community.
1350
As you brought forward the issue of the secret ballot, you will know that there will be, and has been, representation that there should be a secret ballot, that the question is not the right of an individual to associate or strike or to organize. In fact, that's a given; that's not what this legislation is about. This legislation is, in this area, about workers having the freedom to make a choice in a secret, fully informed fashion, free from coercion and intimidation. There are those who come forward and say that can be accomplished through a secret ballot. Could you share with this committee your thoughts on that proposal?
Mr King: I certainly can, Mr Offer. As a labour relations practitioner who's involved in many, many certifications throughout the province, I can tell you that the voting process works. Not to criticize legal strategies, but I was recently involved in a case involving the Magna plant here in Windsor where the CAW attempted to organize that plant. When the dust settled at the beginning of the hearing, the union had exactly one more card than it needed for automatic certification. The petition came into question. Ken Patrician, the board chair, a former Teamsters lawyer, heard the case, found the petition to be a voluntary expression of those employees' wishes and ordered a vote, which the people who did not want a union won convincingly. That is how the process works.
There were some unfounded allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the company. Those were found, by someone who practices as a union labour lawyer, to be unfounded. A vote was held. The true wishes of the employees were determined. If it had gone otherwise, then so be it, and that company would be in collective bargaining with the CAW today.
But the process does work. When you see a case where the board is saying to the union, "Why don't you just agree to a vote and get on with it. Your case is strong now. The iron's in the fire," but the union says no, and 11 days of hearings and 14 months later a vote finally occurs, it's no wonder maybe that the union loses. Then they get upset about it. They claim there's foul play involved when probably if the vote had been held on the day of the certification they would have had the support.
But people's interests wane. People want the right to have a vote. It's certainly not too much to ask. It's secret ballot, and the act certainly provides more than enough remedies for abuses of the act by employers. There are enough sections in there; there are enough teeth in them. There are enough decisions of the board, enough precedents for the labour relations board where employers such as Radio Shack and people like that who haven't played by the rules have been hammered when they've attempted to skirt the rules.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I appreciate your brief as well. The challenge we face is that you're predicting what this will represent for the future and the other side predicts what it'll represent for the future. We're both speculating, both sides. A year ago we told the NDP the budget was wrong. They said, "No, no, the opposition's wrong." I think it's proven the budget was wrong. I think we will find that many of your concern will come true.
I do believe this will represent significant job loss opportunities for Ontario. We already are seeing record plant closures. Plant closures aren't dropping; they are increasing, Mr Ferguson, increasing. The unemployment rate is running well above 11%; in fact, it's probably 13% right now in the province.
My question to the chamber is this. I think later on we will hear from other groups saying that Ford is putting $2 billion into the country, that Chrysler just put its big, new car line in the country. If the industrialists are so worried about the future, why would they be investing in the Ontario economy?
Mr King: What those industrialists, what those Big Three companies are going to do and are doing, I submit, is saying to John Doe who owns a small plant here in Windsor, employs 50 people who are represented by the CAW or the Teamsters or the Steelworkers or the Food and Commercial Workers or whoever it is: "You're single-source on this bracket. We don't want that production to stop. We've got a multimillion-dollar investment in a mini-van plant in Windsor" or at plants in Oshawa or the LH plant in Bramalea, "and we're not going let you, John Doe, halt production of this. If you aren't prepared to find an alternative source so that if you have a strike in Windsor" or Bramalea or Kitchener or St Catharines, "we're going to yank that tool from you." This is the first weapon they have.
Secondly, "If you want to keep the work, you'd better set up a second plant outside Ontario so that when you do have a strike you can continue to build the bank." Those jobs are being lost to Ontario. That's potential growth in Ontario.
Unfortunately, what's happening is that some of these people are getting over to the States; they're looking at the competitive advantages that exist over there. They didn't have the inertia before, maybe, to get up and leave, they didn't want to leave Ontario or Windsor or Essex county or wherever it is, but now they're over there because they don't have a choice and they're finding out they can make more money over there and they're leaving. It's a vicious cycle that we're caught up in.
Just one last point. With respect, I don't think both sides are really trying to predict the future, Mr Phillips. I think you have to give the business community credit. We are the people who are the investors. The chamber represents the people who create the jobs and who are investing. Our membership is telling us, and you heard testimonials from a number of companies the first time when Mr Mackenzie came around and you're going to hear them from specific companies now, about how this is going to impact.
It'd be no different than if we were attempting to overhaul the Trade Unions Act and the chamber of commerce was trying to tell the trade unions how their internal union should be structured, how they should be organized. That's not to say we can't make suggestions, but I don't think we can tell the trade unions that we know their business.
I'm telling you, as a member of the chamber of commerce and as a lawyer who practices in this area, my clients -- not all of them but many of them -- are most distressed about this legislation. They're either thinking of leaving or they're looking at putting defence mechanisms in place so this legislation doesn't impact on them.
It's not a prediction. I think it's the truth. It's not a threat; it's simply a fact.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): It's interesting that you come forward and identify yourself as a labour lawyer because normally this group over here blames you and your fellow lawyers for causing the entire mess that labour law's in now and I notice that none of their questions were directed to you on that.
With respect to whether there were any impact studies done on anything, this government has made no impact studies. I can tell you the answer to all of your questions that you've asked with respect to whether the government has or intends to carry on any impact studies. The answer to that is no.
If you're not going to allow management to have replacement workers, your comment was, "Are you going to allow employees to be gainfully employed in other places of employment while the strike is going on?" That question has been asked. It appears that there will be no amendment allowed with respect to that.
There is another question our party has put forward with respect to the whole certification process: If you're going to allow the certification process to be made easier -- and there may be good grounds for that -- why would you not make it just as easy to decertify? The answer to that is, "You don't need to; we already have process," notwithstanding the fact that the petition process has been removed and there's now no chance with respect to a second thought.
Those are general thoughts I have about many of the questions you've asked. I would like either of you to comment, though, on your thoughts with respect to the image that's being created in this particular area -- as comments have been made with respect to bankruptcy, with respect to companies moving to the United States or simply going out of business, closing down -- the image that the province of Ontario has from investment that may wish to come into this area for any type of operation. Can you tell us, from your perception, what that image is that has been created, perhaps directing it to the labour legislation?
Mr Bannon: You just used, I think, the more operative word: "perception." If I can use the two words "image" and "perception" to respond, it's not good. It's anything but what should be sent as a message. It is what we have indicated from day one. At an earlier meeting with Mr Dadamo and Mr Lessard in my office over a year ago, we said: "Please take into consideration that it's not just the written word. There is that perception out there that we are not open for business."
I would like to respond, if I can, to Mr Phillips somewhat. I submit, and our position is, that the basic case about the need for this has not been made. I've heard what our friends have said and I understand it, but I submit that it has not been made in terms of need. It is hurting the very people it's intended to help, that is, the smaller end of the spectrum: the ones, the 10s, the minorities and the small business people. It's going to force them into a position where they have another onerous responsibility to be addressed, and I think they're going to do it at a distinct disadvantage.
The Chair: Thank you to the Windsor and District Chamber of Commerce, Larry Bannon and George King, for speaking on behalf of that organization. It's an important role you play by coming here and we're all grateful.
Mr Bannon: Thank you. Mr Chairman, if I may, I was negligent: I did not introduce Roman Dzus of the Windsor and District Development Commission as being with us.
The Chair: Now you have. Thank you, sir.
1400
WINDSOR AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: The next participant is the Windsor and District Labour Council. Please come forward, seat yourselves and give us your names and titles, if any. I remind people that there's coffee outside; that's here so that you can make yourselves feel comfortable. There are French-language translation devices for people who prefer to hear these submissions in a language other than the language that's being presented. Go ahead.
Mr Gary Parent: Thank you very much. My name is Gary Parent. I'm the president of the Windsor and District Labour Council. With me is Nick LaPosta. He's the financial secretary, also of the labour council.
I think I would be remiss if I didn't respond to a couple of remarks the chamber has made in its presentation. Mr King alluded to the question of replacement workers and the confrontations, and Mr Dadamo had raised some concerns as well.
I just want to say that it was a plant that he happened to be representing, called ADM, that took the initiative to advertise for scabs to be brought in during that strike. It tore this community apart. There were 60 workers at that particular plant. They were going to bring these scabs in by boat from the United States, and that's how they were going to get them into the plant. I think that's atrocious.
When they're talking about parts plants closing, I only wish that the chamber of commerce were as vocal and using the energy it is against these Labour Relations Act changes as it should be about the free trade agreement. When you've got a free trade agreement that is closing plants down right, left and centre, I think it's absolutely atrocious that they're coming here today and blaming the Labour Relations Act changes for those particular plant closures when it was the free trade deal and the recession, the made-in-Ottawa recession, that has taken place in this country.
He referred also to Magna and the petitions and the vote. I just want to tell this committee that it was because of his intervention and that employer's intervention that that process took over two years in the courts and before the board before we started talking about having the vote. There was a lot of intimidation of those workers at that particular plant by that employer for that length of time. Yes, we did lose that particular certification, but let me tell you, my friends, there are a lot of people in that plant who still today want a union and maybe somewhere down the road, after these proposals are passed into legislation, that plant will become a CAW plant.
I'll get into my brief. We would first like to take this opportunity to thank the committee on behalf of the 42,000 affiliate members of the Windsor and District Labour Council for the opportunity to make a submission on these very important Labour Relations Act changes.
Our labour council is comprised of affiliated unions throughout Windsor and Essex county who participate in every municipality in one way or another to make their respective communities better places to live and raise their families. These same groups of individuals have been doing so since the early 1900s, and there are even some records dating back long before that time about the labour council's history. As you can see, this council is not a newcomer in working for the protection of workers' rights and their struggles to obtain those rights.
We take great exception to the many business coalitions, including our own chamber of commerce, for launching upon the citizens of Ontario a very slick and expensive American-style campaign of fearmongering and misinformation.
Where have these same business groups been since the implementation of the US-Canada free trade deal, during which time we saw thousands of jobs leave this community and province? Where have they been? Why haven't they spoken out with the same amount of energy and vigour as they used against this provincial government that has proposed a progressive change in the Labour Relations Act for workers in this province?
But why should we be surprised? It is the same group of employers who as a matter of historical record opposed the Factory Act of 1884 prohibiting the use of child labour, which also established minimum workplace rules; suffrage and the extension of women's right to vote; reduction in the workweek of 60, 54 and 48 hours to the present 40 hours; the removal from criminal law of the provision of engaging in a conspiracy if a worker joined a trade union; the implementation of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915, the health and safety acts, Bills 79 and 208, public education, the Canada pension plan and of course, of late, pay equity and Bill 40, to name a few.
On the other hand, these employers have supported the free trade deal, which, as we've stated, has seen thousands of jobs leave this community, wage controls, unemployment insurance cutbacks, pension clawbacks, and reduced social expenditures, which are all a major detriment to the working people in this province.
We believe, as a labour council, that the working people of Windsor-Essex deserve fairness and equity. They deserve the right to join a union if they so choose, and they also deserve after joining a union to then exercise their rights for free collective bargaining, and they should not have to tolerate the use of scab replacement workers.
The role of the Windsor and District Labour Council should be as it was intended: to promote both Canadian Labour Congress policies and the Ontario Federation of Labour policies at a local level. The reality is that it doesn't happen that way. We are constantly called upon to support various workers who are legally exercising their legal right to strike, only to find that their respective employers have seen fit to bring in scabs to do their work.
The committee should take the time to talk to the support staff of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, employees of the Windsor Board of Education, who before they even went out on a legal strike had to endure the intimidation of the school board, which brought scabs into their workplace and expected them to be trained by the unionized staff, most of whom were women; or, if you'd like, talk to the workers at our tunnel commission, members of Local 195 CAW, who not only had to face the fact that their supervisors were doing their jobs but also witness US supervisors being brought in to do their work.
If you still haven't heard enough, talk to the workers at Paragon Tool, many with 20 years' seniority, who watched during a legal strike as machinery left the plant they worked in and who remained on strike for another seven months, only to see the plant end up closing. It is our belief that if this employer would not have been allowed to remove that machinery, those employees might still be working today.
A most recent example of the use of scabs during a legal strike was depicted in a Windsor Star article dated August 14, 1992, which I've attached to the brief. This article reflects what happens when workers feel their livelihoods are threatened. As stated in the article, "The amiable picket line set up by striking humane society workers turned ugly Thursday with the arrival of two replacement workers."
These examples of workers' rights being violated have to come to an end, and we hope, through the proposed legislative changes, this will be accomplished. As you can tell by our opening remarks, we will be dealing with two aspects of the legislation: the use of scabs in a strike or lockout situation and the rights of individuals to join a union, thereby improving collective bargaining and reducing industrial conflict.
Mr Nick LaPosta: On the use of scabs: As we stated earlier, we feel this piece of legislation is most important, as in our opinion it equates to more industrial peace. It will finally provide workers and employers with an equal footing, which, as we have shown by example, has not always been the case.
We would also be remiss if we did not state that we feel these proposals do not go far enough. We feel the employer should not have the right to legally shift bargaining unit work to another geographic location or be allowed to contract out bargaining unit work. As well, we feel that non-bargaining unit employees who normally work at a struck plant who are able to perform the work at that plant should not be allowed to do so. We remain absolutely opposed to those omissions in the amendments and ask the committee to further review this portion of the legislation.
1410
Organizing and certification: There should not be, in a modern Ontario, a group of people called the working poor. People who work should not be dependent on governments and government agencies for survival. By making it easier for them to exercise their freedom to choose a union, we take these individuals off a vicious treadmill. No longer will they have to wait for the minimum wage to go up before they can get a raise. They will be able to set the level of their working conditions by mutual agreement with their employers.
If one listens to the critics of this section of the proposed changes, one would think that being a union member is bad for Ontario or, in this case, Windsor. Let's look at Windsor's labour movement.
When it comes to the United Way campaigns, for example, Windsor's labour force has been the leader in per capita giving for over 20 years.
As we stated earlier in our brief, labour contributes not only its money but also its time on various community boards, commissions and boards of governors at both our community college and university, in addition to many other activities -- all working collectively to make this a better city, a better Essex county -- yet these critics contend that people should not be allowed to join a union if they so choose.
Organizers should have the right to request an expedited hearing when they file an unfair labour practice complaint under section 91 of the act. This would go a long way to deter anti-union employers from deliberately discharging pro-union employees as a way of thwarting a union's organizing drive. Even though the time frame for filing a hearing is currently set at 15 days, we would have much preferred a seven-day waiting period.
As far as the access to third-party property is concerned, we are concerned that organizers may still be barred from entering an employee's workplace. We still maintain that organizers should have the right to access specific parts of an employer's actual premises.
The elimination of the $1 membership fee is a very significant change, one which we feel would eliminate one of the most common objections employers use to delay the certification application. As was stated earlier by the chamber -- it used Magna as an example -- and, as Gary repeated here just earlier, two years of legal wrangling before they got down to the vote. That's ludicrous.
As for the support required for certification, we cannot agree with the reversal of the discussion paper's 50% for automatic certification to the present 55%, but we can support the lowering of the percentage from 45% to 40% needed for a representative vote.
We also believe that organizers should have the right to lists of employees for organizing purposes upon making an application for certification, and feel that this list should also be given to the board.
Having reviewed the petition and revocation amendments, we ask the committee to look at eliminating the pre-application revocation petition. To do otherwise would mean the risk of turning the post-application petition problem into a new, pre-application revocation petition problem, which these amendments try to cure.
We would like to say that unions are not a social luxury. They can't be made available to people in times of economic prosperity and then taken away during recessions. Unions are a social necessity. They are an essential piece of our community fabric. In good times and in bad times they provide a service to all society.
In summary, we've touched on but a couple of these legislative changes which are, as you are aware, the most controversial. You have heard us put forward our concerns and the reasons we feel these changes are needed.
We see the current federal government using its social and economic policies to empower corporations, giving them more control over the workforce and the community, and then we see the Ontario government using its social and economic policies to build a society that will be built on trust and cooperation, which we applaud.
We trust that our concerns and our views will be taken into consideration and will be looked at as not tilting the scales in the unions' favour but adding more equality to the process.
We conclude by saying to those who question these proposed legislative changes that if you took organized labour out of Ontario, there would be no Ontario, but add more union members to Ontario's workforce and what a better Ontario it would be. Thank you for your attention and your time.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to talk about the issue of organizing and certification. Just before I ask the question, I don't believe that this particular area is about whether unions are good or bad. This issue within the legislation is about whether individuals, the men and women who are working, should have the right to freely make the choice. It is in very large measure the same type of question which I asked the previous deputation, because I note on page 13 of your brief that you would like the certification vote to be reduced from 55% to 50%, and I understand that.
What I'm asking you is: What is your position on having a free, secret ballot where the men and women in the workplace are informed as to the drive, and what it means, and that the trigger to get that vote is not 40% but rather 20%, that if 20% of the people in the workplace indicate by membership that they wish a vote, a vote then is held? If that takes place, let the men and women in the workplace make their choice, free, fully informed and free from any coercion or intimidation. Would you then be in favour of a secret ballot vote and would you support an amendment to make that come about?
Mr Parent: We are not in favour of a secret ballot vote, nor will we ever be in favour of a secret ballot vote.
I just want to explain a myth out there. When places are being organized, it is the people themselves who come to the union and ask to be organized, so their mind overall is basically set up on what they want out of a union.
Yes, there is some information that is always passed on to them at that particular time, but to have a vote and drag out the process is absolutely a waste of time, in our opinion. We should get on to the actual certification of those groups of workers who want to belong to a union and not bring it through the courts or to the labour board and have undue hearings and everything else and then at the end result have a vote.
I will accept, though, if you want to reduce it to 20%, that's fine.
Mr Phillips: Maybe I'll just pursue that. Maybe you can help me a little bit on why you are against a secret vote. Is that you think it takes too much time? If the time frame were dictated, so it took place quickly, as could be part of the bill, then you would get away from your concern about delays. Would that then tip you in favour of it? If that wouldn't, what is your objection to the secret ballot?
Mr Parent: Again, Mr Phillips, as I alluded to earlier, I think when the people come to a union to be organized and to be certified into a bargaining unit, their mind has already been made up. There's no need at that point to have a secret vote.
Mr Phillips: But if it was 20%, you'd have to have the rest have a majority, wouldn't you?
Mr Parent: I would hope so, at the 20% level. But we're just arbitrarily against a secret vote.
Mr Phillips: For what reason, though? Could you help me out a little bit?
Mr Parent: I think I've explained it. I have all day if you have all day. I think that what we're saying is very straightforward. The people don't necessarily have to have a secret vote. When they're coming and 50% or 55% of those workers in that place want to belong to a union, that should be clear enough, and there shouldn't have to be a vote to follow.
Mr Phillips: It's not clear to me, but I hear what you're saying.
Mr Parent: I guess I can say that it's not clear why you're insisting and why Mr Offer is insisting at every hearing that we have a vote when the workers in that particular workplace -- and I'm saying about the 50% or the 55% -- have signed cards, are wanting to automatically get certified, belong to a trade union, and yet there's opposition constantly coming from employer groups, constantly coming from you in the opposition about a secret vote, and there's no need for it.
1420
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On that point, would it not help the process to fast-track certification if you only required 20% to express their wishes and then fast-track your vote, so that you avoid most of the acrimony that's associated with whether you had one too many cards or were one short a card or whether they were obtained inappropriately, and all the nonsense that seems to extend the process?
I'm sorry. I attended school in this province. I've a very early understanding of what the importance of a ballot is. We've heard from workers who've had bad experiences on both sides, from an employer who was rough and abusive and from overzealous union organizers. They said: "Look, I want to join a union, but I want to avoid all this acrimony. Let me have my ballot. Let me have my vote."
If you do it quickly, you can do it before anybody tries to organize to try to stop you. Time is the big killer in terms of certification from what I understand, and I'm not completely at arm's length from the labour legislation and how it works in our province. That's what I'm trying to understand.
Last night we heard a lot about control and controlling our people. That bothered me all last night when I was thinking about it and this morning when I woke up. Somehow the process has to be a lot better. We do it to get elected. We take our chances, but generally the good triumphs over the bad, because the public knows there are no repercussions for what they do.
Mr Parent: See, that's where I have great difficulty with listening to the hearings that have been going on, because at the same time that you're saying to have a vote, where simple plurality puts you in office, you're still saying and maintaining that it should take 55%.
Mr Jackson: No. I wouldn't have gone on building on this question that was started over here, but it's based on -- we have a government with 29% of the support of the Ontario people. We'll accept that. We're saying 20% have expressed an interest, 20% of the membership of a workplace --
Mr Parent: So why have a vote, though? Why have a vote?
Mr Jackson: So the other 80% can now avoid all the pressure tactics and the acrimony and the fight and being watched, their boss threatening them and all that stuff.
Mr Parent: But see, all that will go away if you let access to the organizer on to the property. If you let the organizer go in and get the list, all that stuff that you're talking about will all go away. It's all gone.
Mr Jackson: If there's a supervised ballot, there shouldn't be a problem with lists. We're going to have Ministry of Labour arbitrators coming out of our ears. Why not have a ministry of arbitrators overseeing votes with lists? Now the arbitrator screws up, and that's what's going to put whether or not the company can avoid a union in jeopardy is because the government screwed up. The Ministry of Labour's supervised vote screwed up. That just made more sense to me.
But I'm saying you don't have to have 50%. Let 20% of the workers say they like it. They'd have certainly survived at Eaton's in my community if they had just allowed 20% and then had a vote, had it all done within a couple of months.
Mr Parent: But I still have a real problem in understanding why you're so adamant about having the vote.
Mr Jackson: I wish we had all day.
Mr Parent: We do. I'm here. You're here till tomorrow. London's not till what, 2:30 tomorrow?
Mr Jackson: I was a little disturbed when I heard that it's a narrow view of democracy when the citizens of this part -- we have a very well-educated population, a trusting population. I have to risk with every citizen. I can't select which ones I can risk giving them all the facts, and I take my chances with the facts.
I think unions have a strong case. They should be able to risk it with a secret ballot.
Mr Parent: The only thing that we're saying is, it doesn't need that secret ballot. It needs those people coming to us, saying they want to be organized. That should be enough for this government and for any Ministry of Labour or anyone else.
Mr Jackson: It looks like tonight I won't sleep, because that word "control" keeps coming up all the time for me.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I know the work that you do in Windsor and area. One of the questions is, how do you actually get down to a vote, the certification? Why do people want unions? I'm going to use two hypothetical cases: one of a workplace with good working conditions, it's non-unionized, good wages, good benefit program. Now let's look over at the other workplace: poor working conditions, low wages, no benefit programs, no structure in place whatsoever for cooperation. Gary, being as you're the so-called labour profile in the community, when people come to you, which group would come to you for a union to represent them? Would it be the good workplace or the other workplace?
Mr Parent: I tried to say that earlier in the questions that were coming from the other side. The person who wants to get organized comes to us. We don't have the time, we don't have the staff in the majority of unions in this province to go out and actively search people to organize them. They're the bad employers that cause workers to want to be organized. The good employers -- God bless them. But it is the workers for the bad employers who are continually seeking out to be organized.
Mr Hope: Why I asked that question, Gary, is because the presentation that was made before -- you talked about a lot of jobs leaving, a lot of job losses. I'm saying that all of our employers in the province of Ontario can't be bad. They're really putting that every employer is seeing this legislation and they're going to get out.
I read your presentation about people wanting to organize. They're coming to you for help. These workplaces that have a cooperative relationship I don't think would leave. I'm just wondering, because you represent all the workers, and I'm sure that all of the unions in here that you represent are not bad unions.
Mr Parent: Not at all.
Mr Hope: Because your presentation clearly put out that you're actively involved in the United Way. There's a worker relationship. Chrysler -- you work for the Big Three auto sector, and I'm sure there's cooperation there.
Mr Parent: Absolutely. That's why the mini-van is so successful. It's built right here in Windsor.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr LaPosta and Mr Parent, I want to thank you very much for your presentation. I've heard from both of you on several occasions, and I know that you represent a great many of working people here in the city of Windsor, and that you treat the power that you have and the influence that you have to try to better this community, and do that on a regular basis. I know that's what you're trying to do here today as well.
In listening to the submission from the chamber of commerce when they talk about the use of replacement workers, they say, "Well, workers shouldn't have the right to have that security that if they go on a legal strike, their job isn't going to be occupied by a replacement worker." They seem to suggest that if working people were given that right, perhaps it may be abused; that they would say, "We're going to shut down your plant as a result," and hold that threat over their employer's head. They go on to further suggest that if they are given that right and it's abused, employers will just all leave Windsor. They just won't want to operate here.
You've mentioned the cooperative nature of the relationship between the CAW and Chrysler and how well that's working. I would think that another argument that could be made was that giving this right to working people may improve the cooperative relationship between employers and employees. In fact, if employees thought that their jobs were going to leave because of a strike, then they may be inclined to bargain cooperatively as well, because they know that their jobs are going to leave. I wonder whether you have some comments about the suggestions that were made by the chamber that unions are going to go on strike and see their jobs leave because they can't be replaced.
Mr Parent: If anyone's been paying attention to the labour movement in this province and the maturity of the labour movement, the more recent contracts have been settled at a 1% or 2% level. I think also that if one looks at the amount of labour and employer negotiations that have gone on in this province, I dare say that 80% to 90% are settled without a strike, without a confrontation. The only problem you have is when you have employers in a particular plant that want to continue producing at the expense of their workers. Why have the right to legally strike if there's no equality or sacrifice on both parts, the worker and the employer? There has to be a balance. We're saying this legislation gives the balance, and let's get back to the bargaining table, employer and union, and settle the strike, never mind continuing on and having bad feelings.
1430
I just want to cite an example. I understand you're going to be having the OSSTF make a presentation to you today, but during that strike, which was predominantly women, they brought in those people. How would you feel if someone came into your particular place of employment and your employer said, "You've got to train Nick here because you're going on strike next week"? How would you feel? Absolutely intimidated, and that's what happened right here in this community. Bad feelings still exist in the board of education as a result of that, I dare say.
That's the type of intimidation that has to come to an end in this province, and that's what we're hoping we're going to get in this. I can remember Bill 208: "We can't give the workers the right to shut down the plant. They'll be shutting down the plant every day." Has that happened? Has that abuse happened? Not at all.
Mr Phillips: It's not in the legislation.
The Chair: Mr Phillips, I'm sure the Bay doesn't mind you using its time.
Mr Parent: All I'm saying is that the workers of this province do have the right to refuse unsafe work in this province.
Mr Phillips: It's out of the legislation, just for clarification.
Mr Parent: They do have the right.
Mr Phillips: No.
Mr Parent: They do have the right to refuse unsafe work, I dare say.
The Chair: Thank you very much to the Windsor and District Labour Council, Nick LaPosta and Gary Parent. You have made an important and valuable contribution to the process. The whole committee thanks you for being here.
THE BAY
The Chair: The next participant is the Bay. People, please, seat yourselves, tell us your names, titles if any, and start telling us what you want to tell us.
Mr Jerry Nicholls: My name is Jerry Nicholls. I'm the regional human resources manager for the Bay in Ontario. The Ontario region of the Bay consists of 30 stores ranging from Oshawa to Windsor and we employ approximately 6,000 people in those stores.
Mr Gary Hills: My name is Gary Hills. I'm the store manager of the Bay at Devonshire Mall here. I've been there for three years and I have about a total of 10 years' experience with the Hudson's Bay Co.
Mr Nicholls: I have worked for the Bay for 44 years, the last 25 of them as a human resources generalist, 22 of those years in Ontario. I know you have received a brief from David Crisp, the Hudson's Bay Co vice-president of human resources, that outlines the company's concerns. I'm here today to discuss our concerns at the store level and, more specifically, at the store level in Windsor.
I started in retail with the Bay as a grocery stock clerk and have progressed with the assistance and support of the company to my present job. I'm here today because I am concerned about the impact that Bill 40 will have on the future of retail in Ontario.
The Bay, which is a part of the Hudson's Bay Co, is of course one of Canada's oldest corporations and largest retailer, with headquarters in Toronto. The Bay employs 10,000 people in Ontario; two thirds of those employees are women. Our Ontario sales account for about 38% of the total Bay sales.
This year, we purchased, renovated and recently reopened four Robinsons stores, two in Hamilton, one in St Catharines and one in Ottawa. We hired over 90% of the Robinsons' former employees. That's approximately 800 people who probably would have been out of work had we not taken over those units.
Our company spends approximately $1.7 million in direct employee training in Ontario, and if the employee time spent at those training classes is included, the figure rises to nearly $8 million.
We are responding to the needs of a changing workplace. We employ a wide variety of people, both full-time and part-time employees. By offering part-time employment we fill a need in the marketplace for people who need flexibility in their work schedules. For example, two of my trainers back in Toronto are actresses who work and train for the Bay between shows, not only providing them with some continuing income, but giving them an opportunity to practise their skills in the classroom. Another one of my trainers is a flight attendant on one of the airlines, who's on layoff and works for us whenever he's available. We have many women who work for us part-time on shifts that complement their husbands' shifts at various plants and factories so they do not need day care or babysitters.
We're open Sundays. We're not encountering any difficulty staffing our stores on Sundays. It's strictly voluntary and we're providing more employment in a community. Our part-time employees are paid the same hourly rate as full-time employees. They receive the same employee discount. They can join our pension plan and they can even participate in our company share-purchase plan.
We are committed to empowering our employees, involving them in the decision-making process and in our stores. For example, before a major sale in a store like Gary's, we form a store committee that may consist of two or three salespeople, a clerical, a visual presentation person, a maintenance person. They meet as a group and decide how the sale will be implemented, what kind of contests there will be for the staff, what kind of hours we should open, all those factors that go into making that sale.
Bill 40 adds another layer in this relationship between us and our employees. It will impede our efforts to allow employees to participate more fully in workplace decisions.
We are in the forefront in North America computer-based and expert systems training. Our employees can access a computer terminal and take any number of our 80 available courses to help them do their current job better or to prepare themselves for advancement. We supplement this modern technology with hands-on role-playing and classroom instruction. Our employee compensation exceeds that of US competitors, Quebec and most other provinces. We pay the same rates and benefits whether our stores are union or non-union. The Windsor store is a unionized store. We have five other unionized stores in Ontario.
When I started in retail, good employers were pretty paternalistic. Now it's the government that's paternalistic and wants to legislate where common sense and good judgement could prevail. A healthy, growing retail sector depends on mutual cooperation between management and staff both sharing a common goal and both benefiting from the success of the enterprise.
The proposed legislation will make it difficult for the retail sector in Ontario to continue to survive. The Windsor store, if impacted by a strike and not able to operate with employees who work there and wish to work, will quickly lose its customer franchise, leaving only one major retailer in this area.
Our unit is unionized, and both the union and management have a vested interest in workable contracts and resolving disputes or negotiation, but good working relationships cannot be legislated; they must develop over a period of time and in a climate of mutual trust. Arbitrators do not know our business and most issues are better resolved through negotiations between management and the union.
There are some very real concerns in the Windsor unit. If our loss prevention and security people are to be part of the same union as other employees, that provides a real conflict of interest, and Gary will speak to that later.
We have a leased operation, the optical department, which is non-unionized, in our store. Under this legislation it could be picketed within the store as part of an organizing drive. What happens then to the customer who wants to buy cosmetics or women's clothes? Customers do not want to shop in a store where picketing or leafletting is taking place. It's easier to drive over the bridge or through the tunnel to Detroit only 10 minutes away.
The ban on replacement workers is particularly harmful to retailers. A food store with perishables with a very limited shelf life can suffer quickly. Department stores sell a lot of seasonal merchandise which in a few weeks is out of season and only marketable at heavily reduced prices.
The proposed ban on replacement workers tilts the relatively even playing field towards favouring the unions over the management in negotiations. Who benefits if a strike forces us to close our doors? We're a large organization, but each of our stores must be viable or we cannot keep them open, and if we close, employees lose their jobs, governments at all the various levels lose their taxes, suppliers, transportation companies and manufacturers all suffer.
We're concerned about consolidating full-time and part-time employees in one unit. They have dissimilar interests. Part-time generally are employed on a short-term or casual basis. Full-timers typically seek careers and job securities.
1440
In Windsor we employ 80 full-time people and 146 part-time people in our store. Of that full-time group, 20 of them have been with us since the store opened in 1974. Of the 20 supervisors in that store, 13 of them have been with us since 1974. Three out of the four management team are long-term Windsorites and have been with us since 1974.
We believe we're a good employer. We believe this bill will hurt us, will make it more difficult for us to manage. We do not believe arbitrators should have their powers widened to arrive at any conclusion regardless of what the true parties agreed to. This undermines the notion of making an agreement.
Employers will be entangled in a web of legislation and the griever, if he doesn't win the issue, can go on and take legal action, human rights action, employment standards action or the Charter of Rights. So there's lots of avenues for people to pursue.
The retail industry is struggling. The Bay is struggling. With a recession and reduced purchasing and spending, cross-border shopping a major factor in Windsor, and high levels of taxation at all levels of government, we do not need more complex legislation to impede our opportunity to work with our employees to survive and grow.
Before I close, I'd like to turn it over to Gary.
Mr Hills: I'll be very brief. I just want to address some issues which impact me as a store operator in the Bay store here in Windsor. Retailing is brutal, particularly here in Windsor. Believe me, I've thought about a career change many times. Anyway, there are three issues I want to touch on and have concerns over.
The first issue is that my employees will be unable to work in the event of a strike, and I have some concerns about that. Employees lose the right to work. Quite frankly, I don't understand that. They lose the freedom of choice; I don't understand that. Some of my 200 staff are self-supporting, single mothers. Many are in family situations where their spouses are either on permanent or temporary layoffs. I have a real concern over the welfare of some of these people.
In addition to that, I guess a union is perhaps like a company: Some are in sound financial shape; others aren't. I don't know if there are guarantees of strike pay or not, so I just have some real concerns for the welfare of some of my employees. I believe that they should have the right to choose to work if they so desire.
Second, I think in the long term both employees and retailers can stand to lose with this particular issue or proposed change. Retailers will close. My store would close in the event of a strike. At any given time, I carry anywhere from $6 million to $16 million worth of inventory. Certainly this inventory, in the event of an extended strike or even a short-term strike, is going to depreciate and lose its value. If you look at a food retailer, you might be talking a matter of hours. In the fashion department store business, a few weeks can make an incredible difference. "Today's fashion item is tomorrow's rag" is an expression that can be used.
My concern is that I believe retailers, at all costs, would be forced to avoid a strike, to perhaps capitulate to unreasonable demands if they were to occur and to settle for perhaps more than we can afford to settle for. I also feel that should this happen, in the longer run you can damage the long-term viability of your company and, as well, your employees' welfare.
The second issue I want to touch on -- I guess I can also speak on behalf of the merchants at Devonshire Mall because I sit on the merchants' association board -- is the right to picket in malls and stores. I have two concerns about this matter.
The first concern is that I feel it's a health and safety issue. I honestly believe that we're talking about situations which would possibly present real risks of personal injury to customers, employees and employers. Malls are very busy. What a mall is, essentially, is an indoor pedestrian thoroughfare. I'm sure all of you know that at certain times there is just an incredible amount of traffic and activity in the shopping malls we have in Ontario right now. So my first concern is from a safety point of view, and that's not even touching on the possibility of confrontations.
The second concern I have is the fact that in many shopping malls often the distance between two independent operating businesses can be as little as one foot. I feel that both retailers and their employees can suffer severe negative consequences due to the proximity of a picket should it be set up within a shopping mall. I can tell you right now, I firmly believe that when you're a foot away, if you're picketing in front of an independent store in the mall, the sales of the three, four or five units right beside that store will probably decrease. When that happens, and it would happen almost immediately, the managers of those stores -- the first thing I would do is I would slash my payroll. Either I would lay somebody off or I would reduce the hours of my part-time employees.
The third issue I want to touch on briefly, and Jerry alluded to it, is that I have a concern about the proposal for allowing my security staff to be members of the same union. I can see the possibility of a conflict of interest for my loss prevention staff as well as a conflict of interest for the union.
In the department store business and in many speciality retailing stores, stock shortage is one of our most serious profit drains. Take my word for it, when January comes and we take inventory and find out what the stock shortage is, you've got all your fingers crossed that it's going to be a good result. Our loss prevention staff are responsible for the containment and reduction of basically three things: external theft, internal theft and the monitoring and enforcement of store rules, regulations and procedures.
The conflict of interest, which I see as a serious problem, could arise because at times in a department store setting, security staff must investigate matters involving other employees. It's unfortunate but it's unavoidable. Internal theft is extremely difficult to find out about, let alone catch somebody in the act of doing something. I don't know how big the problem is and I don't know if anybody really has a good idea how big that sort of problem is. But I can honestly see that being members of the same union, there would be a conflict of interest for security staff.
As well, should a grievance arise because of such an internal security matter, you've got a union that's got two members: one's the security employee, the other's the employee involved. I can see that possibly as a potential conflict as well.
Those are the three main issues that I think are going to impact myself as a store operator and impact the employees who work for me in the Windsor store. I'll turn it back over to Jerry.
Mr Nicholls: We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to the committee, and Gary and I will be pleased to answer any questions that we can.
Mr Tilson: I'd like your comment. My view of what this bill does specifically with the subject of the replacement workers is that now the strike essentially gives a union the right to shut down the company, because you can't operate. It takes away your right to manage. There's no two ways about it: That's what the strike means.
I know you've commented about that in your paper, but it's a major change from what we've been accustomed to. There's great ado about scabs and violence and all kinds of other things, and I personally question whether the way to do it is to simply remove it as opposed to dealing with those issues of violence and other means of breaking the law. But I'd like you to tell me specifically the effect of doing away with your right to manage.
Mr Nicholls: You're right on. Your comments are exactly what would happen in a store. We've dealt with unions for many years, ranging from Victoria right through to Sarnia, when we had a store there, and we had very few strikes because both sides were forced to negotiate: the retailer -- management -- and the union. But if we go to the bargaining table with no power to operate our stores, then the power's all on the union side. They can say, "Look, you accept our offer or we'll walk and we'll shut your store." What's the incentive for them to bargain?
1450
Mr Tilson: What would happen to a firm your size if you simply did not have the right to manage, if you didn't have the right to operate, which you won't have if there's a strike called?
Mr Nicholls: Eventually we'd fold up. We'd have to. We would have to go into a different line of business. Our business is very people-intensive.
Mr Tilson: I'd like to question you on one other area that you raised. I guess there are two areas: the unlimited right of trespass in organizing and the subject of picketing. Picketing is to disrupt -- I don't know whether your store is separate or whether it's in a mall -- I'm not familiar -- but perhaps you could comment on your knowledge of other stores if it's not. How far should that unlimited right of trespass go? Obviously the union has the right to organize and the union has the right to picket, but how far should that right of unlimited access, unlimited trespass, go?
Mr Nicholls: I certainly believe that it should be restricted to the property lines of the company that's being picketed and not in malls and not in individual units. I think the customer has a right to shop and the employees who want to work should have the right to work if they want to. Setting up more picket lines, more opportunities for confrontation, is not the way to solve the problem.
Mr Tilson: Have you received any legal opinion about the effect of leases? In other words, if there's picketing going on in a mall, the obligations of the landlord or the owner of the mall with respect to the right of someone who's not involved in the dispute to say: "There's disruption. My business is being disrupted and challenged," and challenge the landlord for not bringing peace to the mall?
Mr Nicholls: I'm sorry, I haven't had legal opinion on that.
Mr Hills: I think that's probably an unknown quantity right now. On speaking with the general manager of the Windsor properties for Cambridge here -- he's very concerned about the matter and I guess his company is looking at the ramifications, but one thing is for certain: It's kind of like when people are driving down the road and you see an accident on the side of the road. People slow down, they take a look and then they keep on going. I think in the event you're going to set up pickets in a mall, people will probably veer to the other side of the mall and keep right on going. The businesses that are right beside that picket front are going to suffer. They're innocent victims of the particular situation.
Mr Lessard: Just to follow up on the picketing, the way you would like to see it restricted is that pickets wouldn't be able to be at your store and they would not be just outside the doors of the mall, so the only place they could picket would be out at the entranceways and on public property, on the public roadways. Wouldn't that be more confusing to customers? They might think the whole mall was on strike and just continue down the road.
Mr Nicholls: No, when I said "property line" I meant the company property line. We don't own all the mall. There's 10 feet or something out from the store itself that's our property and the balance belongs to the mall. I wasn't suggesting they be extended to the perimeter of the mall.
Mr Lessard: So they could picket in that 10 feet just outside the store?
Mr Nicholls: Outside the store, but not within the store and not within the mall.
Mr Lessard: You sound like you have a fairly good working relationship with your employees, and that's good to see. I think that's the sort of relationship that we like to encourage between all employers and employees. I wonder whether, in preparation for your submission today, you had an opportunity to discuss any of your submissions with the union representatives.
Mr Nicholls: No. I didn't, certainly.
Mr Lessard: Is there any situation in your involvement with unions where there's been a strike where replacement workers have been used in Bay stores?
Mr Hills: I certainly can't comment. I have no knowledge.
Mr Nicholls: No, I can't remember one in the last 20 years.
Mr Lessard: I'm trying to wonder how you think this legislation might change what has been the practice all these years.
Mr Nicholls: The practice, of course, has been that we could open and run with employees who were working in the store but not necessarily union members. They may have to pay union dues, but they have not signed a union card. They would want to work, many times.
Mr Hills: There are many of our employees who have to work, and given the choice they will work. It's up to us, as runners of the business, to make a decision as to whether or not we have enough volunteers, much like every Sunday that comes along; it's a voluntary nature. I have to make a decision as to whether or not we have enough people to do business that day. So far we haven't had a problem. But in the eventuality of a strike situation, the same thing would happen. I would have to poll my total employee group and see who would be willing to work. As I mentioned before, we have a lot of employees for one reason or another in our store who I would hazard to guess would choose to work because they have to do so.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm interested, because I think you made a number of points that should at least have us thinking seriously about this legislation, in whether you had input into the minister's round of consultations. Did you have the opportunity to present before the minister or the parliamentary assistant?
Mr Nicholls: I'm not sure. I certainly didn't for the Bay. Someone from the Hudson's Bay Co may have.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): The company did.
Mr Brown: I'm told by the parliamentary assistant the company did.
Did you see, then, some of your concerns reflected in the drafting of Bill 40, which I guess we first saw on 12 June or around that date somewhere? Were the company's concerns at all addressed by what the government heard out there?
Mr Nicholls: I'm not sure what the company presentation was at that time. It's kind of a hard question to answer, because the bill could have been a lot worse. It could be disastrous, but it's only a mild disaster at this point.
Mr Brown: It's a moderate disaster. That's good. You've had experience with unions, some of your stores being unionized and I take it some not.
Mr Nicholls: Yes.
Mr Brown: Are the arrangements from your point of view quite different in the unionized stores than they are in the other operations?
Mr Nicholls: Yes, the whole management process is much more difficult in the unionized stores. It's much slower. It's also more costly to run even though the wage rates are the same, because we don't have the same opportunity to work with the people one-on-one. We're not able, in effect, to be as productive in a union environment as we are in a non-union environment, even though we pay the same wages.
Mr Brown: Are there superior benefits in the union environment?
Mr Nicholls: No.
Mr Offer: A very short question. Thank you for your presentation. I would like to ask a question on the security guard issue. I think that is extremely important.
Unfortunately, I think in the time permitted I can only go to one other area. That is the organizing or picketing on third-party, private, property. One would have us believe, under Bill 40, through the press releases, that this was limited, really, to the industrial mall or the retail mall setting. Clearly when you read the legislation the impact is much broader than that. It is not limited to the mall setting. It is not limited at all. It can apply to stand-alone firms.
I know that you alluded to it earlier. It's the non-involved store owner's concerns, the non-involved workers within a store not involved in any organizing or picketing, that we've been told this would apply to. For instance, a food court, where organizing or picketing could take place in front of one area and could have an impact on everyone else. Have you got any suggestions as to what should be done?
Mr Hills: I guess I'm not in the capacity where I can offer suggestions on behalf of the Hudson's Bay Co. I would be sort of overstepping my boundaries. It's a tough question to answer. Perhaps, just taking a shot in the dark, having an arrangement whereby signs can be posted at a store entrance, saying, "The employees of this particular store are struck currently and we for ask your support," something to that effect rather than actually endangering the business of the surrounding businesses.
The Chair: Thank you to the Bay. Mr Nicholls and Mr Hills, we are grateful for your taking the time to be here this afternoon. We appreciate it. You played an important role.
1500
CAW CANADA
The Chair: The next participants are the Canadian Auto Workers, Canada. Please tell us who you are, your titles.
Mr Basil Hargrove: Yes, I will.
The Chair: For some of you, that will be no surprise to any of the people here; others may be less well known.
Mr Hargrove: I thank first the committee for allowing us to appear and giving us the opportunity to appear today. I'm Buzz Hargrove, president of the National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union. To my right is Lewis Gottheil from our legal department. Frank McAnally is the president of Local 200 in Windsor; he also is the president of the CAW council, which covers all workers in our union across Canada, and sits on our national executive board. To my left is Peggy Nash; she's my assistant. To my extreme left is Larry Bauer, president of Local 444 and national executive board member of the CAW.
The Chair: Welcome.
Mr Hargrove: I was only kidding when I said he was on my extreme left, of course.
The Chair: Mr Tilson has been to my left throughout all of these hearings.
Mr Hargrove: Let me start by responding to my description of a mild disaster. Mr Chairman, if you can view these moderate changes as a mild disaster, I suggest that if it were me, I would never leave my home in the morning. I'd probably lock myself in the closet and stay there for the day. These are moderate proposals and the business response is predictable, but not supported by fact. All of the things that are being raised, all of the fear tactics, all the scare tactics, in my opinion are not supportable by facts.
The opposition is clearly ideologically based; it's philosophical. It's about recognizing that this does give workers a bit more opportunity to belong to a union and it puts a little more fairness in this system, so if workers have a dispute with their employer that they can't be thrown in the street and replacement workers brought in.
To emphasize what I've said, at a recent meeting of some major parts suppliers and presidents of companies, this was raised, this big fear of what this was going to do to the companies. I challenged them in each instance to tell me what changes in the labour reform act would harm their operation. I said: "If you can point that out to me, I'll gladly pick up the phone and call the Premier and say to him, `Look, Mr Premier, it's your bill, but I'm concerned about this. I agree, this is a threat to business investment in this province and I think you ought to take a second look.'"
At the end of the three discussions with the same group of people, each one of them said, at some point during those discussions: "Well, I'm not arguing. This is no threat to my operation. But as a business person, if you ask me, `Do I agree with this,' the answer is, `No, I don't think it should take place,'" but there was no basis in fact in terms of the argument that this somehow threatened a business.
Two or three points I'd like to make before I do a summation of what I think the real issues are here and deal with some of the mess that is out there. First, I don't think the reforms -- they are moderate. They don't go far enough. Petitions, for example, have no place in an organizing drive. The committee ought to recommend to the government that it eliminate it, period. When a worker puts a signature on a card saying, "I want to join the union," that ought to be acceptable. If I sign my name anywhere with Hudson's Bay to buy anything, once I sign my name, I'm committed, I'm in to buy that program or whatever it is I'm committing to.
I might, within 48 hours, decide I'm out or find a way, if I have enough money, to hire a lawyer to get out, but generally, I'm in. So a signature reflects what a worker's real intention is. A vote reflects or a petition reflects the ability of the employers, once they realize there's a drive going on, to influence that drive by intimidating workers in a number of ways.
I'm not going through them all, but I think it's fair to say, when you have the signature on the paycheque, the ability to threaten someone's livelihood or to take away their rights on the office or shop floor and move them from what may be a decent, clean place to work in the enterprise to one of the worst jobs in the enterprise at different rates of pay -- there are all kinds of penalties that employers can impose on workers that would force them to do differently when they're faced with an employer-sponsored petition. We find, in almost every instance, the petitions are employer-sponsored.
As well, when I look through the proposed changes, the anti-scab part, the adjustment program bargaining part, a lot of pieces in the bill are very progressive, but the problem is there's no enforcement mechanism. The committee, I believe, should be recommending to the government that there be a way to enforce. It's, as I said, like Michael Wilson keeping the auto pact in place under the free trade agreement, but the tariffs are eliminated. The auto pact can be in place, but if there are no penalties, if someone doesn't meet the requirement, then there's no mechanism, there's no enforcement, there's no reason why the employer would live up to that piece of the legislation. It's very important that this be addressed.
Rights of workers to a grievance procedure whether they belong to a union or not: Surely, in the 1990s, employers should face a test, if they fire someone, as to whether or not they've done it in a fair manner, whether they give that person a hearing. That person should be entitled to a hearing. There should be no argument about that. I can't believe or understand why that's not part of the proposed changes in 1992.
Let me deal with the question of plant closures and restrictions that are not in the bill. Again, I'm having a difficult time understanding why we don't recognize -- one of the most serious problems facing our economy today is the right for employers to simply close up shop and leave the province, leave the community without any justification or any kind of commitment to the workers or the community. The bill doesn't address that at all, and any thinking person who's watched what's happened over the last three years in the province of Ontario would say, I would think, in making this kind of reform, that there's an obligation on employers to justify to the community why their closure is taking place and look at all of the things that went into the decision-making.
One last point on the bill, I think, should be changed. It always amazes me in automatic certification that we have to meet some kind of superdemocratic test of 55%. In most jurisdictions it's 50% plus one. The test ought to be, "Are the majority in favour," and when the majority has signed a petition, that ought to suffice. So the committee should recommend that the 55% be reduced to 50% plus one.
Let me deal with some of the arguments I saw on the auto industry in terms of investment and what this means for investment. First, I think in terms of investment in the province in the last two years, the auto industry has been the leader and continues to be the leader. This morning I talked to the top labour relations person from General Motors, for example, and in spite of what's being said out there publicly by their spokesperson, they gave us some more good news in Oshawa this morning. They're going to extend the lifeline of the Buick Regal and Chevrolet Lumina until the fall of 1995. It puts a great deal more security into that operation in Oshawa, and I'm sure the community feels very good about that today as well as the workers and their families.
Look at General Motors in Windsor, which just a few months ago announced a $400,000 investment to put a new line of four-cylinder transmissions in here. That puts a great deal of security into this transmission facility for a number of years to come. The trim plant got a major new order that runs out in 1998-1999. These decisions were made knowing that the government was looking at labour reform. Both of these operations not only supply plants in Ontario but the trim plant, for example, supplies 16 assembly facilities throughout North America. The transmission plant: Not that many, but a lot of assembly plants throughout North America are supplied from these facilities in Windsor. General Motors feels very comfortable that they will have their production here and they will be able to provide that product to their assembly operations.
There are two instances where General Motors has scheduled facilities to close which we're still talking to them about. One is in St Catharines and the other is Scarborough. If you look at St Catharines, it has absolutely nothing to do with labour reform or labour relations. They have a good relation with their union, they have high productivity in the plant, the quality is excellent. It's the size of the plant, the way the industry developed in Canada. "We need a large plant. We have one in the US. We have a small one in St Catharines." They apologized to the workers, with whom they have a wonderful relationship. They didn't want to close the plant, but that's a business decision.
1510
In Scarborough, same problem: It's an old plant building a small van at low production levels and it's landlocked. There's no room for expansion, no room to do anything further.
That's GM in Ontario.
Ford, Windsor: $1.1 billion to open an old engine plant, regut, rebuild, a brand new facility, a lot of security, just announced in April of this year.
Oakville: $1 billion; $500,000 to put a paint shop in and $500,000 to put a new model, a new minivan. A world class minivan will be going into production there in September of this year. I joined with Ken Harrigan of the Ford Motor Co and the Premier of Ontario in opening that paint shop last week; a lot of security there.
Chrysler Bramalea: Three weeks ago I joined with Lee Iacocca, the Premier of the province and Michael Wilson in launching the LH model. The LH model, for the committee members who don't understand it, will mean that all of Chrysler's midsized and large cars will be built in Canada, starting in June of this year; in September of this year they will all be there.
Add that to their minivan facilities that over the last 10 years have provided over 50% of the profit of Chrysler, and the maxivan plant which is like a licence to print money for the corporation. Chrysler for all intents and purposes is a Canadian corporation, but more importantly for the work of this committee, it is an Ontario-based corporation that showed it has major confidence in the future of Ontario by the announcement and putting this incredible investment and all its future in the Bramalea assembly plant.
The parts industry: I read Neil De Koker's presentation to this committee. The parts industry, by its own study -- they have a study and it's available to the committee here and it's dated March 26, 1990 -- the people who produce parts for the auto industry, when they look around, they say, "What is the thing you look most at?" The first thing they mention is the location to the assembly operations. With the investments I just talked about and the other plants that we have in this province, we have the capacity to build 1.5 million cars and trucks.
Did I say something funny?
Interjection: Not yet.
Mr Hargrove: Your colleague probably thought I did.
We have the capacity to build 1.5 million vehicles within a two-hour drive of where the major parts producers are in this province, and that's a major incentive for the parts companies to invest in Ontario.
The second most important issue, and these are their members I'm talking about, is training: skilled workforce education and training. Our union put forth the proposal which was accepted by the Ontario government and the federal government, and belatedly by the auto parts manufacturers, for an auto parts training council which will start up in September. It was an initiative of CAW and it will provide expert training for 10,000 workers who will be issued a certificate when they finish that training.
It will allow them to move to any other operation in the auto parts industry with ease and be able to move into the operation and do the work without a lot of training -- very, very important. Every parts manufacturer I've talked to has stressed the importance of this initiative by our union. The other one was the availability of service.
Let me conclude my presentation on what I think the problems are in the auto industry today that Mr De Koker should be looking at.
Japanese imports: Japanese multinationals import. Over 30% of our market is supplied from Japan by Japanese manufacturers, and they have very little in terms of investment in jobs in Canada. Let me give you the comparison to General Motors. General Motors has about the same share of the Canadian market, about 30% of the Canadian market.
General Motors has 36,000 hourly rated jobs in Canada, most of them in Ontario. They purchase millions and millions of dollars of parts from the parts industry in Ontario. The Japanese have the same market share. The top four or five companies have the same market share, or even a little better, a little better than 30%. They have less than 3,000 jobs in Ontario. Less than 3% of the auto parts jobs in this province go towards supplying these assembly operations. Their operations are shipped in from Japan and their US plants and brought into Canada and assembled in small operations in Alliston and Honda.
If we could get the level of imports in Canada from Japanese companies from 29% down to what they are in the US, 23%, and if those were translated into work in our plants by General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, which is conceivable, 15,000 jobs in the auto parts industry would be overnight.
Two last points: The auto industry in Canada, both the parts industry and especially the majors -- General Motors can attest to this if it's honest. Bankruptcies, where the receiver shows up in the middle of the night and puts a lock on the door of the parts companies -- the latest one was Van Dresser in Waterloo -- without any notice, with all the tools and dies from the major manufacturers in the plant, has cost the major manufacturers in this province millions of dollars in production, way more than any labour dispute we've had with the auto manufacturers in the last several years.
Most of our agreements in the parts industry are bargained early, before the expiry date, and if they don't, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler move the tools and dies out of the plant, so there's no threat of this just-in-time or no threat of anti-scab legislation having any impact on this.
I said to George Peapples in a recent letter, "You've lost more production in the last three years in Ontario as a result of traffic jams on the 401 than you have with labour disputes," and as of today he hasn't disputed that.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Thank you, Buzz: a very good presentation. I have in front of me a copy of the Automotive News, and in this article it certainly tries to indicate that you're trying to do something different than what your presentation said today about working together. There are some quotes here, some comments that were made by this writer. It says, "Limit the power of corporations, improve workers' wages and benefits, restrict Asian imports, restructure free trade agreements." It goes on to say, "That is Buzz Hargrove's perception for protecting Canada's auto workers from recession and what he sees as the growing power of Canada's corporations."
I know we don't have a lot of time, so I won't read the whole thing, and I'm sure you've already read the article yourself. These are some of the arguments we continually get from people who are representing corporations and some of the lawyers like Mr King, who was here earlier, this fear of tilting the power towards the workers. It always seems there are people who feel that the balance is nice today and that we should just stay with the status quo.
By this piece of legislation, in your opinion, how much extra power do you really think the workers are going to have in this province?
Mr Hargrove: Not a lot if you ask me, Mr Hayes. The argument certainly is about power, and the problem that a lot of the corporate world has is that if workers are making any kind of progress at all, if there's any kind of fairness being put into the system at all, it's much more difficult to roll back the clock. I think that's what the argument is about more than anything. Clearly, it's about power, but people who are making the arguments today want to see the power go the other way. They want to eliminate the rights of working people to join unions and make it more difficult, and turn all of the power over to the corporations. That's what I was trying to say in my remarks.
Mr Hayes: There's another issue that people keep raising here, talking about other jurisdictions. We know that in the province of Quebec, for example, since they put in the legislation that would restrict replacement workers, the worker-days lost were reduced by 30%, since that time, due to strikes of course.
I know that of course the CAW does represent workers in that province. I'd like you to comment on that, but I also would like you to comment on some of the experiences that people have brought forward to you, and I know they have to this committee, about violence on the picket lines, or intimidation, for example, when it comes to prior to voting on getting a collective agreement.
Mr Hargrove: Quebec: It's interesting. I sit on the Labour-Management Advisory Committee to the Premier. We had our first meeting and the business group was using Quebec Inc as kind of the model they'd like to have. I reminded them that they had anti-scab legislation 10 years ago and it's played a major role in getting rid of a lot of the tensions between labour and business. There wasn't much disagreement with that.
Violence on the picket lines, Mr Hayes, Mr Chairman and committee members, is mostly violence against working people on the picket lines by police, security guards and others as they try to usher scabs into the operation to take the jobs of workers who are legally on strike. If you eliminate the right of the employer to bring in scabs, you eliminate that problem.
1520
Mr Phillips: Thank you for the presentation. You talked a fair bit about plant closures. That's an interesting area for me. As I look at the plant closures over the last year and a half in Ontario, I think 70% have been unionized. I think the Canadian Auto Workers is the one that has probably been the most impacted. In fact, as I look at the next few months, I think a quarter of the plants that are planned to close are CAW plants.
I gather plant closures are perhaps the number one issue for the CAW, and therefore the layoff of your members. Can you tell us the three or four things in this legislation that will be most helpful in eliminating or minimizing those plant closures that the CAW will face?
Mr Hargrove: First, I don't know where you get your statistics. My statistics show that about 40% of the overall closures in Ontario -- I don't know whether you want to use manufacturing. What are you using?
Mr Phillips: I'm using the Ministry of Labour --
Mr Hargrove: Is it manufacturing or does it include retail and finance?
Mr Phillips: It's anything over 50 employees and any at a single location. These are numbers I'm sure you have.
Mr Hargrove: If you use that, you might be right, but the vast majority of closings have taken place in non-union retail, finance and the food industry. Walk down Ouellette Avenue. Come on out and I'll take you down and show you the closures in this community, and within a few blocks.
Mr Phillips: These are them. I'm just using the Ministry of Labour's figures.
Mr Hargrove: Again, they're selective, Mr Phillips, and that's fair, I guess, if you don't want to get at the reality. The problem with plant closures is that since the free trade agreement was started by the government back in 1986-87, and actually put in place January 1, 1989, when you take the rules out of the system, when you say to a US supplier like Caterpillar, "You can build all of your product now in the United States and ship it into Canada duty free and all you need is a warehousing operation to do that in Canada," that plant closes and goes to the US. Yes, they were our members. It had absolutely nothing to do with provincial legislation.
I would argue, using your own figures, that all these closures you're talking about have taken place during the last three years since free trade was introduced. There has been no labour law reform whatsoever. Quite likely, there should be.
Mr Phillips: What elements will be helpful to your members in the legislation is all I'm asking.
Mr Hargrove: If you listened to my presentation, I said the problem with it is that there is nothing in there that's helpful to stop the plant closures. There should be justification. Caterpillar should have had to go before a committee of this Legislature and justify its decision to move out of Brampton.
Mr Phillips: I'm trying to get at where the legislation will be helpful to your members on plant closures. You're saying nothing in there will be helpful to your members on plant closures?
Mr Hargrove: That's correct.
Mr Phillips: Nothing dealing with the major issue for your members?
Mr Hargrove: Nothing. In the legislation, as I said, if you listened to my presentation, it talks about employers having to bargain on adjustment programs and that's helpful. But I said if there's no mechanism to force them to take the next step or if they don't do it, there's no enforcement mechanism and then that will be a very toothless piece of legislation. I suggest that if you want to be helpful to our members and a lot of other workers, you come in with a recommendation to change that.
Mr Phillips: So you would call this toothless in dealing with plant closures for your members.
Mr Hargrove: You call it toothless.
Mr Phillips: No, that's what you just said.
Mr Hargrove: I said there's legislation in there and it needs a lot of boosting up. It's not good legislation in dealing with plant closures.
Mr Phillips: So it's toothless in dealing with the --
Mr Hargrove: You can call it what you want.
Mr Phillips: I'm sorry, but I think the Hansard will say you said it was toothless in dealing with it.
Mr Hargrove: Maybe I did. If I did, good, you can use that, Gerry.
Mr Phillips: That's all I wanted to know. Thanks very much.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I want to deal with another aspect of your presentation, especially that which is around organizing and respecting the rights of employees to make a decision as to whether or not they wish to join a union.
Under Bill 40 there is currently a provision that if the board considers that the true wishes of the employees of an employer cannot be ascertained because of any action taken by the employer, then the drive basically is automatically successful; they're certified. We have heard that though there may be some occasion where this happens, it is not always just the employer, that sometimes the organizers might take part in some action. Now, of course, we have no absolute evidence. Of course, we're getting a lot of anecdotes, but none the less it is coming before the committee.
My question to you, Mr Hargrove, because you've had such a great deal of experience in this area, is, do you think that this legislation, in order to protect that employee in freely making his choice -- this particular aspect of the legislation -- should be expanded so that if the organizers are involved in a matter for which there is an unfair labour practice and intimidation or a coercion, the certification drive is automatically dismissed and cannot be brought back for at least a year?
Mr Hargrove: The recognition of the automatic certification as a result of employer interference, Mr Offer, recognizes that in an employer-employee relationship, it's an issue of power, and the employer has the power, the power of intimidation, the power of taking people's livelihood away.
Interjection.
Mr Hargrove: Sorry?
Mr Offer: No, my question was the other side. I understand the reason for that very well.
Mr Hargrove: No, I'm answering your question. It's about power. The legislation here is reform. It's about helping workers get rid of these threats, about helping them, making it a little easier so they don't have to, each time they want to talk about joining a union, worry about how they're going to feed their families or how they're going to pay their mortgages or their rent, Mr Offer.
It's about just a little step, not a giant step; not toothless, but a little step. We're workers and you're talking about a step for managers. I'm not here today representing managers. I'm representing workers and the legislation is trying to balance the power a bit with workers.
The Chair: Mr Jackson or Mr Tilson want some questions as well, I'm sure.
Mr Tilson: In your presentation, do I understand that you're saying that companies or managements should not be allowed to close their operations without substantial reason? Did I understand you to say that?
Mr Hargrove: Yes, you're right, with justification. There should be justification to the community and to the workers.
Mr Tilson: I then get back to the issue of replacement workers, and it's a question that you've been here listening to, a train of questioning that I've been asking. Essentially, it is that if you have a strike and you're not allowed the replacement workers, essentially that closes down the company. That precludes the --
Mr Hargrove: That's the idea of a strike precisely, Mr Tilson, in case somebody hasn't told you that.
Mr Tilson: No, that's not why you have a strike. The purpose of having a strike is to encourage the parties to bargain, not to shut down the operation. That's what this legislation --
Mr Hargrove: That's different. That's not the legislation; you said a strike. A strike is to shut down the operation. I've been through a few of those.
Mr Tilson: Well, sir, this legislation, essentially when you have a strike, is going to preclude the company from operating. They will have to shut down.
Mr Hargrove: That's the way it should be.
Mr Tilson: But then you're saying that on the other side of the coin, the company shouldn't have the right to shut down or to move. I'm just trying to get your --
Mr Hargrove: That's the way it should be. But don't take away their right to do it. What our proposal says is there should be justification. An employer shouldn't be allowed to say, just because it happens to be convenient, that it can make -- this Caterpillar plant is the best example and I can give you 50 others if you want.
Mr Tilson: I'm sure you can.
Mr Hargrove: I've almost got a list bigger than Gerry Phillips's.
Mr Tilson: Sir, I'm sure you can.
Mr Hargrove: Some $26 million in three years prior to their closing. There should be no way they should be able to leave that community high and dry without justifying why they're leaving.
Mr Tilson: Sir, I'm just trying to get the rationale of it. If you say that a company should not be allowed to be shut down, as I understand what you're saying, you're simply saying "unless the union says so by a strike."
Mr Hargrove: I didn't say that. I said the community. They ought to justify it to the community and the workers in place and to the unions in case of closure. If you're talking about the rights of workers to strike, in my description it's very clear: Legislation allows bargaining and bargaining leads to settlements. In over 95% of our collective agreements, it works well, David. You should go out and have a look at it.
Mr Tilson: But sir --
Mr Hargrove: In the question of strikes, when we have a strike, if there's a strike, if workers feel that strongly that they're going to give up their paycheque, then the employer should give up the right to produce. It's about fairness. It's about putting some fairness into the system.
Mr Tilson: If I understand what you're saying, the company cannot shut down but the union can shut down the company.
Mr Hargrove: You're not listening very well, but that's fine.
Mr Tilson: All right. We appear to have come to an end on that question. My question to you then is that if you are saying that the company cannot hire replacement workers -- I'm following along in your observation of fairness -- would you agree to an amendment that would preclude the employee from working at another place of employment while a strike is in progress?
Mr Hargrove: You already have. The federal Tories have done that.
Mr Tilson: No, we're talking --
Mr Hargrove: There are 1.5 million people unemployed in this country. You couldn't buy a job. It's a silly argument. There's 15% unemployment in this city. People can't find work anywhere, never mind strikers.
Mr Tilson: It's unfortunate you come here and can't answer my questions.
Mr Hargrove: To your satisfaction.
Mr Tilson: No more questions.
1530
Mr Jackson: I come from a riding in a community that produces automobiles and does a lot of parts manufacturing, and a lot of your members are my constituents. I'd be very interested -- I'm sure some of the committee might be interested -- in looking at the information that you shared with committee about the secondary parts sourcing and what their impact would be.
I'm fairly up to speed on the plants in my riding in the community of Halton, how many have American counterparts, branch plants and so on and so forth, but I would very much like to have that information because we're getting two different stories on it, and I think it's a legitimate concern and we have not received the input.
I think there's been this overall statement. There's been no economic impact analysis on this legislation, but I think the auto sector needs protecting, particularly in this province, because the auto sector is Ontario. Other sectors are other provinces, but autos are Ontario. To the extent that the secondary parts sourcing might have some degree of vulnerability, I think that's something we should look at. It may not necessarily be that the legislation's at fault but that there has to be some additional planning.
Frankly, when I talk to my next-door neighbours, who work at the Ford plant, they're telling me that they're more concerned not about this legislation but about employment equity and training. So I'd also be pleased to receive any information you can share with us or this committee about your training initiatives to prepare for employment equity, because if we don't -- that's why we build the best cars in the world, because we have the best-trained personnel. Once you start introducing employment equity to line work -- that's what my neighbours are telling me. I don't work in a plant, but they tell me that that's going to hurt the quality of the end product unless we're prepared for it, and we may be putting the cart before the horse. We may be back in Windsor within a year to deal with employment equity and its impact on the auto sector, because from what I'm hearing from your own members, they've got some concerns. It's my interest in additional information because in my riding it's a big issue.
Mr Hargrove: We would be happy to sit with you, Mr Jackson, and go through the auto parts council training. We're doing an enormous amount of training in the auto industry and especially in Ford Oakville. We have a training centre, if you've been to the Ford Oakville plant, and we welcome the challenge of employment equity and bringing in people with disabilities, aboriginal people, women, people of colour. We see that as not one problem. We don't expect one hitch in terms of people coming into our plants.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to the Canadian Auto Workers, Buzz Hargrove, of course, national president, and Lewis Gottheil, Peggy Nash, Frank McAnally and Larry Bauer. Thank you very much for coming here this afternoon.
Mr Hargrove: We thank the committee for allowing us this opportunity. Thank you very much.
The Chair: You provoked a lot of response -- that's obvious -- and you've made a valuable contribution to the process. We trust you'll be keeping in touch. Take care, people.
The next participant is the Greater Windsor Hotel Association. Would the representative or representatives of the Greater Windsor Hotel Association like to come forward and seat themselves.
Not foreclosing them from appearing, is the Chatham and District Chamber of Commerce here? Okay. Would you folks mind coming forward and making your presentation?
CHATHAM AND DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: Have a seat. Tell us your names, your titles and proceed with your submission.
Mr David McLean: Mr Chairman, my name is Dave McLean. I'm president of the Chatham and District Chamber of Commerce. With me is Tom Wells, first vice-president, and John Behan, the general manager.
The Chair: Go ahead, gentlemen.
Mr McLean: The presentations are being passed out now, if I could just wait a moment. I would like to draw your attention to one of the paragraphs. We've had a bit of good news: that we do not enjoy the highest rate of unemployment in southwestern Ontario any more. That's gone to Windsor, as far as I know, so I'd like to amend the presentation to reflect that.
The Chair: Go right ahead and carry on, because time is fleeting.
Mr McLean: Fine. In the background section on the first page, the second paragraph, you see at the end of that the number of 12%. That really should read 10.3% in terms of unemployment.
We're very pleased to be here today to present our concerns regarding the Ontario Labour Relations Act and Bill 40, the amendments to it.
The Chatham and District Chamber of Commerce is an organization representing the concerns of business in and around the Chatham area of Kent county. The chamber has over 400 member firms representing approximately 500 individuals who directly participate in the chamber's activities. The Chatham and District Chamber of Commerce is a member of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and also the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
Chatham is a community of 42,000 people located on the Highway 401 corridor between London and Windsor. Chatham relies on agriculture, natural gas distribution and the automotive industry for its primary employment.
It is the latter component of our economy that has been most affected by the current recession, leaving Chatham and the region to wrestle with one of the highest levels of unemployment in southwestern Ontario at 10.3%. It is this concern that brings us before this panel today.
The Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Chatham and District Chamber of Commerce have grave concerns regarding the government's proposed legislation to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The amendments, known as Bill 40, will have a devastating effect on our province and our community of Chatham-Kent.
To support our position, the chamber embarked on some primary research. We gave our members three opportunities to register their opinion about Bill 40. The first was a coupon-based questionnaire asking for responses from those who disagreed with the legislation. Of our 400 member firms, 95 have responded negatively to Bill 40. These responses have been forwarded to MPP Randy Hope's office.
The second means to register opinion was via a more detailed questionnaire regarding investment that has been put on hold as a result of the announcement of Bill 40. Of the 350 forms mailed in late July, we have received 29 responses to date. Of those, 15 indicated investment that will not be made totalling $1.4 million in Chatham alone.
Finally, in the Saturday, August 15, edition of the Chatham Daily News -- it's attached to the submission -- 24 other businesses in Chatham supported an ad that denounced Bill 40.
As was alluded to in our introduction, Chatham relies on agriculture, automotive parts, truck assembly and natural gas distribution for our primary employment. Much of our membership is represented by these sectors and their respective trade organizations.
Last week, Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association president Neil De Koker widely condemned the legislation. Many of our members chose to speak through APMA. Similar responses have been registered to this panel by the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association, the Christian Labour Association of Canada, the Ontario Restaurant Association and Tourism Ontario Inc. Like APMA, each of these groups has opposed Bill 40 and represents a significant portion of our membership.
Union Gas Ltd, a significant employer in Chatham, provided a member of their executive to speak to a chamber luncheon. Union Gas also condemned Bill 40, as is demonstrated by the article accompanying this submission.
Finally, agriculture has grave concerns about Bill 40 due to the seasonal nature of their products. It is the agricultural community's understanding that it will be governed by separate labour legislation. So they do not perceive their concerns to be as pressing, but they have still put forward several concerns about Bill 40, also attached to this submission. These concerns were prepared by Dan Hoy of Pioneer Hi-Bred Production Ltd and submitted through the Chatham chamber's agricultural committee. A copy is attached to this submission.
1540
Our business community is trying to survive the worst economic conditions in several decades. Ontario, because of its industrialized base, has suffered more than most, and as a result, our provincial government's fiscal situation is the worst it has ever been. We must regain our competitive advantage. We must retain the businesses that are here and attract new ones to create new jobs, because without meaningful, value added jobs, we cannot begin to contemplate how we will pay down the massive debt that is staring us in the face while maintaining the level of social programs that we have all come to expect and count on over the past decades.
Our business community and the investment that it provides is the key to achieving this goal, and while we are attempting to become more competitive and productive, Bill 40 does absolutely nothing to help us in our efforts to ensure our viability and the future employment of the people of Ontario. The proposed changes will not create one single job or generate one dollar for our economy.
Bill 40's most controversial change to the existing legislation is that section that prohibits strike replacements. This is touted as a progressive vehicle to help harmonize labour-management relations. The only other jurisdiction in North America that has this law is the province of Quebec.
In the period 1970 through 1977, prior to Quebec passing this legislation, there were 64 more strikes in Ontario than in Quebec. From 1978 -- the year that the legislation was passed -- until 1991, there were 652 more strikes in Quebec than in Ontario, and we believe this hardly bodes well for this province.
An area that should be addressed under this legislation is that of secret ballots. During times of organizing and strike votes, unions are allowed to conduct their business with a show of hands or other less private means. To an outsider, this practice seems rather archaic, intimidating and is undemocratic. This amendment could be used to correct that deficiency.
In spite of the specific changes that are proposed to this legislation, it is the firm belief of the Chatham and District Chamber of Commerce that this legislation will do nothing to attract or retain investment in this province, and without further investment, how can we hope to pay down the provincial debt that we are facing?
It is organized labour's contention that a few recent announcements by a few large companies about some plant investments in Ontario is a clear indication that businesses' concerns are invalid. We believe that this thinking is flawed. It is human nature to accentuate the positives and downplay the negatives. It is reasonable to assume that these large companies, already established in Ontario, will not be overly sensitive to this legislation. They already have significant capital investment in this province. They are already staffed with unionized workers and a strike will, in fact, shut down these plants because replacing several thousand workers at one time is impractical.
What about those potential investors who are significantly smaller than a Ford or a General Motors or a Chrysler? Those who have the latitude to locate anywhere in the Great Lakes or Midwest states, will this legislation influence their decisions where to locate? And isn't it these types of investors that will be the necessary engine of our economy to put those hundreds of thousands of unemployed people back to work in this province and in this country?
We cannot afford to jeopardize this province's future with legislation that essentially makes it more onerous to do business in Ontario relative to our competitors in the Great Lakes and Midwest states, not when we're already saddled with higher taxes, an out-of-control workers' compensation system, double-digit increases in our electric power rates and a mammoth provincial deficit and debt.
We have an opportunity to accentuate the positive about this province. Canada is described as the best place to live in the world, bar none. Ontario is the heartland of Canada. This tells me that we do respect our workers, that we are not repressive and that Bill 40 has been introduced for a purpose far different than what is being stated by the government of this province.
Our conclusion is simple: withdraw this legislation now. Our research indicates that this is not needed or wanted by our members. If there is a need to reform the Ontario Labour Relations Act, the current one-sided proposals are not the answer. Altering the balance of labour relations is counterproductive to fostering economic cooperation between government, labour and business, and is extremely harmful to the economic health of the province of Ontario.
What is needed is a true consultative process that works, one that enables workers to compete effectively in the global economy and in turn offers job protection for its employees.
Once again, we would like to thank the standing committee for allowing us this opportunity to present our viewpoints regarding the proposed changes to the OLRA. Respectfully submitted by the Chatham and District Chamber of Commerce.
The Acting Chair (Ms Sharon Murdock): Thank you very much. I believe it is the Conservative caucus that is to begin. Is it Mr Jackson?
Mr Jackson: Yes, thank you. You referenced your members who are in the auto parts sector, and you referenced the report that was discussed by the previous deputants. Has your chamber done any analysis or specific canvassing of those who are involved in parts manufacturing to discuss with them life after this bill, as opposed to responding to the bill? There's a bit of a difference there.
Mr McLean: Right. The members in Chatham have elected to go through the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, so they have not responded to the surveys that we've sent out. So when you look at the 45 firms that responded to the first survey and the additional 29, they're mostly small businesses that are residing in Chatham, so we're here essentially speaking on their behalf today, not the large manufacturers within Chatham, although they do espouse our viewpoints.
Mr Jackson: Are there no members of your executive, your political action committee or any of those that you've had informal discussions with -- this legislation isn't going to affect CUPW with respect to the Big Three; it's going to affect the parts sourcing, and that's a matter of concern. I'm just trying to get additional information or feedback.
Mr McLean: All of the large parts manufacturers in Chatham, from the management perspective, have expressed displeasure with this bill. The specifics will be forwarded to Randy's office, so they will be available.
Mr Jackson: Can you get them to the committee? If you do that to the clerk as well, I'd like to have a look --
Mr Hope: Do you trust me?
Mr Jackson: It shouldn't fall on your shoulders. Give it to the clerk. It'd be appreciated.
Mr McLean: We don't have copies here today because the last one about investment was just sent out at the end of July, so we're still receiving responses. We received two more today before we came down here, but certainly we'd be glad to provide them to the clerk.
Mr Jackson: I understand we're going to hear from a Mr Colasanti to discuss his agricultural activities, and you have an agricultural group within your chamber.
Mr McLean: Yes, we do.
Mr Jackson: We've heard a presentation from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. What else are you hearing from your members in terms of various products and how this relates with -- I would assume we're talking about Campbell Soup, and once you start producing tomatoes, then there's the canning of tomatoes, then there's the shipping of tomatoes. Is there anybody who can speak to us about how the aspects of produce and its various stages of production would be affected by this legislation?
Mr Tom Wells: As recently as this morning I was talking to the Ontario vegetable board and they feel confident that the produce produced by the farmer himself will be moved outside the act. That seems to be coming that way.
The other side of the scale is, though, the Campbell Soups, the Heinzes you're talking about, whether the production worker there will be outside the act as well or then the produce is in the field harvested and no place to go.
There's a very grave concern because in the fresh fruit market and in the tomato industry, peas, all the commodities, there's a very short production time, and if the production worker is allowed to go on strike at key times it's worse than blackmail, because you just destroy the farm industry as well. There's no payment; the whole thing falls apart. So the fruit canning industry is very much at risk here, and they're really worried about it.
Mr Jackson: I met with Ball Packaging representatives, and 50% of all the cans in Canada are produced right in my riding, and they have recently made a long-term arrangement with Campbell Soup to protect themselves, but they had to make mammoth concessions with Campbell Soup so that they didn't off their --
Mr Wells: I'm well aware of their concessions.
Mr Jackson: Okay. Well, I appreciate your comments. It's an area that I'm quite concerned about, and we're not getting much analysis which is helpful to --
Mr Wells: Our area is really concerned about that. There's no question the farmers themselves are really worried, and that's my specialty, so that's why --
Mr Jackson: If they ship the cans up from the States, pretty soon they'll start thinking they may as well put the tomatoes in them from the States, and that's --
Mr Wells: The product is available in the States right now to come to Canada.
Mr Jackson: It's not as good a quality product, but we'll hear from Mr Colasanti about all the good-quality products.
Mr Hope: Thanks for the presentation. Yes, I will be looking forward to the studies as I received all the little placards that you guys did. I got those in my hands. But I am looking interestedly at the study where you say you sent out 350 forms in July and received only 29 responses, and then 15 have indicated that investment of $1.4 million will not be coming. I find that very interesting and I hope that you're reflecting, because in your presentation you made comments that the industrial sector is working with the APMA sector.
1550
Mr McLean: Yes, automotive parts.
Mr Hope: Are they part of this $1.4 million of investment not being allocated?
Mr McLean: As I said earlier, Randy, the responses were really from small business. He was talking about individual business people, probably less than 30 people at the plant not making investments.
Mr Hope: Good. That's where I'm trying to focus the attention -- let me express some viewpoints -- because I know the presentation Union Gas did, and I have to ask you the question, if Bill 40 comes into play, will the office workers at Union Gas, who are treated appropriately, have good wages, good working conditions, good labour management relationship, are they going to go out and organize?
Mr McLean: I have no idea. I can't answer that.
Mr Hope: Okay.
Mr McLean: I don't work at Union Gas.
Mr Hope: Well, you used to and you know the work atmosphere there. Union Gas has always been praised on its worker-labour-management relationship, and to get more than 50% of the workers unhappy in that is very unlikely because management just doesn't tolerate it. They thrive on worker cooperation.
I'm still focusing on the 300 forms. I've been meeting with a number of small employers because they are very concerned about what they're reading out there, and I've always asked them the question, "How do you treat your employees?" I know all our employers in Kent and Chatham are not bad employers.
Mr McLean: No.
Mr Hope: There are good and non-unionized workplaces. These people are not going to run out and join a union for the simple fact Bill 40 is there. They join a union because they've been mistreated, and on that vote, it has to be over 50% of them are mad, to join a union. Is that not correct?
Mr McLean: I would think that people would join a union because they are dissatisfied with the treatment they're receiving.
Mr Hope: So they're looking for fairness and justice with joining a union?
Mr McLean: Yes, That's fine. They're probably looking for fair and just treatment.
Mr Hope: I'm looking at what you've put here. I'm on agriculture; I know Pat wants to get at some of the stuff. I've been talking to a number dealing with replacement workers, the labour relations and the whole question. Even Eaton's is a prime example where they went for months without a collective agreement. The workers never went on strike and there was a fair and balanced collective agreement that was put in place.
When I'm reading your presentation, I reflect back on my own community and the conversations I'm having, because I know about the $1.4 million, why there's not investment there. It is because a lot of them are financially hurt and it's not because of wages; it's because of the economic environment and what's happening around free trade and other areas, and the energy cost is one.
Mr McLean: There's no doubt that there is probably much capital investment that has been deferred, perhaps even employment that's been deferred, because of the current economy. The specific question that was asked, though, was, "As a result of Bill 40 being introduced for public debate, have you deferred investment?" The answer was yes to the tune of $1.4 million. That's all I can report to the committee.
Mr Hayes: Thank you for coming and making your presentation. There's a comment that you made on page 5, just the statement there, "What about those potential investors who are significantly smaller than a Ford or a General Motors or a Chrysler?" You're talking about the bigger corporations maybe being better off than the smaller operations, and I'm sure that in some cases --
Mr McLean: I'm not talking financially better off.
Mr Hayes: You're saying because they're already organized and it wouldn't create a problem. This is what you're saying.
Mr McLean: What I'm saying is they're probably less sensitive to this legislation than people who are making investment decisions that are not unionized now and are smaller.
Mr Hayes: Do you really feel that workers, even workers that are not organized now, should take lower wages, that they shouldn't get decent wages, decent working conditions and benefits? This is what we're talking about, giving workers a chance for those particular items, and when you start saying, "It's okay for the big guy but not for the smaller one," but --
Mr McLean: I'm not saying it's okay.
Mr Hayes: -- the workers are no different at Ford than workers outside, for example, in a smaller place.
Mr McLean: Sure. All I'm saying with this is that the larger companies are probably less sensitive because they're already ingrained with what this legislation is putting forward, what the changes to the legislation are putting forward. As for whether they should endure a lower standard of living or lower wages, I think the primary thing is for us to get employment and compete globally. That's the primary goal. Nobody should be living under the poverty line, but I think there's a big difference between the average wage rate in Chatham and the poverty line.
There is some room to move. I think it should boil down to competition and retaining the work or getting the work, and that's the premise of this presentation. It really gets down to, is Bill 40 going to do anything to help us restimulate the Ontario economy and allow us to generate some capital to pay down the provincial debt or not?
I guess the best we could possibly get out of Bill 40 is, "It's not going to hurt us." We don't need, "It's not going to hurt us" legislation now, we need legislation that's going to help us.
Mr Hayes: I think the question was asked earlier. I think it was to another group that Randy asked the question: We talk about being competitive --
Mr McLean: Yes.
Mr Hayes: -- and yet the chambers of commerce across this province have this big campaign going on to fight this particular piece of legislation. I'm wondering why you people didn't fight strong and hard against the free trade, against the high interest rates and against the GST and some of those other things, the inflated Canadian dollar, that have really caused us to lose a lot of jobs in this province, in this country for that matter?
Mr McLean: As for our position on the free trade agreement, I guess we should talk about the Canada-US free trade agreement. Overall, there is great benefit to opening up your market with 260 million people or 360 million, as it comes with the North American free trade agreement. Absolutely.
Mr Offer: I'd like to ask a question about a response that you gave to Mr Hayes, and it was in the area of you don't know that Bill 40 isn't going to hurt you.
It's interesting that we're hearing a number of people come in talking about the substantive aspects of the legislation, and also talking about what they think the bill is going to do. On a couple of occasions, the private sector and some groups there have undertaken an economic analysis which has been criticized by the government at every possible occasion, but it has not yet, on the other hand, come up with their own analysis to refute the findings one way or the other.
You said that you need a true consultation process that works. We're here in this committee right now. This bill has not gone, the Premier has not sent this bill out to the committee which he formed the day after this bill was introduced. Do you very much believe that there is the possibility of conducting an economic impact statement, should it be done, and should it be done prior to this legislation coming into force?
Mr McLean: As for this piece of legislation, of course there should be an economic impact statement that's commissioned by the government. I have no idea how you would put forward a bill of this magnitude which, in our opinion, shifts the balance of power in a very delicate relationship, without looking at what the impact may be.
If we're going to shut down large plants and put thousands of people out of work and attempt to re-employ them with several other employers that are going to employ hundreds at a time, I think we'd better go out and ask those potential investors whether they are interested in coming to Ontario, and if so, will this impact on their decision. I don't know whether that's been done. I'm pretty sure it has not been done by the government. At least, I've never seen a report on it.
We've tried to present some local statistics -- I'm sure the Ontario chamber is presenting more global statistics -- but really it doesn't get down to something as narrow in scope as Bill 40 and the amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. It really gets down to the economic welfare of this province and how are we going to continue to compete in a global marketplace.
I heard the previous presenter talk about the Caterpillar plant and how they should have justified why they left Canada. The basic employer-employee bond is really, "I will compensate you for some work that you do." At the end of the day, when the compensation is completed, if that worker refuses to supply the services, then why should that employer be encumbered by that decision? Why should they not be able to carry on their business in the way they choose even if the people who work there are not satisfied with the employer's conditions?
1600
Mr Phillips: I thank the chamber for its presentation. I have to tell you I'm frustrated, as I think you must be, because I think the die is cast on this. I happen to think it's going to have a fairly significant, negative impact on the economy. We already have record unemployment rates, record plant closures, and the government's made its mind up and it's going to proceed with it. We are like two solitudes without any opportunity to bridge the gap. I just get frustrated with that, as I think you will be.
My question, though, is that one thing that would be helpful to the committee would be specific businesses. That's what's been lacking in this debate, I think. There are very few specific businesses that will step forward and say, "If this goes forward, we won't do this or we won't do that." I think I understand why that is the case, but could you perhaps explain for myself why that is the case, or maybe you've got examples of specific businesses.
Mr McLean: In the first addendum to the presentation are some testimonials from Chatham business people who talk about their feelings regarding Bill 40, and they are employers in town who are small by any standards, but they are making investment decisions based on what Bill 40 is proposing. I think that is complemented by the 29 responses and the 15 negative responses about investment that we've received, and they're still coming in. We will make copies available both to our MPP, Randy Hope, and also to the clerk of this committee.
Mr Phillips: I haven't seen the specifics. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you to the Chatham and District Chamber of Commerce. You have made an important contribution to this process. We are pleased you were able to come here to Windsor. You should know that there were literally hundreds, well in excess of 1,000 people, who sought to appear during these hearings and not all of them could be accommodated. We have tried to make as representative a selection as possible and we're pleased that you were able to come.
Mr McLean: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and I hope that Mr Phillips is wrong. I hope that we have an opportunity to voice our views and that they will be heard.
Mr Phillips: They're heard; I'm just not sure we'll see change.
The Chair: We trust you'll keep in touch. You should know, and other persons participating, that Hansard transcripts of your presentation or any others are available to you by writing or calling your MPP's office or the clerk of the resources development committee. Those are free of charge, of course.
GREATER WINDSOR AND ESSEX COUNTY HOTEL AND MOTEL ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next participant is the Greater Windsor and Essex County Hotel and Motel Association. Gentlemen, please seat yourselves, tell us your names and your titles, if any, with the association. We've got your written submission. That's been distributed and will form an exhibit. Tell us what you will.
Mr Zarco Vucinic: My name is Zarco Vucinic. I'm president of Duffy's Tavern Amherstburg Ltd in Amherstburg. I am in business for the last 33 years. I employ between 40 and 50 people who are part-time mostly.
Mr Charles Kobryn: My name is Charlie Kobryn. I'm a tavern owner in Windsor. I've been in business for 10 years. I employ about 12 people at my establishment.
The Chair: You can tell us the name of your place, if you want. We're here overnight.
Mr Kobryn: Are you? Okay.
Ms Murdock: No, no. We're going to my brother's bar.
Mr Kobryn: The name of my establishment is Boomers Border Bar. It's on the bottom of the sheet. We call it an urban entertainment lounge.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr Kobryn: Our presentation today is on behalf of the Greater Windsor and Essex County Hotel and Motel Association. We are a hospitality trade association with 75 members which includes taverns, lounges, restaurants and accommodation properties.
We in the Windsor and Essex county area are familiar with unions in large business, which probably works fairly well with employee, management and owners. We, as small business, feel the proposed revision to the labour act should be to provide meaningful ways to help labour and management to work out their differences, and not to enhance the role of unions in our society and to give the organized union movement new areas for membership.
We, as small businesses, are fearful that our costs will skyrocket. This past 18 months has taken its toll with the GST, employer health tax, higher land and business tax, minimum wage increase, especially the student wage, and higher product cost. We feel control over our businesses will shrink, and if a strike occurs we are closed. A closure in the hospitality industry of any sort could mean the end.
It is our belief that any legislation must be for the good of all parties involved. We believe there should be better access of information for both employees and small employers in assisting them to deal with labour issues and the labour act. We recommend that the proposed legislation be withdrawn and bring in changes necessary to get Windsor and Essex county working again.
The Chair: Thank you. We've got time for questions and some exchanges.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. We've had some presentations throughout our hearings from others involved in the hospitality industry where there is a degree of unionization, and that hasn't been the issue, I think, as far as they are concerned. What has been the issue is that if people do wish to join or form a union, certainly they should be given the right to do so, but they should have a free choice, clearly, without any coercion or intimidation.
I guess, as an opening, it is whether you agree with that, and the reason I ask the question, just to carry on if I might, is that it seems that as a small business you're fearful of unionization itself. What we're hearing is that people are coming and saying: "Listen, if people want to organize, that's their choice. Let them be able to do so if they wish, free from any intimidation from any side." I'd like to get your thoughts on that.
Mr Kobryn: Just as long as it's fair and they understand both sides, of being in a union and not being in a union. Just as long as, I guess, both sides can present themselves properly. Of course, myself being non-union, I guess I would say I treat my employees pretty good. I can't say that all owners of establishments in our industry would or wouldn't. I guess it would be up to them and their employees, just as long as both of them can express themselves and they can decide on a free basis where they aren't pressured one way or the other.
Mr Offer: It's interesting; I think that there are a lot of people who would say that is a response that is totally reasonable, that the issue here is not whether unionization is good or bad, whether it should be increased or decreased, but rather, if there is to be a drive, let the men and women in the workplace make up their mind and give them the opportunity. It seems that certainly is exactly what you've said.
Mr Kobryn: Sure. One problem in the hospitality business is the part-time people, and it will be important for them to get all the proper issues and the proper information about joining unions or not joining.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate your presentation. There is the line in there, "We, as small businesses, are fearful that our costs will skyrocket." Would the result be that they would skyrocket because you would be required to pay unfairly high wages, or why would they skyrocket? I think someone who may be advocating the bill would say, "Well, if you're not paying fair wages to your employees, then they should have some increased access to unionization."
1610
Mr Kobryn: I guess one way they would skyrocket is -- I'm just saying an instance because I'm dealing in this industry -- if we had a cook, his job would be basically to cook, and I think if he were a union member, the union would say, "You cook." Now say I wanted him to go and put a couple of chairs out, to straighten some tables around in the dining room, he might tell me: "I'm sorry, I'm just cooking. You'll have to get somebody else."
In the afternoon between 3 and 4, when obviously he's not cooking that much, I would have to hire somebody else to maybe straighten my dining room around, or maybe change a lightbulb in the kitchen, or maybe change the draft beer kegs, or maybe carry a couple of cases of beer to the bartender, or maybe go through the wine to see if we're short of any wine for tonight's dinners, and such. In the hospitality business, there's so many different sources of jobs that, as owners, we feel a lot of our employees can do many jobs, and maybe if there was a union, we would have to hire more people to do these different jobs.
Mr Phillips: So it isn't the remuneration, the salary or the hourly rate that necessarily would go up; it's your flexibility to manage your business.
Mr Kobryn: Also, if we do get into a union situation, we would probably have to have somebody to basically run between the management and the union in our place of work.
The Chair: Mr Jackson?
Mr Jackson: I have no questions.
Mr Dadamo: I may have missed it, I'm sorry. What kind of relationship do you feel that you have with the employees now?
Mr Vucinic: My employees are the same as my family. I associate with them. I joke with them. I play with them. I bowl with them. We're always together. I have to say this, that in 32 years I've fired two people, and that was for stealing or doing something that wasn't proper.
Mr Dadamo: How many employees do you have, by the way?
Mr Vucinic: Between 40 and 50. It depends on the season. This year we have much less than last year.
Mr Dadamo: If they chose to, would you deny them participation in starting a union?
Mr Vucinic: If they have a reason, I couldn't deny them. Let them have it.
Mr Dadamo: I guess we have Charles's point of view on what frightens him about Bill 40. What sort of offsets for you?
Mr Vucinic: That's the same thing with me, maybe more in my operation than in Charles's because I would have to have somebody who would represent the people in motels, somebody in the tavern. As I say many times to them, you know when we have an affair to serve the public, everybody has to be there to serve them properly, because if you don't drink a glass of beer today, you won't drink it tomorrow, or if you don't rent the room today, you won't rent it tomorrow. So everybody knows that and everybody cooperates. We never have no problem, so far.
Mr Dadamo: The both of you seem to have good, strong, nice relationships with your employees, and that's nice.
Mr Vucinic: That's the only way.
Mr Dadamo: Okay, that's fine, but that's not the way it is throughout the land and throughout the province of Ontario. If that's the way it was, we wouldn't have to strengthen the laws that we have now that have not changed in the last 15 or 20 years. I applaud you for the work that you do with your employees in getting along, but we need to make some changes. I hope you appreciate that.
Mr Kobryn: I think that's what we have in our proposal, that we feel there should be some changes, but changes that would be fair for everybody and not giving one person more power than the other person.
Ms Murdock: I lived in Windsor for six and a half years while I attended Windsor doing commerce and law, and put myself through school basically working in a bar part-time. I was a part-time employee, and my brother subsequently bought that bar, which is the Bridge Tavern on University Avenue.
Mr Kobryn: That's a good one. You guys will like that one.
Ms Murdock: It was work actually that I enjoyed. I had never done it before, but it was work that I actually enjoyed quite a lot. Part of the reason I think we did -- again, a small establishment; we only had about four full-timers and then a whole raft of part-timers to cover the odd hours -- was because the three owners would sit us down on off-hours just to discuss what kinds of things we thought would improve the business.
I remember one time we even got started talking about pricing. This would have been in the 1980s. The government had just increased the beer prices so of course we had to discuss how much we were going to increase the beer, whether or not draft was going to 95 cents or something, because then that would mean that our tips were severely affected, because usually people give you the balance of the bill.
I mean we understand all of that kind of thing, but what I'm trying to say is that when we did this, we had input into the operation. The final decision rested with management of course, but it listened to our views, and implemented many of the ideas. I'm wondering, given your good relationship with your staff, if that's how you operate yourselves, both of you.
Mr Kobryn: Yes, especially my full-time employees, because they have a better look over the operation rather than the part-time. Out of my 12 people, I guess four of my employees are full-time. I respect their judgement, because they're there between 35 and 40 hours a week, so the full-time employees more than the part-time.
Mr Vucinic: I have about 40 on a full-time basis, but in the summertime, they will work more because we are busier. In the wintertime, they take more off. If they go for a vacation, they'll take a month off and somebody is going to be substituting for them and so on. They cooperate very well so there's no --
Ms Murdock: I know that you said in response to an earlier question that they're happy generally, and I think a previous presenter mentioned -- and I noticed, Mr Vucinic, that you have been sitting here all afternoon -- that happy employees generally are productive employees, and also if they're happy and contented with their workplace, they don't go off and try to form a union. Would you agree with that?
Mr Vucinic: What could I do? My operation is an open book. I'll tell you why. For example, 25 years ago, I used to sell a steak for $3.25 when an employee of Allied Chemicals, which is the main industry in the town of Amherstburg, had $3.25 an hour. Today, the worker at Allied Chemicals has $25 an hour. I still sell steak for $12.50. How do you like that?
Our employees know what's going on. As soon as they don't get the right price or we increase just maybe because of the taxes, right away they're complaining. I just tell them, "See what I do," and they understand that, but they never complain about the pay. I had only one girl who asked me for more money as a receptionist because I put the load on her to run the motel. But then she asked Journey's End to work for them and they offered her less than I paid her, and she would have to travel all the way to Windsor, so she calmed down then.
Ms Murdock: In either of your organizations, has there ever been any indication that they wanted to join a union or made a move to organize? With these amendments, would you expect that to change?
Mr Vucinic: I don't think it would change their minds, but I don't know.
Mr Kobryn: I really couldn't speak for my staff. As long as they have the proper knowledge of what a union is and how it would affect the workplace, for and against, I guess it would be something that they would have to decide on.
Mr Vucinic: If I may say just this, there are certain rules when you have a union in your place, and I don't think my people would go for those rules. They can have a cigarette when they want to, they can sit down and have a coffee when they want to, but when it's work, they work. I don't eat when I'm supposed to; I eat when I have a chance. So they do the same thing.
1620
Ms Murdock: I remember the business well, and I want to thank you very much for the time you've taken to come down and do this.
Mr Kobryn: Just one other point that I'd like to say is that most of our employees are on minimum wage, but probably around 75% of them are also on tips. So their wages will vary by the time of the year, the day of the week, that kind of thing. Their wages do go up and down all the time, so that's something else to look at too.
The Chair: Gentlemen, thank you for appearing here today on behalf of the Windsor-Essex county hotel and motel association. Mr Kobryn and Mr Vucinic, you have made a valuable contribution. I trust that your lobbying efforts will extend beyond this into areas, for instance, like the opportunity to buy beer and spirits at wholesale prices, so that you can be competitive, especially with cross-border taverns; the opportunity, for instance, to set your own pricing without inappropriate restrictions, so that once again you can be competitive. I encourage you to do that, and I trust that you will.
Thank you very much. Good luck in your businesses, be it Boomers Border Bar or Duffy's Tavern and motel. As Chair, it would probably be inappropriate for me to go to either of those places, but I'm sure the committee will make every effort to visit them at length.
Mr Vucinic: Let us know when you come down.
COLASANTI FARMS LTD
The Chair: The next participants are from Colasanti Farms. Gentlemen, please seat yourselves and tell us your names and titles, if any. We've got your written submission and that's part of the record; it's an exhibit now. Tell us what you will. Please leave some time for questions.
Mr Joe Colasanti: I'm Joe Colasanti, the president of Colasanti Farms Ltd. We have a greenhouse operation, a tourist attraction. We have a restaurant. We sell wicker hard goods and the whole works, animals, probably what you call entertainment farming.
This is my son, Terry, and we're here today specifically to give our views and who's responsible for these new labour laws. I don't know about you, but reading them over, I don't see one thing in here that says an employee is going to have better working conditions, better air-conditioning, better hours or better anything. All it says to me is that someone up on top is going to be able to run the country, okay?
I personally feel that we do need unions in this country. I'm not trying to say we have to get rid of unions. There are probably still employers who need unions to keep an eye on what's going on, but as far as I'm concerned, if this new legislation goes through, I think you're going to see, as we've got in the brief, a lot of companies decide to close up and quit fighting, because this militancy that we're going into with this new labour reform law, I think is going to hurt a lot of people. Again I'm not here to say we don't want unions. There are places that need them and there are places that can do without. But I think we're going a little bit too far. Terry wants to go.
Mr Terry Colasanti: I'm Terry Colasanti. The brief that we've written is our interpretation of Bill 40 and how we think businesses like ours would react to it. It's based on the information that we've received so far, whether our information that we've received is correct or whether we've interpreted it wrong ourselves. I offer no apologies for that, but it's based on our honest understanding of what we've read. Would you like me to read the brief?
The Chair: You can read all of it or a part of it, or highlight it, as you wish. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Terry Colasanti: The Colasanti family operates a fourth-generation company. All four generations are alive and still contributing to our success. We are a hardworking, determined family. Even during this recession, the dedication of our family and employees has enabled us to expand.
Colasanti exports to the United States are still growing. We were about to undertake a 15-year capital investment. Bill 40 will jeopardize our ability to produce and deliver on time. Bill 40 will have a destructive effect on our cash flow.
Colasanti Farms and several other horticultural farms are going to protect their American export business. The only method of protection -- we're scared because of how we've interpreted Bill 40, and it's an honest approach I'm trying to give you now -- is to buy American land, to build American greenhouses and to hire American workers. I know how my grandfather felt when he was struggling with the decision to leave Italy.
I would also like to make a comment on student wages. As any NDP politician knows, it's a cruel, competitive world. Any school teacher will tell you how tough his or her job is. All teenagers require training and orientation to the working world. I hope I have this right, but Bob White told University of Windsor students that Canada does not have to be competitive, and I don't think that any of us actually believe that.
Many kids entering the job market have severe motivational problems, and these are some of the common problems we face on a daily basis: "I wanted a job but I didn't know I had to work." "How many pieces of chicken are in a six-piece dinner?" We have had attempts to sell drugs at work. We have kids calling in sick, telling their parents that they're coming to work and then they don't show up at all. The list is really endless, and these are all good kids.
Mr Joe Colasanti: I just want to add to that. Just recently we were told that the minimum wage for students is going up to $5.90 an hour. I have a really strong fear of what's going to happen when this does happen. You're talking $5.90 for students and $6.30 for adults. Our company does not have a problem with -- had the adult minimum wage gone up and left the student wage -- it should have been at $4.50 an hour.
Now you may say we're crazy, but how many of you people own your own businesses, and have you ever had to work a full day with 30 students and see the things that go on, the things that happen? They're all good kids; they're not stupid. It's just that they haven't had the age under their belt to use some common sense. I would rather have seen the adult wage go up higher and the student wage stay where it should have been, at $4.50.
What's going to happen is employers will cut back on hiring students, okay? You say, "Okay, that's fine, they're going to hire an adult," but the student gets his teaching at school and he gets some stuff taught to him at home.
For example, the father says, "Hey, I want you out there at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning to cut the grass." So at 9 o'clock the kid's still in bed. He says, "Oh come on, Dad, let me sleep in a half-hour." Fine, so he sleeps a half-hour, but if that kid had a chance to have a job, he would say: "Look, Dad, get me out of bed. I've got to be at work at 8 tomorrow morning or I'm going to have my ass kicked." Okay? So I'm afraid these students are going to lose the opportunity to learn what responsibility is all about.
We're not sitting here bashing one side or the other. We're trying to be fair, and I think with the students they put the raise of pay in the wrong spot. That's our personal opinion, the Colasantis. Go ahead.
Mr Terry Colasanti: Another question we have about Bill 40 -- and again it's based on information that we've received on it and on our interpretation -- is we don't expect any adults to live on $6.35 an hour. It's not a fair wage by any means. We would support an issue of pensions, for companies to give mandatory pensions to people, and we would support dental and prescription plans. These are issues that we think the NDP government would be successful at addressing and putting into place without having to pass what we call pro-union legislation, not pro-labour legislation. That's an honest interpretation we have.
1630
Mr Joe Colasanti: We've got one here. Gordon Wilson made a comment: "Businesses which do not like the new labour reform should get out of Ontario." I think that's really great for a -- I don't know; whatever he is -- to come out and tell the business people in Ontario.
I don't know why guys like Bob White think they can use their militancy to get after the employer. If we, as employers, are going to be beat over the head by these new labour reform laws, who the heck's going to go out and spend the money and build the buildings and add on to the buildings and hire more help? We just hired two new cooks last week, and we're going to be hiring four or five new people to work in our snack bar. We're just putting up a $10,000 building. We're going to keep adding; we're not going backwards. But if this thing goes through, we're going to be afraid to spend the money, because you're going to be in fear. Every morning you get out of bed and wonder, "What are they going to do to us today?"
These guys in the back think it's really funny. I don't see any business people back here, only union fellows. They think it's really smart and really funny, but you get rid of the people who've got the guts to get out and do the pushing and the driving and the building, and you won't have anything left in this country. You wonder why Windsor's lost half its factories; there's part of the reason. We've got a rotten attitude in this area, and we need some straightening up. If you let this thing go through, I'm telling you -- we're not here to threaten. We're just telling you how we feel.
Mr Terry Colasanti: We're scared. We're honestly scared.
In our business we make some trips to Europe. The minimum greenhouse wage in Holland is $17 per hour; their take-home pay is $7 per hour. Gasoline prices are double and living expenses are much higher. At $17 an hour, eating meat is considered a luxury in a country that we call civilized; it's a luxury, when you go to these people's homes and visit with them. I don't particularly want to live like a European, based on what I've seen, how people live. Even at these wages, the government consumes so much of their money. There's still people living on the streets, and a lot of people living on the streets, because we've seen it. It scares the hell out of us.
Mr Hayes: Mr Colasanti, Terry and Joe, I'd like to really compliment you on what you have done with your businesses. I've been there several times. Especially your apple cider and your fresh doughnuts.
Mr Joe Colasanti: Thank you. I should have brought some.
Mr Hayes: You are considered as a farmer out there right now or a farm operation, are you not?
Mr Terry Colasanti: That's a good question. We've got that debate going right now with the Ministry of Labour. Three weeks ago we were split into different categories, and a week ago it was reversed, so it's in debate right now. We just want to know, we just want to abide by the rules; please let us know what category we're in.
Mr Hayes: I don't know that for sure, but you are involved in the horticulture industry, though.
Mr Terry Colasanti: Yes.
Mr Hayes: That falls within agriculture. You are aware that the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Minister of Labour have been working together; put the task force together, as a matter of fact. Actually, there was a worker representative and a representative from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and others on this particular committee. They did make some recommendations to the government. One suggestion, of course, was to deal with the agricultural industry separately, and it appears there's the possibility of that coming through.
One of the recommendations also was that there would be a prohibition of the right to strike or lockout, substituting a dispute-resolution process that would emphasize a preference for negotiated settlements between parties, for example. There were some recommendations, and it certainly appears that some of these will be accepted. You would not be affected by all of this piece of legislation, is what I'm saying to you.
Mr Joe Colasanti: That's fine, but I think we're speaking on behalf of more than just agriculture, because we do have a retail business as well. We have a restaurant now. We're speaking on not just farming. We're not here just to say, "We, as farmers, want to be excluded," or whatever. We're mainly concerned about what will happen to any business if this goes through.
Mr Hayes: I'm sure. On the comments about the two labour leaders, I would say that for them to make that statement and just that statement -- I'm sure there must have been more to that particular statement if we read the whole thing. You talk about being competitive, that Bob White says we don't have to be competitive. What he's probably saying is that to be competitive, you don't have to cut people's wages or have people work under worsened working conditions, for example.
You know what's happened to the farmers for many years: "Be competitive, be more productive and be more efficient." Of course the banks gave them lots of money, they went out and bought more land and more equipment, and you know what happened. The interest rates went up and the prices went down. That stuff has a greater effect than what this bill would have on you or any other business in this province.
Mr Hope: Joe and Terry, it's been a family business for four generations. You ought to be commended for that. It's not too often you see four generations go through, especially in the horticultural sector. Coming from Chatham, I'm very familiar with your facility, because it's my wife's favourite spot to get plants.
In your comments you focused on the minimum wage, and you talked about what you knew to the best of your ability. I take it that it's through reading newspapers and stuff like that.
Mr Joe Colasanti: Yes, that's where we get it.
Mr Hope: I want to ask you questions dealing specifically with your workplace and your workers. Do you thrive on cooperation with your workers, talking about what's going on? Because you work in a atmosphere dealing more with the general public. Isn't that one of your major goals, to have good labour rapport? What is the current status? Do you have good labour relations?
Mr Terry Colasanti: We have good labour relations. We have weekly meetings with departments. We encourage and promote daily input of suggestions on how we can improve working conditions.
Mr Hope: From all those meetings and the conversations you're having with your employees -- you can sense if you're getting people mad at you; I guess everybody can. Do you feel over 50% of your workforce or even 20% of your workforce is mad at you, as employers?
Mr Joe Colasanti: Yes, there's probably a few in there that no matter what you did, you couldn't satisfy them. Three, four.
Mr Terry Colasanti: Maybe 5% of the people who work for us might be angry with us at any time.
Mr Joe Colasanti: I want to throw a comment in here, and I know some people are going to think I'm crazy. We still haven't got it in writing, but we've been paying our employees, the greenhouse workers, the farm workers, all of them, five paid holidays, on our own. We thought: "We'd like to make Colasanti's a nice place to work. Let's give the five paid holidays." We had an employee who works on the till come in one day and say: "Hey, you're supposed to pay me eight paid holidays. The labour law says so." We checked it out and it still hasn't been cleared yet, but we're paying eight paid holidays. We're paying everybody eight paid holidays. The ones who work in the soil, in the plants, do not go under that legislation, but we're doing it.
1640
But now we've got an attitude problem. We have some employees who are against that and some who are for it; more against. They're having their problems among themselves: "Why the heck did you go and do this to us?" Because, in turn, we've got a few rights left -- not very many -- but we used to give them free coffee and doughnuts for the first coffee break. When a holiday came up, if the holiday was on Monday and the person said, "I've got to go up north. Do you guys mind if we come back on Wednesday?" they came back on Wednesday and still got their holiday pay. We've got people who've been working less than two years who are getting four and five weeks' vacation. We thought we would try and make it a family business. Now this attitude has come in and I don't know how to talk to some people any more.
Mr Terry Colasanti: What he's saying is that we said: "Eight holidays? We didn't know it was eight. We apologize. We're going to go eight holidays." Then we talked to the labour board and they said, "You don't have to pay any." It's irrelevant whether we have to or not. We want to do it because we want to work with everybody. Then people come to us and say, "See, we won, we beat you."
Mr Joe Colasanti: Where the hell does that attitude come from?
Mr Terry Colasanti: "That's not the relationship we want to have with you. That's not how we want things to work. We don't want you to beat us and we don't want to beat you. We want to work together. We want to bring in more customers. We want to bring Americans into Canada to spend their money. How can we do that? Let's not worry about who's going to beat who."
Mr Joe Colasanti: We take the attitude that we can't do the place on our own. We need the people who are working for us. Without them we can't survive, and without us they can't survive. We need each other, and we thought we had that working condition until a few weeks ago.
The Chair: Mr Offer and Mr Phillips want to ask you questions.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. You've brought forward some very important points which I hope to address in the time allotted. The first deals with your type of business. Apparently it's a variety of things that you provide, some of which may be under this legislation and some of which may not, but if I heard you correctly, you've asked for that clarification from the ministry and haven't received any information.
Mr Joe Colasanti: They won't give it to us in writing.
Mr Terry Colasanti: It's coming, but it's in negotiation, from what I understand. We expect to receive it soon, but it has been a few weeks.
Mr Offer: The second point I want to bring forward is a point Mr Hayes brought up: the agricultural aspect, the agricultural and horticultural nature of the business, no matter where you're going.
The difficulty we have in the legislation is that if there is going to be any change dealing with agricultural or horticultural operations, it's going to be done by regulation. What that means is that the Minister of Labour will decide what is to be done; it will be outside the legislative process, without any opportunity for individuals such as yourselves to comment directly on what it means to them in their operation. I would like to get your comment whether changes in the field of agriculture, in any way, should be made without having the opportunity such as you have today to comment.
Mr Joe Colasanti: I'm going to make a comment about the Minister of Labour, Bob Mackenzie. I drove 200 miles, or however far it is from here to Hamilton, to listen to him speak at a breakfast meeting one morning. There were over 200 farmers in that room; greenhouse growers, farmers, whatever. You talk about listening -- and I hope you people are listening today; I hope we're not just up here wasting our time and your time.
This man got up and said, "I'm going to speak for 10 minutes, I'm going to take two questions and I'm leaving," and that's exactly what he did. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts he went back to Toronto and said to his superiors, "I went out to the country and I asked for questions and there were only a couple of people in the crowd who said anything." That's exactly what he did, God help me. He took two questions. The hands were up but they had to go down because he picked up his books and he left.
Mr Terry Colasanti: That's what scares us.
Mr Joe Colasanti: We're talking from personal experience. It scares the hell out of us. It's not a democratic country any more, if this goes through.
Mr Terry Colasanti: Before you change legislation, you have to know the financial impact. You have to know what's going to happen. You've got to ask business; you've got to ask labour. It has to be a two-way event. Not two questions and "Thank you, have a nice day."
Mr Offer: Mr Phillips has a question, but I want to thank you very much for that response. I think that brings it right home to the people who are running businesses who want to share their concerns with respect to this legislation -- not necessarily opposed to it, but want to share concerns about it.
Mr Joe Colasanti: Yes, we want to be heard. We don't just want to make a presentation and: "Thanks a lot. That was really nice. We'll see you again."
Mr Phillips: I appreciate very much your presentation. I used to be, in the old days, a business person like yourself. I started up two companies and had a payroll probably of 200 people. I don't think many people understand that, at least in my business, periodically the banking company would say: "We want more collateral from you. We want a bigger mortgage on your house." So my employees would head home and I'd be down at the bank putting a bigger mortgage on my house to meet the payroll.
This is the real world. You are the real world. In many respects, if we look at the future of Canada, it depends on families like yourselves figuring out an opportunity and then taking some risk. I don't want to know about your personal finances, but I'll bet the Colasanti family probably has a lot at stake in this thing.
Mr Joe Colasanti: Yes.
Mr Phillips: This is the real world. Your employees can go home and you will have to -- as I say, if you take a mortgage out to build the new whatever you're going to build, you're going to have to pay for that mortgage. I very much appreciate it. I'm repeating myself, but if we look ahead at who's going to create the jobs in this province and this country, it'll be the Colasanti groups that will.
In your brief you suggested that you are actually considering at least getting a beachhead in the US. Is that real? Would your family, your corporation, whatever it is, actually consider opening something in the US and is that a viable proposition for replacing some of the work you do here?
Mr Terry Colasanti: We would not leave Canada, but we are building a solid export business. Our American customers would not be very forgiving if we could not deliver, if something prevented the delivery of our product. They would not forgive us, they would not give us a second chance. Is it viable? Yes, it is. It is viable. It would be the southern United States and it would strictly be a production facility, not retail or any other.
Mr Joe Colasanti: We have a fellow not too far from us who has gone to New Mexico, looked at greenhouses in New Mexico to do his production -- you'll see in the brief there -- someone who last year hired 30 or 40 students again hired six or whatever.
We still think we live in the best country in the world. We don't want to leave. We're not just saying this to make it sound like, "If you don't give me this I'll do that." No, we're sincere in what we're talking about. We employ 95 full- and part-time people. Our payroll is $800,000. Next year it will probably be $1 million. We're going forward. Our turnover is $3 million a year and it's climbing. Our attendance this year, the first six months, was 300,000 people, 50,000 more than last year, and it's getting higher and higher. We're bringing people in from all over the country. We like what we're doing. We like our country. But we still want to have something to say about our business.
1650
Mr Tilson: The concern I have, as I sit and listen to you speak, is that if the Colasantis and others like you leave or go under for any number of reasons for which you are placing a great deal of concern with respect to this particular piece of legislation, we're all going to be in very deep trouble, I'm certain if this legislation carries, and probably it substantially will. They have the majority. They can do as they like. The union leaders of course are probably going to claim a lot of credit as well for influencing the three Bobs. The concern I have, and the issue you're talking about, is what about the workers who really don't have that much influence as far as what's happening? I think the message I've appreciated the most from you is that of attitude.
Mr Joe Colasanti: That's our most serious problem, the attitude. "I don't give a damn."
Mr Tilson: The "us" and "them": The very simple examples that you're giving seem to be widening, even down to the fact that you've got to negotiate with the Minister of Labour to get some information. There is the whole "us" and "them" attitude, as opposed to trying to solve all the bankruptcies, the unemployment and the layoffs. Unemployment, currently, nationally I think is 11.6%. I don't know what it is here in Windsor.
Mr Joe Colasanti: Twelve per cent, I think; something like that.
Mr Tilson: That's certainly higher than it is nationally, and it is certainly higher than it is in Toronto. This labour bill seems to be their main economic platform to solve all these concerns. This seems to be their main concern.
Mr Joe Colasanti: It's not going to solve anything.
Mr Tilson: That's the message I concur with. There doesn't seem to be any specific economic plan to help the general economy to create jobs, to avoid bankruptcies, to avoid the moving of companies to the United States and other such places, other provinces. I certainly appreciate your coming to this committee and giving us your thoughts, because I think you've put your finger on the very issue, and that is the attitude between management and union. By this bill it will broaden substantially.
Mr Joe Colasanti: I probably would have felt better had there been at least one or two things that said the employees would get better pension plans, but there's nothing. All this says is union, union, union, right down from top to bottom. That's what really bothers me. If this goes through, we just have -- you get up in the morning and wonder who is going to be standing at the gate, blocking it off tomorrow morning. We do have a place for unions, but we have to work together.
There's a news article someplace that talks about militancy. Bob White is going to push his militancy to run this country. He's going to kill us. It scares the hell out of me, whether you guys want to believe it or what; it scares the hell out of me.
Then I listen to Bob Mackenzie talk. It's like the Gestapo, "I'm going to do this, that, and I'm leaving." Why did you waste our time? I drove 200 miles for nothing. I could have stayed home and accomplished something. We're looking at what Russia just got out of. I'm talking from the heart. Those are my feelings.
The Chair: Thank you to Messrs Colasanti, father and son. We appreciate you coming here this afternoon and sharing your views with us. You've obviously had the attention of the committee. You provoked questions and responses from all members of the committee and you've made a valuable contribution.
Mr Joe Colasanti: We appreciate the opportunity to be here.
Mr Ferguson: Mr Chair, I don't mind being criticized or hearing anybody being criticized, but it bothers me when they're not here to at least explain. For the information of the delegation, the minister was invited to that meeting on very short notice. He explained to the organizers of that meeting that it was an extremely bad day already, but that he would certainly try to fit it in --
Mr Tilson: You got another guy with a bad day.
Mr Ferguson: After fitting it in -- please, Mr Tilson, bear with me. You might learn something here, David.
After attending the meeting, it was the organizer of the event who suggested that would be appropriate for Mr Mackenzie to give a 10-minute talk and take a couple of questions. Because of the timing and the normal time lines that group functions under for a breakfast meeting -- it was a breakfast meeting before most people started their workday -- the organizer of the event told the minister that there would be time for two questions. That's how that shook down. It wasn't the minister who decided the arrangements and put the event together. He was there on invitation only and he was working within the guidelines suggested to him.
Mr Joe Colasanti: I'd just like to add to that. His speech was a speech that said, "We're going to do this and we're going to do that and we're going to do the other thing." It didn't refer to anything about, "What would you guys like us to do?" So we'll make it even.
Mr Ferguson: I think his speech announced that the task force on agriculture would be formed to examine all the issues that are out in the community.
Mr Offer: I'm a little concerned about this last little bit of exchange. I think what we have is individuals who have come before this committee and they want to share with us what their position is, what their concerns are and the reasons why. I think they've done that very effectively. It doesn't matter to me how you transport some notes between your side and the ministry. These individuals, these people, have come forward and spoken about what this bill means to them. The very least one can do is to listen long and hard about the feeling they've brought to this committee, and I thank you very much for doing it.
Mr Tilson: I think we have just seen an example of what these people are trying to say about their frustrations in dealing with the whole process. We've just seen Mr Ferguson come forward, "You're going to do it our way or you're not going to do it."
Mr Joe Colasanti: Exactly, and I'll tell you --
Mr Tilson: That's exactly what we've just seen at this committee.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Hayes, did you want to initiate another round?
Mr Hayes: Just very briefly: There was a comment and a feeling here, and I think it's only fair that Mr Ferguson was able to clarify that. I think Joe has accepted that. As far as talking to people is concerned, we're being told we're not consulting. Government has talked to over 300 groups representing business, labour, unorganized workers, women, immigrants, chambers of commerce and all these different groups. There were recommendations. They listened to the people, responded, and we've made over 20 changes to the first proposals, and 10 of the changes are --
Mr Joe Colasanti: I appreciate that.
Mr Tilson: The first proposal stank. What are you talking about?
Mr Hayes: Is that so? I know what I'm talking about.
Mr Tilson: None of the first proposals were any good.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Hayes.
Mr Hayes: They were changed, right? So for members of the opposition to say that we haven't consulted --
Interjections.
Mr Hayes: It is totally nonsense for them to make that and it's an unfair remark.
Interjections.
Mr Joe Colasanti: Hang on. We didn't come here to start a fight today.
The Chair: Mr Jackson.
Interjections.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Jackson.
Mr Jackson: I think what the deputants are trying to suggest about the consultation process is that the Bob Rae government has consulted like a bad employer negotiates, and you measure it entirely by the amount of time you take, but not by the ground you gain. I'm just going to remind Mr Hayes that in pure collective bargaining, compromises are made and there are wins for everybody in the best interest of jobs in this province. That's what --
Mr Hayes: I don't need an education from you, Cam. I've been on negotiations.
Mr Jackson: Well, so have I, and I've been negotiating for 18 years in this province. The point I'm trying to stress is that when I hear unions rightly accuse employers of just spinning their wheels and wasting time and calling it meaningful bargaining, it's only fair when employer's groups come forward and say, "Yes, you've taken a lot of time." The unions are upset that you've taken so damn much time. But there's been no movement and no progress and that's their point. You are consulting like a bad employer bargains, and that's what you're doing. Don't try to call it what it isn't.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Phillips.
Mr Phillips: I thought we had concluded, but Mr Hayes has raised a couple of points that I must get on the record. When he talks about having made changes in the proposal, let's be clear that the proposal was totally one-sided, and the changes that have been made were modest backoffs from a totally one-sided proposal. The bill we have before us right now has zero in it for the employer's side of it. It is all one-sided. It is unusual in the extreme to see changes to the Labour Relations Act that have absolutely nothing for one side and everything for the other side. I don't buy at all that the government has backed off on the bill. I don't buy that there was consultation.
We, the elected officials, the elected people in this province, never saw the bill until the middle of June. We had very little time to debate it and then -- this is kind of Queen's Park jargon, I'm sorry to say, but there were rule changes forced through that will guarantee that this bill is passed, finished, fait accompli, by the middle of October. The thing is being rammed through.
You talk about consultation, I don't buy it. There's never been a major bill, ever, in the province of Ontario that has gone from first reading in the month of June to final third reading in the month of October, in that short a period of time. It is being rammed through and I won't accept that this has been the subject of broad consultations.
The Chair: Thank you. That completes that matter. Joe Colasanti and Terry Colasanti, once again the committee thanks you for coming here today. We appreciate your input. Take care. Ms Murdock, on another matter.
Ms Murdock: Yes. Buzz Hargrove mentioned a study done by the auto parts manufacturing industry, and I got a copy of it and I would like to submit it so that all the members of the committee can read it.
The Chair: To be made an exhibit?
Ms Murdock: If I may.
The Chair: Fine. The clerk will photocopy that, distribute it and have it made an exhibit. Any other matters? Thank you. We'll return here at 6:30. The room will be secured.
The committee recessed at 1702.
EVENING SITTING
The committee resumed at 1830.
AIDS COMMITTEE OF WINDSOR
The Chair: It's 6:30. We're going to resume. I want to remind people that if they want to take advantage of French translation services, there are receivers and earpieces available for them.
The first participant is the AIDS Committee of Windsor. Sir, we have to know your name and your title, if any. We've got your written submission, which will become an exhibit, part of the record. We've got half an hour. Please try to keep at least the last half of the half-hour for exchanges, questions and dialogue. Go ahead, tell us what you will.
Mr Steve Lough: My name is Steve Lough. I'm the executive director of the AIDS Committee of Windsor. I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
The community-based AIDS movement and the AIDS Committee of Windsor in particular have long recognized the interrelationships of many laws, professions and practices in the response to HIV and AIDS. Our response has therefore had to be comprehensive. We have found that the needs of people with HIV and AIDS involve many different institutions and practices in our society. We are committed to advocating for compassionate and effective changes to ensure a positive environment, both for people with HIV and AIDS and for the primary prevention programs we believe are necessary. It is from this perspective that our views on this legislation come.
First of all, regarding the purpose of the act, the addition of a purpose to the legislation spells out most clearly why I speak in favour of these amendments. In community AIDS work, our biggest non-medical obstacle is the power of fear in the spread of the epidemic and in the progression from simple HIV infection to full-blown AIDS. The number and level of fears we encounter from individuals indicates that a more widespread problem exists in our society. People are afraid to speak their minds and afraid to seek help that may save their lives. They are afraid of their families, afraid of their friends, afraid of their employers and afraid of the state.
First and foremost, these amendments take a progressive step towards a more just and cooperative employment environment. They will not in themselves overcome the climate of fear I referred to, but they address a part of it.
Employment is an area of constant concern for people with HIV and AIDS. Whether one is considering testing or faced with the inability to continue working, the issues of the workplace and relations with employers are times of great stress and often discrimination. Proactive measures that improve the knowledge and ability of employers and unions to recognize and respond to the needs of individual workers will go a long way towards easing the trauma of this epidemic. These amendments spell out the purpose of the legislation as cooperation over antagonism and participation over exclusion. This is an important and compassionate approach to labour relations.
Regarding organizing and collective bargaining, it has been our experience that workplaces which are unionized and which have a history of collective agreements are less likely to deal with a case of HIV infection or AIDS illegally or immorally. In these companies, proactive efforts have been made to set out rational guidelines for relations with workers. Some work has already been done to think through a compassionate and effective response to issues.
Union certification doesn't guarantee that employees will have fewer problems regarding their HIV status, but it does set a new progressive standard, both in the nature of issues that are addressed and in the process by which they are resolved. Therefore the sections strengthening certification, first collective agreements, replacement workers and successor rights go a long way towards addressing the fears around work.
The amendment regarding ongoing consultation of workers again contributes to an environment of safety. As important, I think, and more subtle is the contribution to an individual's self-esteem. People who are asked to participate in society and those who do take active roles build their own inner strength that spills into other areas of their life. Self-esteem plays a large role in one's ability to change risky behaviour, as in the transmission of HIV. It also plays a role in one's ability to take charge of one's health.
Health care agencies, including our own, have often encouraged such a proactive approach to health, only to realize that individuals are not prepared by anything else in their life to take charge of their health. Building a model of inclusion and participation in the workplace will go a long way towards encouraging all of us to participate in our own health. It has also been proven to contribute to increased productivity.
The inclusion of part-time employees in certification and collective bargaining has been necessary for some time. More and more employers are adopting a part-time model. For people with HIV and AIDS who experience limitations in their ability to work, this allows an important option for manageable productive work. Previous to these amendments, part-time meant second-class. From a social perspective as well as a legal one, part-time workers face greater insecurity and lack of benefits in their workplace. This legislation will not solve the problem entirely, but it takes a modest step towards responding to the changing workplace with compassion and inclusion.
Adding to the power of arbitrators the ability to interpret other employment-related legislation is a positive step towards effectiveness. As I said in the beginning, everything in HIV and AIDS is interrelated. It is important to the process of any government regulation or program that it recognizes reality. So often in human services, a large percentage of people in need fall between program criteria. We refer to that as falling between the cracks. They also face a compartmentalized legal and social system that can't respond to multiple issues. At least in the field of labour relations, there will now be the possibility of a more comprehensive approach to dispute resolution.
Regarding the continuation of benefits, unfortunately just when people need their health benefit plans most is when they lose these benefits due to an inability to work. Although this legislation does not address this problem entirely, the continuation of benefits for workers on strike does eliminate one destructive scenario for people with HIV and AIDS. Staying healthy with HIV infection costs money. Whether it is traditional therapies or alternatives, benefit plans have come a long way towards recognizing the advantages of a proactive approach to staying well. These steps to ensure continuation of coverage during a work stoppage are socially responsible and necessary for health.
Regarding the power to grant interim relief, most people with HIV and AIDS do not fight discrimination or other employment problems in part because of the delays between filing a complaint and any successful resolution. The addition of the power to grant interim relief addresses in a small way the problems faced by workers, including those with HIV, who cannot wait to have their grievances resolved. It is a step towards a more compassionate and effective system.
To conclude, these amendments address some of the problems faced by people with HIV and AIDS in the workplace. They include compassion, while increasing the effectiveness of the labour relations system. It is my belief that a compassionate and inclusive system of labour relations is not incompatible with a productive and efficient one; in fact the first is necessary before the second can be accomplished. In the present climate, it is not likely that any more dramatic changes are affordable or would gain consensus. I think that the government can be congratulated on the positive steps that it is making at this time.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Offer, Mr Phillips and Mr Brown.
Mr Offer: I have a question. I thank you for the presentation. There is one area you've brought forward which I would like to explore briefly, and that's the continuation of benefits. I'd like to actually use the time to put ministry staff on notice because I would like to get a clarification. I will probably be using the wrong words and all of those things, but my understanding is that during a strike, the union can make the payments so that these types of benefits can continue.
I've been informed that this is assuming the plan is something that has a specific premium and it is paid regularly and the premium is the same. I have been further informed that in fact that is not the case, that in many cases these plans are claims-administration type of plans, where, for instance, the claims for the previous three months or four months are tallied up and basically it's something which is not necessarily the same payment each and every payment period and that the period for payment during the strike may actually be three, four, five or six months after the strike ends. So I think the point you bring is extremely important.
1840
What I would hope is that ministry staff could, if not today, somewhere down the line, address the concern as to whether the wording in the legislation is sufficient to make certain that the union, which has the opportunity of maintaining the coverage, will be able to do so, in that the premium actually may become due and payable three, four or five months past the date.
The Chair: Okay, that's been noted. I'm trusting that the clerk will also pull your Hansard transcript and make sure that's made available to the ministry.
Mr Offer: Thank you for bringing that up. I think it's a very crucial point actually.
Mr Phillips: I was a bit surprised at the presentation in that, because maybe 80% of the people in the private sector are non-unionized, I would have thought that your advocacy work would have been focused more on the Employment Standards Act rather than the Labour Relations Act, in ensuring that all workplaces have the things you talk about.
I was surprised that your presentation assumed that the collective bargaining area was the area to focus on rather than recommending to the committee that the Employment Standards Act should be changed so that all workplaces dealt with your issues. I'm concerned about the presentation, because it seems to me it heads in a certain direction that may not benefit all of the people who need protection.
Mr Lough: My approach was specifically to address the amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. As I understand, the changes to the Employment Standards Act and Workers' Compensation Act are simply auxiliary changes at this point to bring them into line with these changes in the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I'm not here advocating for those changes because I didn't understand that to be the nature of this committee.
We do not in any way limit our advocacy work. I have personally appeared before a number of provincial government commissions and committees. We are continually advocating for changes, not only in legislation but in things that may seem as far afield of our own expertise as the design of clinical trials for new drugs.
I didn't speak to the Employment Standards Act specifically, because I understood this committee to be dealing with the Labour Relations Act.
Mr Phillips: It is, but I'm concerned about your recommendations, because I would have expected them to be saying, "Listen, in terms of dealing with our issues, the Employment Standards Act is a more important piece of legislation than this," and by suggesting these issues will be solved through the Labour Relations Act -- my suggestion to you would be to at least examine that you may be heading in the wrong direction.
Mr Lough: I don't in any way think these amendments are going to resolve the problem. I hope I made myself clear that these are modest steps towards creating a constructive environment in the workplace. Even the most perfect environment, from my own perspective or from the committee's, would not resolve all the workplace issues for people with HIV, because as I tried to point out, we have found that the interrelationships of different institutions and cultures in our society are so strong that we need some changes here in the Labour Relations Act. You're absolutely right: We need changes in the Employment Standards Act and we need changes in the Workers' Compensation Act and we need changes in the social assistance system, and I could run through a number of federal government programs as well. Bit by bit, we try to advocate and speak to the specific issues that are being dealt with at any one time by the government of the day or parliamentary committees or commissions that may come.
Mr Brown: First of all, I appreciate your presentation because it brings to us a point of view I don't think we've heard before. I'm interested in your first statement under "Organizing and Collective Bargaining," where you said, "It has been our experience that workplaces which are unionized and which have a history of collective agreements are less likely to deal with a case of HIV infection or AIDS illegally or immorally."
I wonder if you have some numbers to indicate that, recognizing that 80% of the people are in non-unionized settings. Obviously you would expect more problems among the 80% than you would among the 20%. That's just statistically; whether you have some examples.
Second, it bothers me that there's some illegal activity going on, because that's what you're saying, that there's illegal activity. I take it your group and others would be taking up the gauntlet to pursue those cases which are in violation of present law. Maybe you could give me some examples.
Mr Lough: Two things: It's very difficult for me to talk about individual cases without risking breach of confidentiality. To expand on that a little, though, what my experience has been and that of the committee I've been heading now for four years is that in a unionized environment there is a standardized way of dealing with disputes. For instance, it is much more difficult for me as an employer to say to you, "You're fired, because I don't like you because you don't hang around with the same people I do, and the gentleman beside you can stay, because he buys the beer on Saturday," or whatever. I use a ludicrous example to make the point that in a unionized environment, if someone gets fired, there's a clause somewhere in the collective agreement as to how that is to be grieved: Certain people have to be involved, a certain process has to be followed.
Those types of systems, as imperfect as they may be, encourage people to think through ahead of time: "What's going to happen if we fire somebody? What's going to happen if someone in our workplace has HIV and nobody else wants to work with him?" Even before that's happened, there's already a habit of thinking through issues that may present conflict within the workplace, not to mention just the general trend following unionization to increase the benefits to workers and the rights they have within a particular workplace, whether it be for time off sick or a benefit plan or whatever.
It creates an environment in which those issues can be dealt with in a more rational way. Even if an issue of HIV infection comes up in a workplace and nobody's ever dealt with it before, there's already a history there of dealing with things in an organized and rational way that there isn't necessarily in a non-union environment.
The Chair: Thank you. We've got to move on to Mr Tilson.
1850
Mr Tilson: A lot of my comments follow the line of questioning Mr Phillips was proceeding with, that this is obviously an almost unbelievably serious social problem. You have mentioned all kinds of pieces of legislation where perhaps it should be referred to, although it's not specifically referred to anywhere in this particular bill. My thinking is that if it's going to be put in the bill -- your observation was about the individual's self-esteem, individuals being afraid of everybody under the sun: afraid of their families, afraid of their friends, afraid of their employers, afraid of the state. You could add afraid of the union, you really could. Everybody's afraid of it. Everybody's afraid of dealing with it, and this bill doesn't deal with it. When you look at the purpose clause, the bill doesn't set forth rules and doesn't set forth the specifics you want; in fact, it's not even close to that.
Rather than putting forth a set of rules for employers, employees and the union, they're saying the whole purpose of this bill is to encourage the process of collective bargaining. It doesn't come close to the very serious social problem you're talking about, and that needs to be addressed if you're going to get that issue into the collective bargaining process -- not ignoring Mr Phillips's very valid comments.
I suppose, in other words, that the whole purpose of this bill, as you read section 5 of the bill, is not to put forward a better set of rules but to simply say that employees ought to be represented by a trade union; in fact, it's in the interests simply of organized labour being made easier to organize.
It may well be that your comments are connected to the whole issue of organization, the whole issue of collective bargaining, but if that's your concern, then I'd recommend that you put forward to the government recommendations for specific amendments to deal with the specific concerns you're putting forward to alleviate those fears that apply everywhere, from the family to the union to the employer to the employee.
Mr Lough: My point was that it's broader than any one rule on two fronts, both within the Labour Relations Act. It doesn't come down to specifically one addition to one clause or one addition to another. I agree that there could be more added to the purpose to spell things out more clearly. I think this is a pretty big step forward, though, and I work from a basis of reality. I would like the world to be changed tomorrow, but it's not going to be, so this I look upon as an important step forward.
When I see the extension of cooperative approaches between employers and trade unions etc, I've never seen that in labour legislation in Ontario before. So as general as it might be, it's important to state it up front, and it sets a tone by which the rest of the rules will be enforced and arbitrated etc.
Mr Tilson: As I say, sir, that's the issue. I agree with everything you're saying except that one point, that the purpose of this bill does not put forward a set of rules. There are all kinds of rules. There are all kinds of problems that we hear at these hearings, whether it be the conduct of employers, the conduct of employees, the conduct of government, and we've heard all kinds of allegations being made; many may be founded, many may not be founded. Now you've added another element, that instead of putting forward a set of rules, the government simply says that all employees ought to be represented by a trade union, which gets back to Mr Phillips's question.
The real issue is that we have a social problem. Anyone who is an employer or an employee should be addressing this problem. It's not a union problem; it's not a management problem; it's a social problem that should be dealt with by all.
Mr Lough: But it is dealt with by employers and it is dealt with by unions. That's why we have to speak to it here at the labour relations. As to the specifics, I don't know if you think these other things aren't rules, but it seems to me that changing the powers of arbitrators and the power of the board etc are specific rules.
Mr Tilson: How is that going to solve this problem you raised?
Mr Lough: I outlined in some detail that simply the power of the board to grant interim relief would make a hell of a difference for someone with HIV who doesn't know how long he's going to live. When these things carry on two and three years, which is not uncommon --
Mr Tilson: The bill doesn't say that, sir.
Mr Lough: No, it doesn't guarantee it and I'm under no illusion that I can come here and demand that it guarantee it and get anywhere. I wish it were stronger, yes, I do, and if you're speaking in favour of making it stronger, I would certainly support that. I am well aware that this bill has been hotly debated and that there's very strong opposition from the corporate community. I think these are modest changes and that's why I do congratulate the government. If you're asking whether I would like more, I would like more, yes.
Mr Dadamo: Steven, thank you. As executive director, you are privy to all sorts of complaints that come through your office and your telephone lines. Do you have in your mind a collection of people who are being discriminated against on the job site because they have HIV?
Mr Lough: I don't know if I can narrow it down to any one particular scenario. It varies widely with individuals, as does the progression of the disease. With some people, there have been cases of out-and-out firing. In case anybody asks, they are not followed up, because nobody wants to tell anybody he has HIV. In other cases, it's being shifted to a lower level of employment, maybe from a supervisory position to some sort of line position, being moved out of a public position, let's say in the service industry or whatever, moved to some backroom job and less pay or whatever. The issue of benefit plans is another whole kettle of worms, what they cover and what they don't cover, and problems do arise regarding that. Those are the first ones that come to mind.
Ms Murdock: I wanted to get to the ability of the power of arbitrators to interpret other employment-related legislation, because we've had presenters in the last two weeks who have indicated that they are opposed to extending the powers of the arbitrators to go into other pieces of legislation, the Human Rights Code specifically. I would like your comments about that and why you would say it's a positive step towards effectiveness.
Mr Lough: If there's one thing I face day to day it's what I like to call the compartmentalization of our system. Somebody comes to me or to someone else at the AIDS committee and needs help. So I pull out the Labour Relations Act and social assistance etc; I can have all the laws and the programs and everything and -- I was going to say 90%; I won't say it so I don't get stuck to numbers, but an incredible number of people do not fit those program rules. Yes, maybe they qualify kind of half, maybe, on this one over here, and on this one over here they would qualify except for one small point, and then there's a third one over here. They don't really fit the programs.
If they do fit the programs, then they have to go over here to get this labour relations issue dealt with and they have to go over here to get this employment standards issue dealt with and they have to go somewhere else for their compensation part of it, somewhere else for their social assistance or Ontario Human Rights Code issues. So they present themselves with what seems to be a problem that has numerous elements to it, and so often our system says, "I can only deal with this one little piece of it and you've got to go across the hall or to the other end of town to deal with the other pieces of it."
What I saw in this extension of the powers of arbitrators was at least the ability to reach outside the Labour Relations Act a little bit to at least those other pieces of legislation and to not live in a tunnel world, as we so often do in this society, and pretend that other things don't affect us. All those pieces of legislation and many others would probably come to bear on any particular case, and for the arbitrators to operate in some sort of isolation I think is unreal and certainly no service to the people involved.
1900
The Chair: Mr Hayes had a question as well.
Mr Hayes: Actually, it's kind of a supplement to Mr Dadamo's question. I know that some of the organized workplaces do have policies to help to deal with and assist people with HIV or AIDS. There are some I know that I've seen that probably don't go far enough.
I know that you represent people in organized workplaces and unorganized workplaces. Do you get any feeling back from the people that they may be treated differently in an organized workplace than they would be in an unorganized workplace?
Mr Lough: Yes. It's been our experience -- and again, this is a generalization -- in organized workplaces there has been some attempt to at least discuss this issue, if not actually to get a policy into place.
Mr Hayes: Cooperation.
Mr Lough: Right. Certainly for the ones that have policies in place things run very smoothly, because everybody knows just how to act. They don't throw their hands up in the air and go screaming from the room when someone admits to having HIV. They know what to do. They know what the proper, rational steps are. That's much more common in a unionized environment than a non-union.
The Chair: The committee thanks you, Steven Lough, and the AIDS Committee of Windsor for bringing to the committee a perspective on this legislation that had not yet been presented. So we thank you for your interest. We trust you'll be keeping in touch and welcome further input from you.
JOHN MCARTHUR
EDWARD BAILLARGEON
The Chair: The next participants are John McArthur and Edward Baillargeon. Please tell us which of you is which. We've got your written submissions. Tell us your names and tell us what you want to tell us about Bill 40. Try to leave, as you noticed with the last presentation, at least the last half of the half-hour time frame for questions and exchanges.
Mr John McArthur: It's all arranged.
I'm John, and this is Edward Baillargeon. We welcome this opportunity to appear before you. Although my colleague Ed Baillargeon and I are participating in this hearing as private citizens, we both have very definitive opinions shaped by many years as activists in the Canadian automobile workers union. We've spent a number of years on the assembly line at Chrysler and participated in several major strikes during the 1950s and 1960s.
Mr Baillargeon, like myself now retired, was a union representative for 40 years and was president of the Windsor District Labour Council for 18 years. I worked full-time for the union for 13 years as a labour journalist and PR person.
These circumstances have enabled us to witness and experience firsthand the historical and ongoing confrontation between management and union, between capital and labour, manifested, on the one hand, by the struggles of workers for a measure of equity in the workplace in terms of monetary reward and tolerable working conditions, and on the other, by the initial vigorous opposition of the corporations to all proposals, followed by reluctant, grudging concessions over many years of negotiations and conflict.
There is no denying that the corporate agenda and that of the labour movement are more often than not diametrically opposed. Currently, the most prominent expression of this clash of interests is industry's near-hysterical response to the modest proposals for reform embraced in Bill 40. Their public outcry has included statements and claims which are somewhat distant from reality. Perhaps chief among them is the argument that passage of the legislation, even in its present watered-down form, will tip the scales in labour's favour. This of course stems from the assumption that these scales are presently evenly balanced, a contention which industry and its supporters in the public media have been making for decades, although it is patently false.
In fact, even in the best of economic times, when unions are at their most effective, that equality is illusory -- non-existent. There is always a marked imbalance between the respective rights of management and labour. Contractual agreements explicitly spell out that management's fundamental prerogatives are sacrosanct. The right to operate plants and offices and to hire and fire belongs exclusively to management, tempered only by the union's right to lodge a grievance, and the grievance procedure, as any trade unionist will agree, is not the most perfect instrument for assuring fairness in labour-management relations.
Replacement workers: The right to strike, the most potent weapon in the union's arsenal, is the nearest thing to an equalizer in labour relations, but in a poor economic climate such as we are experiencing today, that weapon can be seriously blunted. Assuredly we are all familiar with the business lobby's threats to close down operations and locate elsewhere, threats which have gone into high gear since the provincial government's announced amendments to the OLRA.
It's noteworthy to recall that in Ontario restrictions are imposed on strikes so that they are legal only upon expiration of the contract. Between contracts, the employer has a free hand, subject only to the grievance procedure, a distinct advantage indeed.
The linchpin of strike action is to deny the employer his productivity, to hit him in the pocketbook, so to speak. The employee in turn forgoes his income, usually at considerable sacrifice. The scales could thus be termed relatively equal at this point. However, under current legislation, as we're all aware, the company is permitted to hire strikebreakers, alias scabs, euphemistically called replacement workers.
Superficially, it appears to be quite a democratic arrangement: Workers are allowed to strike and employers can take on substitute employees. But given a moment's thought, it can be seen that this is an incredible scenario. Surely it's quite preposterous that workers voluntarily give up their employment and their income and then are forced to stand idly by while other workers are shepherded into the plant to take their place.
Bill 40 addresses this issue. The provision to prohibit the use of replacement workers is ridiculously long overdue. It rights a wrong in the moral sense, but more than that, this legislation will contribute to eliminating the tense emotional crisis situations which develop on the picket line when replacement workers run the gauntlet of angry and frustrated men and women who are exercising their democratic right to participate in a legal strike.
No other single issue sours labour-management relations more than the employment of strikebreakers. Any talk of reducing the adversarial nature of labour relations will remain empty rhetoric until this law is amended.
In many instances the police, ostensibly neutral, are used to escort replacements into the workplace, thereby placing themselves directly on the side of the employer. There have been cases in small communities where strikebreaking and police involvement have left a residue of bitterness that has lasted for years.
There have been many strikes during which confrontation has been provoked by the use of strikebreakers, but one that readily comes to mind is the Fleck strike 14 years ago, probably because the workforce was female and the fact that automobile workers, many from Windsor, were among union members who joined their picket line.
A statement by the Women's Incentive Centre here in Windsor graphically described how, during the six-month strike for a first contract:
"Strikebreakers were brought in...the Ontario Provincial Police conducted militarylike manoeuvres to smash the replacement workers through picket lines of 78 women and their supporters. Ontario labour board charges and countercharges were laid. At one point, 500 officers and 200 more in reserve were brought to the site. TV cameras rolled as women were beaten and chased. Union members were jailed. One constable boasted, `A lot of them got a bellyful of billies.'"
1910
Eventually the women won ratification and learned some cogent lessons in the process, among them the fact that when the employers cannot exercise total power in the workplace, they will use the power of the state.
Someone recently observed that when laws to prohibit child labour were introduced, they were vehemently opposed by employers. It seems evident that some of the more reactionary elements in the business community have not changed very much since those days. The resistance to social progress as it applies to working people remains strong. However, we are confident that in the near future the use of strikebreakers will be viewed as a forgettable relic of the past.
Improved labour relations: We are aware that the replacement worker issue has been one of the key topics in your hearings, and you will have heard a great deal of repetition, to which we're now contributing. It's regrettable but unavoidable since it plays such a vital role as an obstacle to improvements in labour relations.
In our submission we have pointed out the conflicting, opposing interests of employer and employee. The respective interests of capital and labour are disparate and contradictory, and often incompatible. We look upon this condition as a natural product of the free enterprise, capitalist society in which we live, but we do not interpret this to mean that we have no common goals.
Business circles are mistaken if they assume that workers and their union representatives are blind to, or ignore, the hard economic realities of our times. Industry, its political spokespersons and the pro-business press have ceaselessly extolled competition as the wonderful driving force pushing us inexorably towards higher living standards. Now they are humming a rather different tune, warning us of the competitive dog-eat-dog nature of society and of the fate that will befall us if we don't shape up.
This, then, is surely an appropriate moment to examine whether some of our differences can be resolved. Contrary to the views expressed by many in the business community, we think the amendments to the act open the door to that possibility.
We agree with the minister's statement in the discussion paper, page 7, that Ontario's ability to compete would be helped by improved labour-management relationships and an increased cooperation between labour, management and the government. As well, we endorse the concept of employee involvement through their trade unions, and that this can have an overall positive effect.
Union members will work sensibly with a management that is fair and open with them. Workers want to keep their jobs and produce good-quality products. They have no intention of pricing themselves out of the market.
We believe business is wrong when it assumes the changes in the act must necessarily be detrimental to it. By updating the legislation, the government is taking important and overdue steps towards lessening the adversarial nature of the relationship. Certainly, removing the $1 initiation fee in the certification process and discarding the use of petitions, which helped thwart certification, are logical moves in that direction.
We cannot disregard that the backdrop to our discussions is a level of unemployment that shows no sign of abating. Technological advances are eating up jobs, and government policies involving trade arrangements are undoubtedly exacerbating the situation.
To be quite candid, in this economic environment, powerful elements in the business world are less interested in improved labour relations than in determining how best to fit, profitwise, into the global competitive scene. Their thrust leans more towards intimidating workers on this continent by flaying them with the need to compete against low-paid workforces elsewhere. Where this philosophy prevails -- and undoubtedly it permeates the thinking of significant segments of our business community -- the opportunities for better labour relations become remote.
It is obviously unthinkable that Canadian workers will become involved in a cost-cutting contest with workers in other parts of the world, including Mexico, who are labouring under oppressive conditions reminiscent, in some cases, of the Middle Ages. The work scene and living conditions in Canada and the United States conform to North America's specific historical, economic and cultural structure. They have been molded in considerable measure by years of union struggle and will not be surrendered.
It seems to us that in the international trade struggle for markets, Canadian industry and business generally, like their counterparts elsewhere, have legitimate concerns. But rather than focusing so much effort on attacking the labour act reforms, business would be more gainfully occupied targeting the political policies which are contributing to our economic malaise.
In conclusion, as you have probably guessed, we support the proposed amendments. They are no panacea and fall short of all that's required, but represent a small advance towards a more just and fair relationship. Thank you.
Mr Tilson: I'd like to talk with you a little bit about the replacement worker. You've mentioned that, and obviously that is one of the major issues in these hearings. It's raised both by union and management.
Currently, of course, when there is a strike the employee suffers if replacement workers are hired, and at the same time management suffers as well perhaps because of inefficiency. They lose the expertise -- the replacement workers they hire perhaps aren't as expert in the particular work they're doing -- and there's the issue of instability, the reaction of financial institutions towards management. All of this gives both sides a desire to proceed with the collective bargaining process for their own different reasons.
Now, of course there is nothing, in my estimation, to encourage the management to proceed in the collective bargaining process, which I think is the ultimate aim of the whole process, to get the two parties together and create a contract that will be acceptable to both to make the system run a little smoother. But there's none of that which will encourage the management to proceed with that process; in fact quite the contrary. They now essentially must shut down because there's no --
Interjection.
Mr Tilson: Well, they can do other things. They can move out of the province, they can close up their place and end it or they can cave in completely. Caving in completely may cause problems that perhaps the union hadn't thought of, because the whole collective bargaining process has come to an end. There will be no collective bargaining process because it's a win-win situation.
I guess my question to you is that if you acknowledge, and I hope you do, that the collective bargaining process is the ultimate end, and if you also acknowledge that the company or the business must shut down -- it can't operate because the law says it can't operate -- how are we going to encourage the parties to get into the collective bargaining process?
Mr McArthur: Just one point: We see it perhaps in terms of the other side of the coin. It seems to us that where the company is able to take on replacement workers, then the incentive for the company to sit down and bargain fairly is taken away.
The whole idea of strike action -- and strikes began long before unions evolved -- was, as you put it, to stop things so that the company would respond. It just seems rather obvious to us that in order to have an even situation, the even playing field syndrome, if workers are out there without their wages they're very anxious to get back to work. They're very anxious that their union representatives work night and day to get them back. If management does not have replacement workers it also has a great deal of pressure on it to make a settlement. It seems to us that is the way to go and that's what we're striving for.
Mr Tilson: I suppose if you're looking at the fact of no longer having a bargaining -- there's no need to bargain, and quite the contrary, the management doesn't want replacement workers because they're not as efficient, they're not as well trained, they're not as well qualified. They don't like the instability that's being created out there of financial institutions looking at how a company is operating with inferior employees. They don't want that. They want to move ahead. So there is a lot of pressure on them. They're hurting and the employee is hurting.
1920
But now I again emphasize to you, there will be no need to get into the collective bargaining process, because it will have come to an end. There's no need to bargain. The strike is a very valid tool, and I think there's no question that the right to strike should not be taken away, but I challenge you as to this fine balance. There is no balance.
Mr Edward Baillargeon: Frankly it's difficult to follow that rationale, because if the company says it doesn't want to do it, then why does it do it? You're indicating to us that they're forced to do it. They don't want to do it, but they're forced to do it.
Mr Tilson: Sir, they have to close their doors.
Mr Baillargeon: That's what the strike's all about.
Mr Tilson: But that's not quite true.
Mr Baillargeon: I'm trying to find your rationale.
Mr Tilson: The purpose of a strike and the purpose of both parties taking specific action is to encourage the continuation -- I mean, obviously something's failed; the strike is the last resort.
Mr Baillargeon: But sometimes the company doesn't want to sit at the bargaining table. They want to create a situation. That's the problem. They're the creators of the problem. If they don't want to do these things, why do they do them?
Mr Tilson: Are you telling me the strike won't bring them to the table?
Mr Baillargeon: Not always.
Mr Tilson: That's quite true, but what's going to bring the management to the table when the management has to close its doors and possibly --
Mr Baillargeon: No, that isn't always the case. They decide when it becomes an economic necessity for them to come to the table.
Mr Tilson: I simply say to you, sir, what choice does the management now have? What can it do when it can no longer operate? One, it can cave in to the union's demands, rightly or wrongly. You're assuming of course that the demands are quite reasonable and they may well be. I know what you're saying. I mean, you and I are obviously philosophically going to be different on this and I think we both appreciate that.
Mr Baillargeon: But I would appreciate it if you would give us an example where the demands become unreasonable.
Mr Tilson: The management has several choices. One is that it can cave in completely to the union demands, reasonably or unreasonably. The second choice they have is that they can close their doors permanently. The third choice they have is that they can simply move the company.
Mr Baillargeon: The company comes to us at the bargaining table and it says: "Look, we can't do this. We have laid out the choices." If they bring it out to the union and show that they'll have to close their doors because they can't operate, and economic facts show that, then they'll sit down and work it out on that basis. It's been done. This is done all the time.
Mr McArthur: Chrysler, Ford and GM -- and maybe it's unfair to use these because they're large outfits -- have a process whereby if there is a strike, they don't use replacement workers. They sit down and bargain and, by golly, they don't cave in. You can't say they cave in when they're making millions of dollars. Their problems come from elsewhere, from competition and so on, but I think it would be wrong to assume they cave in. Certainly the union members don't think they've caved in.
Mr Tilson: Sir, when we're thinking about maintaining jobs, they're the people who are suffering. In other words, if the jobs cave in, for whatever reason, those are the people who are suffering. The union leaders, they're always going to be fine.
Interjections.
Mr Tilson: They're always going to be fine. If the company closes its doors, who's going to suffer?
Mr Baillargeon: Who do you think sits down and negotiates these contracts?
Mr Tilson: They're people called union leaders.
Mr Baillargeon: No, they're called the representatives of the plant. When the plant goes, they go.
Mr Tilson: All right.
Mr Baillargeon: I can show you many workers where plants have shut down here who are trade unionists and are without jobs. I mean, I don't know where you've been.
Mr Tilson: As I said at the outset, sir, I don't think you and I are going to change each other's minds on that subject. Do I have time for another area, Mr Chair?
The Chair: If you can make it very brief, Mr Tilson.
Mr Tilson: Very brief is that the petition process now is gone as far as certification is concerned. The changing of the workers' minds when they have approved a specific -- a union has become certified and now, of course, through a petition process, as the law now exists there is a means in which they can change their minds. Now that process has been removed. Examples have been given, of course, of duress and threats and all kinds of other things as a result of that petition process. In other words, it has been described to us as being faulty.
If that's the reason for doing away with the petition process, wouldn't it be better simply to provide very strong amendments to that whole petition process, as opposed to completely doing away with it and precluding the employees from changing their minds, as they do in other commercial contracts?
Mr McArthur: In the process here, when the union approaches employees, it often goes to their homes. They sit down and talk it over. It's not a quick decision on the part of employees, far from it, and they give a great deal of thought to the matter. It seems to us that this is the way to go, to continue going in that direction.
Mr Baillargeon: The majority of employees come to the union for organization; it's not the union going there.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, then Mr Lessard. Mr Hayes, briefly, so that Mr Lessard can ask his question.
Mr Hayes: In your presentation, John and Ed, I note where you say, "In Ontario, restrictions are imposed on strikes so that they are legal only upon the expiration of the contract." Then you go on to say, "Between contracts, the employer has a free hand, subject only to the grievance process."
I know this has been a problem, where unions have had to go to negotiations and negotiate the settlement of some of their grievances when they could be negotiating some other issues. Sometimes they're forced to wait three years, for example, or two years, to go to negotiations to do this. Do you feel that this legislation would help to streamline the grievance procedure?
Mr McArthur: Yes, and I think my colleague here can speak to that from a great deal of personal experience. I do recall literally thousands of grievances piling up at Chrysler because the company knew that it had three years or whatever to go. He can speak to it better than I can.
Mr Baillargeon: For an example in that incident, we had 2,200 employees at that time and we had 2,800 grievances at the table. Prior to that, the company had brought in a labour relations person from outside. As a result of this, he just changed the whole collective agreement, which resulted in these large sets of grievances. It took us some 40 days of continuous negotiations to work these things out.
I might say that after the negotiations, they fired the person they had brought in, got rid of him as a result, but the problems that he created in that environment took a long time. I think the company learned a great lesson from that, because following that we had very few problems in grievance proceedings. We had grievances, but we got them resolved, and in many instances didn't have to go to the third step of arbitration.
Mr Lessard: My questions follow somewhat upon Mr Tilson's line of questioning as well. I was really impressed by one of the statements that you made. You said, "Union members will work sensibly with a management that is fair and open with them." We have a good example here in our community of the Chrysler mini-van plant, where that's something that takes place on a daily basis.
To follow Mr Tilson's argument, he suggests that if there is no ability to use replacement workers during a strike, then the company is just going to cave in completely and it will just settle an agreement that's going to put it out of existence. It's difficult for me to imagine that, but it seems to me that a great deal of consideration and thought goes into the decision to actually go on strike. It's something that I would think the union leadership would have to do on a very reasonable basis.
I wondered, based on your long experience in union negotiations and with the labour movement, whether either of you could explain to some of us who don't come from that background some of the things that go into deciding whether to go on strike, what goes into that decision-making.
1930
Mr Baillargeon: Normally what happens is a long process prior to going to the bargaining table in some instances, especially if we are going into applying something relatively new. It might be a cost factor. What normally happens is that the accountants from both the union and the company sit down and work out the projected cost. For an example, when we sat down and negotiated the pension plan, when our expert came in and quoted a figure the company didn't argue, because these people know what they're talking about, they know right to the cent; in fact, we were a little more liberal towards the company's side.
Our people have a tendency not to be caught out of line. When they draw up the program, they know just what the costs are in relationship. They know, they've been around long enough. When they meet with small companies, they recognize what ability they have. All they have to do is open their books. If they're going to go out of business, certainly they'd be prepared to show the people they are claiming will be responsible for putting them out of business.
I know this has been done, where people have sat down and said: "Look, this is what we have to do. We have to make changes." I think Chrysler's a perfect example. They got into concessions. Not too many people were happy with it and it could be argued, but they did sit down and they did work out an agreement.
Like I said, people don't want to be out on the street. I would say that the majority of strikes do not involve money. Usually it's the attitude of management in the plant. If you have a good employer and you're happy to go to work, that's 90%, that's what they want to feel. If the employer's fair with them, money comes second. It's true that once they become organized and we can see the employer is paid fair, we'll ask for our fair share.
In the strikes I've been involved in, money was secondary. Usually it was some issue in the plant. I can recall in one of the major strikes we were involved in, it was the right to dispute the standard on the job. The company said, "That's a managerial right and we're not prepared to give it up." It took some time to work out the language, but we did, and we did work out a procedure in which, if people were being asked to do an unjust amount of work, there could be a way of solving it. That was simple. It was done.
They were concerned about major problems and a third party coming in to resolve it. That doesn't happen. All these issues raised are smokescreens. Management doesn't want to give up one major right it has. They're not prepared to give it up. You can see it through the collective bargaining. Anything that's new they resist. Eventually, once they work it out, 99%.
Look at the health and safety. It wasn't brought in by this government. People were crying that something was going to be happening all the way through; chaos in the plant. It hasn't happened.
Look at the hours of work. That was brought in by the government years back. They were saying: "You can't give people the right to refuse hours of work. We'll have chaos." We met with the government and met with management. They resisted. The government told them, "That's the law; live up to it." No problems.
Look what happened in Oshawa. People said: "We've got a problem. We're going to shut down." The union met with the Oshawa management and worked out a relationship to continue to work. Was that unreasonable, to ask that a worker representative have something to say about what goes on in the workplace? Is that unreasonable? It's all we're asking.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the thoughtful comments by two obviously very experienced people. If I read your brief properly, I think your fundamental thrust is that in the event of a strike, essentially the company should stop production, then the strike begins and whoever can outwait the other one --
Mr McArthur: I think that was the original idea.
Mr Phillips: That's your brief, I think, that no company should continue to operate during a strike. I understand that, and if that's the fundamental thrust of your brief, my question really is this: There are certain businesses that I think cannot sustain a strike for any significant period of time and still have a business. The automotive people can; they build inventory and all that stuff. But I don't think industries like newspapers can, particularly when they are competing. Experience shows that readers leave and they don't come back. I think many retail stores could not survive a strike for very long. They close completely, because experience shows customers leave. There are certain other businesses that supply major companies, and they demand, if they are their sole supplier, that they supply it; if they can't, they'll find another supplier.
So my view is that there are many companies -- as I say, the ones you're familiar with, the auto companies, can survive for a long time because they only have a strike every 15 years because you rotate through the three of them and that sort of stuff. But if your thrust is that companies can't operate during a strike, and if you accept my thesis, which is that there are some companies that really can't sustain shutting down for very long, then how can they deal effectively at collective bargaining? If a strike takes place, they know they'll go bankrupt, and one side has that threat. How do we deal with that issue?
Mr McArthur: I think the main thrust of our brief is the idea of updating labour relations as we go into the 21st century, so the people will sit opposite one another in a reasonable way and talk about their problems when it comes to a conflict between management and labour. Nobody is saying it's easy, but accepting what you say, we take that angle --
Mr Phillips: You accept it, though? That's my theory.
Mr McArthur: No, but I'm saying that if we do and then say, "We'll make exceptions here; if there's a strike here, replacement workers are permitted," in real life that just wouldn't work. We can't have one law for one group and another law for another. But where you have situations where an employer is genuinely endangered, imperilled, whatever, then we're saying that's a situation where both the employer and employee have a mutual problem and should be inclined to sit down and talk it over together.
Our argument is that management has not, in the main -- perhaps entirely -- demonstrated that inclination because of long-held beliefs that: "It's none of your damned business. We're running the show." We want to get over that. We think, as I said earlier and mentioned in the brief, that reasonable trade union members -- and we think they're all reasonable when it comes to looking after their jobs -- will sit down with management and see how they can work it out. That's what we're saying, I think.
Mr Phillips: But do you accept that there are certain companies that could not sustain a strike where they don't have some product coming out at all? The ones I quoted are just examples. Do you accept that?
Mr McArthur: I would assume that those are the companies that would want to sit down and get a solution pretty darn quick.
Mr Phillips: I know they are. They sure want a solution, but essentially they can't participate in collective bargaining because they cannot sustain a strike where they are closed completely for longer than a very short period of time.
Mr McArthur: You're talking about some hypothetical cases. It would have to happen in reality and, as I say, then we see how we can work it out.
Mr Tilson: What about the Toronto Telegram?
Mr Phillips: Algoma may be one. I don't know.
Interjection: The Toronto Telegram?
Interjection: They eventually settled their situation, didn't they?
Mr Phillips: I appreciate that. There's the dilemma for the committee, that there are going to be some industries that just can't sustain a strike so we have no effective collective bargaining taking place there.
1940
Mr McArthur: I think the percentage of strikes that occur out of all the negotiations that take place is very small. I wouldn't say you're raising a red herring here or anything like that, but it's very difficult to answer that question and be honest about it.
Mr Baillargeon: Without knowing all the circumstances. Management might have been going under anyway. We don't know. They might have been on the verge of going under and they just said: "This is the final straw. We're going under. Let's close her up." So whatever the union would have done might not have helped. I don't have that information.
Mr Offer: I have one question. A lot of the discussion has taken place pertaining to that period after the strike. But in that period just prior to the strike, would you support a last-offer vote to the workers? In other words, give to the workers information as to what the union has requested, what the employer has offered and what issues remain outstanding, on the verge of a strike, and let them vote yes or no, keeping in mind the issue of replacement workers, and give to the workers in the unit that right to determine the future course of action.
I know there's a strike vote somewhere earlier on in the process. I am talking about a vote after last offer, on last offer. Would you support that for the workers?
Mr Baillargeon: I'll tell you my experience with that kind of situation. Asking that the last offer of a company which is not acceptable to the committee be taken to a vote is asking for disaster, because you're going to membership, explaining to them management's last offer and -- let me put it this way -- the demands that are on the table are extensive and management has met a very small fraction, and the union, your bargaining committee, the people working in the plant, is recommending that this offer falls short and to support your committee on the proposal.
Once that's voted down, that puts your bargaining team in a very precarious position because you've told your membership that these are the issues you're prepared to strike for and these are the issues you want to fight for, and now the membership has turned down the company offer and you have all of these proposals on the table. That puts your people at the bargaining table in a very awkward position because people on both sides of the bargaining table are saying, "Our membership said to stick with this." I think that's a very dangerous position to put the people in because you'll find that 99% of the time it's turned down.
I've been involved in both sides. Sitting on committees on behalf of the municipality, I've been put in that kind of position. I found it's a bad position, because you firm up the union's position and then there's very little room to manoeuvre.
The Chair: Gentlemen, we have to say good evening to you because we've used up our time plus some. I want to thank you very much on behalf of the committee for your interest, for taking the time to prepare this submission and come out here this evening. You have obviously captured the interest and attention of all caucuses on the committee. Whether they all agree with you remains to be seen, but you've undoubtedly provided a valuable contribution to this process. Thank you, gentlemen. Take care. God bless.
CHATHAM AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: The next participant is the Chatham and District Labour Council. Come forward, gentlemen. Please have a seat. Tell us your names. Tell us your titles. We have your written submissions and they've been distributed. Everybody has those. Go ahead.
Mr Derry McKeever: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. My name is Derry McKeever and I'm president of the Chatham and District Labour Council. With me today is Rick Kitchen and he's the recording secretary of Canadian Auto Workers, Local 127, in Chatham.
I'm going to stray just a little bit from our written text to let you know, and I think it's important to know it, that we are both shop-floor workers and every day we hear what the working people in our community have to say. We work in different shops in our community and we represent some of the ideas and issues they want us to bring to you.
We would appreciate it in the future, if it's possible, that you might have these hearings on Fridays so that those who drive from further distances might have some time to spend with their families, and those who work every day on the shop floor might have a little extra time off once in a while.
The labour council we represent has 26 local unions affiliated and these locals are made up of amalgamated and single-unit locals of national and Ontario-based unions. The labour council has around 10,000 members and our area of coverage is the county of Kent and the 21 municipalities in Kent county.
We hold the view that had this act been updated under previous governments, the type of very negative campaign being run by those who would not like to see these changes come into effect would not have to happen. It is very difficult for us to understand how these people we support, by using the services they sell or by patronizing the stores they operate, can be so bitter in their opposition to such minor changes that we feel are not only needed but truly justified in these times of dramatic economic and political upheaval.
I want to stray just a little bit again, before I go to page 2, to say to you that we have had meetings in our community with business representatives. We've met with the Chatham task force on the economy, we've met with business groups that belong to churches and we have asked them, "Does the chamber of commerce represent your views?" They say, "No," in many cases, "they do not represent the views of all businesses in the community." I'd like you to take that into consideration.
Our first area of concern is in the discussion of the purpose clause, which states: "To ensure that workers can freely exercise the right to organize by facilitating the right of employees to choose, join and be represented by a trade union of their choice."
This area really reflects the view held by many in the trade union movement that many more workers, especially women and new Canadians, would have been included in these discussions had the Ontario Labour Relations Act been updated under previous Labour ministers over the past 15 years -- an event that we can see clearly did not occur.
We consider the changes, as proposed, to be very timely but not far-reaching enough, and the Chatham and District Labour Council considers these changes to be the very least acceptable for those members we represent.
We firmly believe that agricultural workers and horticultural sector workers should have the right to organize, and we wish to point out to the committee that Kent county has long had a good working relationship between the organized food processing industry and its unionized employees. For many decades we have come to terms in contract areas and our record shows our responsibility. We do not advocate harvest delays and have never allowed food to go to waste on the farm.
The truly needed area of reform is in the horticultural-landscape sector where many abuses of the law happen. We have heard a constant litany of complaints, including summary dismissals, poor working conditions and low pay. There are some employers whose greed for bottom-line results has left employees to find whatever remedy they can, usually the Ministry of Labour or civil law. Obviously these are Employment Standards Act problems, but I know they could be sharply curtailed or reduced if the right to organize was extended to horticultural-landscape workers.
We in the Chatham area are very glad to have a strong group of people working with the United Plant Guard Workers, Local 1956, but some of the problems they have in trying to organize plant guards are real obstacles to forming a union that guards want and need. We believe security guards should be allowed to join a union of their choice, allowing them to be able to choose, which should be their right, the union best able to serve their needs.
The rules now restricting organizing of guards have put great stress on local people who must visit each work site to gather names and addresses and place themselves at considerable risk of arrest for simply contacting other security people at their place of employment.
1950
We also believe it's a matter of dignity that domestic workers be allowed to determine their own future with the spirit and empowerment that a union can and will give them. Domestic workers need the right to organize now.
The area of organizing on private property has been a real obstacle for the trade union movement for years. When an employer learns of a drive to organize one of the plants or workplaces he calls the landlord, who is very happy to use the law and the police to force people from areas that have massive public traffic. In particular, both indoor and outdoor malls can have places of employment that can be very great distances from public access such as sidewalks and roads. Mall patrons are free to come and go, but legitimate union activity is curtailed. The fairness of these actions is not evident. We must have the same right of access as the public in general.
The Chatham and District Labour Council also wishes to express the view that the use of replacement workers is not a benefit to anyone and that their use must be banned. It will have been made very clear throughout the province that the labour community wants to put an end to the disruptive, violent, wasteful and polarizing effects that the use of replacements workers or scabs can have on a legitimate labour dispute.
How many times have the electronic media shown images of trucks stopped at picket lines, an almost commonplace event? But what you do not see are the people forced, by economic circumstances, to turn to scab work as a last-ditch effort to provide for their families. We believe that proposals to close this area of the OLRA is a solid step in the right direction. We also believe that a person should have the right to refuse to accept work at a struck workplace.
In summary, we echo the thoughts of our affiliated Local UAW 251 in Wallaceburg, Ontario, that the business community would love to see us go to a system that is similar to the right-to-work laws in place in the southern United States that would drive unions out of existence if they could. The statements that some business leaders and business groups have made will take a long time to get over.
We want to work with business to get the provincial economy back on the right track. This legislation will get us talking again and, I hope, working together.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you, and I look forward to your questions. I'll turn over the microphone to Brother Kitchen.
Mr Rick Kitchen: On behalf of the membership of CAW Local 127 in Chatham I want to thank you for this opportunity to address this committee.
During the past 40 years, Ontario has been a leader in labour law. There have been many changes which have made the collective bargaining process a workable vehicle for unions and employers to arrive at contracts. In recent years, conditions in Ontario have changed. In Chatham we are experiencing extremes of unemployment and plant closures. The result is a highly competitive, unstable job market.
In Chatham we have 50 years of representation by the auto workers' union. In the beginning it was the United Auto Workers, and most recently the Canadian Auto Workers. Over that time, there have been instances of confrontational actions during bargaining. However, for the most part, contracts were settled without work stoppages.
We see the changes to the labour act as a positive step in making workers equal to the business owners. These changes will not give an advantage to either side.
The changes to the purpose clause, in our opinion, give workers recognition for their investment in the workplace. Allowing for fair and expeditious resolution of disputes should be a natural part of industrial or labour relations. Making it part of the purpose of the labour act legitimizes what we already should be practising: the right to organize.
We have heard the uproar about the proposed changes to this section, the threats to run away or not locate in Ontario. It has been our experience that workers who are treated with respect are very difficult to organize. Does this mean that the employers making all the noise want the right to exploit workers and treat them unfairly without intervention? This act came into being because workers were regarded as second-class citizens. Are we being told we should go back to those days?
Recently in our community a farm worker was let go after nine years of seasonal work because offshore workers are cheaper. Were farm workers organized in Ontario, the employer would have an obligation to treat this man with respect. Is that what the uproar is about, employers treating workers like humans instead of machines?
Domestics are, without doubt, the most highly exploited group of workers in our society. Employers take advantage of poor education, lack of language skills and fear to extract from the workers their dignity. A unionized domestic would have the rights and some power to keep her dignity. Is that what scares the chamber of commerce?
Organizing activities and certification process: Keeping in mind that workers join unions to stop exploitation and correct injustices, why would any government make that process difficult? Is it possible that the previous writers of the OLRA had a different constituency in mind when the act was being formulated? We believe that the right to organize is as much the worker's right as the employer's right. Let us explain.
Employers can freely join the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the chamber of commerce to form an effective lobby. The employers take time during business hours to participate in these and other groups to further their position. The effectiveness of these lobby groups to spread their message of fear can be seen daily in news articles. Is the demise of the world as we know it on the horizon if workers can also lobby?
The list of changes under this section of the act will force employers to treat workers as equals and allow them to determine who will best serve the workers' interests when it come to working conditions and wages. It will wrestle from the hands of the employer his most powerful weapon: fear. That is why there is an outcry from the employers. They will no longer be able to intimidate workers into submission. Instead they will be forced to deal with the issues.
Once again, the changes here merely put workers on an even footing with the employers. The proposed changes assist the workers to organize without interference from unscrupulous employers who for years have played number games to prevent unions from being established. In fact, it is fair to say at this point that if the money used to fight union organizing had been used to improve working conditions, the need for unions would be minimal.
Once the employees have made the decision to join a union, the employer has a moral obligation to bargain a contract. Instead, the employers have used first-contract bargaining as a union-busting tool. The most famous example in our area was Fleck. Fleck not only played games at bargaining but used millions of tax dollars to aid in its games. In the end the contract was signed and we all paid for the company's fight.
Use of replacement workers: How many workers will have to be run down? Who will have to die before this province passes legislation to stop strikebreaking through the use of replacement workers? What a dignified name for someone who would take a job from a worker who is exercising the legal right to strike. This practice has to stop now, not after a death nor after a crippling injury -- it has to stop now.
Conclusion: We have not addressed all the changes to the legislation in this presentation. We could go farther but it is not our intention to achieve an advantage through legislation. It is our intention to be treated as equals. We invest our lives and bodies into the business and that alone gives us the right to equality and respect.
The Chair: Mr McKeever, even with my glasses on I can't read the yellow and black button you're wearing.
Mr McKeever: I could bring this button up a little closer.
The Chair: Perhaps you could just use the microphone and tell me.
Mr McKeever: It says, "Say no to Sunday shopping." I believe you were part of that particular committee. I thank you very much for pointing that out.
The Chair: Mr Hope, five minutes.
Mr Hope: Thanks, Derry and Rick, for the presentation. As a matter of fact, I know the Chatham and District Labour Council very well. It's a good organization. It has years of roots and dedication to its communities.
One of the areas I want to touch on, Derry, is strikebreakers or replacement workers. I'm just trying to reflect back in my memory. Wasn't it something that caused a lot of devastation in our community when the post office went out on strike and people on social assistance were told, "Either you become one of those replacement workers or you're cut off social assistance"? Do you remember that?
Mr McKeever: Yes, I do. I thank you very much for the question. Being a part of that, as a volunteer picketer, I will tell you that the post office, which we all know now spent over $300 million to try and break the union, and was not successful, set up a secret subpost office in Tilbury, Ontario. In that post office they tried to sort mail and deliver it to many different communities.
In my volunteer activities, I happened to be at the secret post office -- we found out where it was -- when they were coming across the picket line. There were three of us on the picket line. I want to tell you that the three people who were driving the trucks through the picket line were instructed to cover their faces. They covered their faces with their shirts, drove out of the substation at high speed, vision obstructed, into oncoming traffic through the picket line. We couldn't stop them; we knew that.
This is one of the examples of the very serious irrational behaviour that some employers use: dangerous to the public, dangerous to the picketers and dangerous to those who are replacement workers. It has to stop. There is no rationale behind it that I think is based on anything that's progressive or positive. That's only one example in our community. There have been many other examples in Chatham and Wallaceburg, and the list goes on and on.
2000
Mr Hope: As you're well aware, the chamber of commerce from Chatham came before us today, made a presentation and painted quite a picture that showed that a number of businesses would leave.
Rick, you're a representative of Local 127. I know we had a confrontation going between Eaton's workers and I've been hearing through this hearing today that it's automatic strike. You made it very clear that you come from the shop floor. To go on strike is one of the toughest decisions to make. Coming from the shop floor, you know that most of our workers live paycheque to paycheque. To lose a week's pay is very devastating, and $100 doesn't go very far with strike pay.
I notice that the chamber painted a very, as you say, devastating picture of our community as far as the labour itself and its organization is concerned, and they call us "militant." It's been used quite often. I know the Eaton's workers, and I was just wondering if, for the reference of this committee, you could bring to light what those workers had done instead of choosing a strike position.
Mr Kitchen: First of all, to go back on David McLean's comments, we in the CAW, because it's part of the labour act, have to hold a secret vote for a strike. I thought Mr Phillips would correct the man from the chamber but apparently he didn't.
At Eaton's it is a very tricky situation because there are two plants in our area, one in Wallaceburg and one in Chatham, one represented by the CAW and one represented by the UAW. You can see there's a conflict right there with management. What they're trying to do is get a cheap contract in Chatham and then go to the Wallaceburg plant and say: "Okay, Chatham settled for 50 cents less. Will you go 75?" They're pitting plant against plant. It's Reaganomics that came up through the United States.
In the CAW, Local 127, usually when we go on a negotiation, we go three months early, and it's not as it has been painted here today that we go in 24 hours before a strike deadline and start negotiations; we go in three months prior, to work with management. There were a lot of sawoffs, back and forth. The committee did take it back twice. In the end, we settled a good collective agreement, we believe, with the Eaton's workers in Chatham. But their reward for signing that contract was that 250 of them got laid off the following week.
Mr Hope: In making reference to the chamber of commerce, I noticed they kind of skidded around the International Harvester -- Navistar now -- investment that is being made there. I noticed it was bypassed a bit, but I know for a fact that workplace has had some serious problems in the past.
Mr Kitchen: Yes.
Mr Hope: By the sound of it, the labour-management relationship has taken a different approach.
Mr Kitchen: Oh yes; it's 100% different there now. Three months ago, we were going to go bankrupt at Harvester. Now through our labour, management and union -- I don't want to say team -- efforts to bring the workplace together, we've just been awarded two new truck lines, the 9200, which is probably going to take off and create another 125 jobs in that plant, and the 9600, that will probably create another 100 jobs. We were at 630 Local 127 employees, two months ago; we're up to 926 employees now.
I should have brought the letters from fleet owners, saying that it's because of the workers and the quality that comes out of the Chatham plant, but I forgot them on my desk because we were rushed this morning. We are working with management because, face it, nobody in this room wants to lose a job, and times have changed. You'll see that unions are working together with management. You see it with Chrysler, Ford, GM, Navistar, even in small plants. We're working together because we realize that if the company doesn't make a profit, you haven't got a job.
2000
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the comments. The thing that worries me a lot are the plant closures. In your comments, you indicated that was a major issue for you, particularly in the Chatham area. I watch the plant closure things very carefully, and I realize Chatham's been particularly hard hit. As I understand the numbers on the plant closures in the last 18 months, I think about 70% of them have represented union job losses, unfortunately. I said earlier today that I think the CAW has perhaps been the hardest hit, and as I look at the next few months, I think a quarter of the plant closures are CAW locals.
That leads me to my question. I gather that for the CAW this is perhaps your major issue, the closure of plants. I'm wondering, if that is your major issue for you and your members, what the areas of this bill are that will help you in dealing with that issue. Where are the things in this bill that will come to grips with what I gather is your major issue?
Mr McKeever: I thank you for the question. You may be right that it seems publicly that the CAW is the one that is taking the burden of the hit. I don't think that's true. In the last several weeks there have been some corporate rationalizations which include non-CAW, non-automotive --
Mr Phillips: The only numbers I get are the Ministry of Labour numbers.
Mr McKeever: Well, it might not be there yet. I'm not so sure what the reporting process is through the Ministry of Labour.
Mr Phillips: It's August 14.
Mr McKeever: Then I'm not sure if they -- I don't know if the A & P closing in the city of Chatham is there.
Mr Phillips: It's here.
Mr McKeever: I don't know if the poultry plant closing in the city of Chatham is there.
Mr Phillips: It's here.
Mr McKeever: I don't know if the smaller ones in our town --
Mr Phillips: There must be 50 or more, in these numbers.
Mr McKeever: They probably are. I'll tell you that if you walk down King Street, the main street in the city of Chatham -- I know you've been many times to the city of Chatham -- it's devastation unparalleled. There are entire blocks of nothing, zero, no businesses at all. I don't think they get reported, because they have 50 or less.
Mr Phillips: This is 50 or more.
Mr McKeever: As I made very clear in my statements here, I hope and I believe that these changes will allow us to work together with business. I want to tell you that before the changes come into effect, if and when they do come in in their current state, we have taken the initiative in the Chatham and District Labour Council to work with business to change our image in our community. The image goes much further than just one of labour strife or problems between contracts. I think there's a message that must be sent out that we are doing something positive. We're working with the business community. We have a technically proficient, well-trained, educated, literate workforce in our community. We want them back to work.
The business community said something very profound to us on August 13. They said to us, "When high-paying, good jobs come to this community, we make money." We've been saying that to them for many years, that when you have union jobs, you're going to make money and you're going to prosper. They're starting to come around. I believe this act, these changes, will allow us to work together.
Mr Phillips: What areas will help the CAW? Just so I can be helpful.
Mr Kitchen: I think it will help not just the CAW but the whole community as a whole if you can get in there and organize some of these little sweatshops, "finger factories," as they're called, because people lost arms, legs and fingers there. If you can get in there and get them a decent wage, then maybe they'll create jobs, get people off social assistance, off unemployment, and we'll get back to hiring people in Ontario.
2010
Mr Tilson: I'd like to talk on a subject that I've been asking a number of delegations about, and that is the issue of the replacement workers. The whole concern that we all have is one of survival. We're concerned with bankruptcies, with job closings, with what's happening in your community with the various industries that are closing.
Should we be looking at legislation that is going to encourage survival for us all, for management, for the union? My question to you is, will a business, generally speaking, depending on the type of business it is -- I know the comment that has been coming back when I've entered into this type of debate, and it is particularly the auto industry, is that there are industries that will be able to survive -- be able to survive a strike with the passing of this legislation?
If there was a strike now -- in fact a strike now or a strike after Bill 40 becomes law, if it becomes law and there are no amendments -- the employee will be entitled to go out and get a job. Now it may not be as well-paying a job, but they will be entitled to go out and get a job anywhere, and will. The union will try and help them to get a job to cushion the blow, because strikes are difficult for employees; there's no question about it. In other words, the employee does not have to forfeit his right to work. They will be suffering, but generally speaking they'll be able to pay most of their bills.
With Bill 40 and the banning of the replacement worker, when there is a strike and one is not able to retain replacement workers, the employer won't be able to meet -- unless he has unbelievable cash reserves, which in this day and age is most unlikely -- his liabilities, whether it's leasing or other contractual matters with whoever.
There will be no cash flow because the business won't be operating. They won't be able to pay the bank. The just-in-time operations, which I know you're familiar with -- people will go to other places. Those just-in-time operations have to be met and if they're not met the opposition is going to go elsewhere. The employer forfeits his or her right to work.
My question to you is that of survival. If there's a strike called under all these circumstances that I've described to you, will the employer be able to survive?
Mr McKeever: First of all, let me say that's got to hold the record for the longest question that's ever been asked of me in my life.
Mr Offer: No.
Mr Tilson: You haven't heard these guys.
Mr McKeever: First of all, let me preface it by saying that --
Mr Tilson: I can do better than that.
Mr McKeever: Give me a break. I would have to say that some business people and business groups, and I think you're reflecting that in your comments, are of the opinion that when this labour legislation passes there will be an immediate and total avalanche of certified workplaces. That's not going to happen. That is simply just not going to happen. This is going to take a long, long time. There are good employers in the community. We recognize that. But there are some places that are going to be organized a little quicker than others, I believe, because we haven't had the access.
But I want to talk to you for just a minute about something I don't think you've really touched on. I believe in good citizenship and I believe that with citizenship comes a responsibility by individuals in their community to act as part of that community. This bill, I believe, will instil some corporate citizenship in this province.
I believe those corporations that want to stay here and make some money with us will do that and not fold up and move away as some people have suggested they will. This is not a matter of survival for business. They're going to be here. They're going to make money. They always have made money. These are not good times, but money is still being made. The bill is a positive effect and will instil some corporate responsibility in our communities. Those who want to work with us will stay; those who don't, most of them are gone now anyway.
The Chair: Oft-times long questions beget long answers.
Mr Hope: Would it be possible for the presenters to forward the letters to the clerk as part of a reference that was made? There was reference made about the quality of work and the worker relationship.
Mr Kitchen: I'll bring them over to your office.
Mr Hope: Could it be part of the clerk's?
The Chair: If you could either take them to Mr Hope's office or mail them to the clerk of the standing committee on resources development at Queen's Park, because they become part of the record, we'd appreciate it.
Mr Kitchen: Yes, it saves 45 cents that way.
The Chair: Thank you, Rick Kitchen, speaking on behalf of CAW Local 127, and Derry McKeever, speaking on behalf of the Chatham and District Labour Council. Thank you for coming into Windsor this evening. We appreciate it.
Mr McKeever, do you think you could send me some of those "Say no to sunday shopping" buttons?
Mr McKeever: Yes, I have several left.
The Chair: I was going to ask for 74 but I think that's a little optimistic.
ONTARIO SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS' FEDERATION, DISTRICT 1
The Chair: The next participant is the OSSTF. Would they please come forward and seat themselves and tell us their names and titles. We've got your written submission. Please go ahead.
Mr Mike Walsh: My name is Mike Walsh. I'm the president of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 1, Windsor. With me is Dorothy Greenway, who's the president of our staff support branch of the OSSTF in Windsor. Also accompanying us and helping us with the preparation of the presentation are Tom Henderson, the treasurer of the district, and Anne MacNeil, an administrative representative from the staff support branch.
On behalf of the members of my district, I thank the committee for the time to speak with you tonight. OSSTF District 1 represents four Ontario Labour Relations Act bargaining units employed by the Windsor Board of Education, totalling 450 employees. These include the following groups: professional student services personnel, who are psychologists, psychometrists, speech pathologists and social workers; the staff support branch, consisting of office, clerical, educational associates and technical employees; continuing education instructors, teaching English as a second language, adult basic education and general interest courses; and also a group of occasional teachers. This represents about half of the total District 1 membership, the rest being teachers covered by Bill 100.
All of the OLRA groups were organized within the last five years. Our experience in this organization and the attempt to get first contracts for these groups is the basis of most of our presentation this evening. It's our expectation that the OSSTF provincial body will get an opportunity to speak to this committee and will make representation on each and every aspect of the bill. We've tried to restrict ourselves to those things we've had some experience with.
In our opinion, the organizing process was stalled by shortcomings in the present legislation. These delays occurred despite the fact that the Windsor board had been dealing with unionized employees for a number of years and so didn't have any sort of pre-set opposition to unions per se.
For example, although the organizing drive for the continuing education instructors began in early 1989, they did not get their certificate to bargain until September 1990. No first contract was won until April 1992, over a year and a half later. In our experience, the average length of time between organizing a unit and getting a first contract has been more than two years. If our society accepts that justice delayed is justice denied and eight months is too long to wait for a criminal trial, then a wait of more than two years for a first contract is just plain wrong.
2020
We applaud the government on the new bill's purpose clause which would permit the Ontario Labour Relations Board to interpret the law so that workers can more easily form a union. The power of the OLRB to combine bargaining units with the same employer and to allow part- and full-timers to be members of the same bargaining unit should eliminate some of the delays our district experienced in getting certification.
However, some delays could still occur under the new bill because the employer does not have to give the union the exact number of employees in the bargaining unit and their job descriptions. Without this information, the union does not know who's in the unit and who's not and whether they've met the 40% membership enrolment.
If we had not gotten voluntary recognition for the staff support group, we would have run into big problems in getting a certificate because of a large number of employees the employer knew the existence of that we didn't. It was fortuitous that we got voluntary recognition, otherwise we may not have gotten a certificate. We might still be trying to get one for the staff support branch.
Our recommendation then is that employers be required to provide, at the time of certification, a list of employees and their job descriptions to the union seeking to organize a new employee group.
At this point I'm going to ask Dorothy Greenway to make a further part of the presentation. Then I'd like to come back on to conclude. Dorothy can give you firsthand experience on the difficulties of getting a first contract. She's the president of our largest OLRA group, the 280-member staff support branch that had to go on strike to achieve a first contract and was presented with the difficulty of the use of replacement workers, strikebreakers.
Ms Dorothy Greenway: As president of the support staff branch of the OSSTF, District 1, Windsor, I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today on behalf of this bargaining unit, which has very recently experienced some of the problems being addressed by the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, especially the use of replacement workers or strikebreakers during a legal strike.
I would like to commend the NDP government for tackling this controversial but long overdue updating of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. These proposals deal with fairness and balance in the collective bargaining process and can only result in an improved working environment for both employers and employees. Labour relations will finally move into the 1990s where continual confrontation is replaced by greater cooperation and partnership, which we feel will promote the most enabling, creative, innovative and productive working environment.
In addressing section 32 of the bill, section 73.1 of the act, in our own case, after negotiating for 18 months, we were forced to go out on strike when our employer offered us a financial package far less than that provided for the non-bargaining-unit employees. They threatened to divide our unit into two groups according to our two certificates although we had always negotiated from the very beginning as one bargaining unit.
During the week prior to our taking strike action, our employer instructed members of our bargaining unit to train temporary and non-bargaining-unit employees on the duties of their jobs. This action by our employer greatly inflamed the already tense situation. We received calls from our members who were frantic and distraught at being made to prepare people to take over their own jobs in the event of a strike. Our members felt hurt, betrayed and that our employer had absolutely no respect for them. They were extremely frustrated by having to work under these conditions. The emotions evoked caused unbelievable stress for these employees.
Our employer also brought in replacement workers from outside agencies, and these people, of course, crossed our picket lines. Anyone who has not been through the devastating experience of having to take strike action, which is in itself a very frightening prospect, and then standing by and watch as outsiders, along with people with whom you used to work side by side, cross your picket line to go in to do your work, to take over your job, cannot fully understand the terrible feelings of loss, betrayal, hurt, absolute frustration, resentment and finally unbelievable anger that comes to the front because of such actions.
The majority of our members are women, who are used to settling problems without violence, but had our sanction lasted much longer, I don't know if violence might not have entered the picture. We tried very hard to avoid the possibility of violence, but the tension was mounting daily, along with the frustration. Fortunately, after 26 days of strike action, we came to an agreement with our employer and any further danger in this area was averted.
In our board, there have been sanctions initiated over the years on several occasions by other bargaining units and never, ever before were replacement workers brought in. For the first time in the history of the Windsor Board of Education in its dealings with its employees, the board chose this predominantly female bargaining unit, who were negotiating their first collective agreement, to discriminate against by using replacement workers.
This sent a very clear message to our members that we were considered second-class citizens and that our contribution as employees was not really valued by this employer. These tactics fostered much disappointment, disillusionment and bitterness, and it will take a long time to build a really good, trusting relationship with this employer again.
The new reality in the workforce today, with the emerging number of women entering daily, should signal to employers the need to take women seriously and value them as equal partners in the workforce. Women want the same things from employment that men do: fair payments for their efforts, fair and equitable treatment by their employer, a safe and hospitable work environment, to be valued for their contribution, and fair and equitable access to promotable positions.
By using temporary employees to do our jobs while we were on strike, our employer placed those also predominantly female employees in a terrible position. They felt that if they refused to do the replacement work and cross our picket lines, this employer would not call them back and their hopes of eventually getting permanent positions would be crushed. Some of these people had worked on a temporary basis for this board for several years. These people were caught in the middle of this conflict.
Although we sympathize with the situation the temporary employees were in, we had nothing to do with putting them there. Our employer placed them in the untenable position of being "damned if you do and damned if you don't." Our bargaining unit members lost a great deal of respect for our employer for dealing with all of us in such an unfair and demeaning manner.
The use of replacement workers or strikebreakers is a tactic that causes far more harm than good. It builds walls of resentment and distrust between employees -- bargaining and non-bargaining -- and does absolutely nothing to foster cooperative labour-management relations.
It has been five months since the end of our strike, and I can tell you that although we are encouraging members to look forward and work on building a cooperative working environment, the wounds are deep for many and will in some cases take years, if ever, to heal.
The use of replacement workers during our sanction was devastating to employees who for the most part had given over and above the call of duty for many, many years. Our members take their job responsibilities very seriously and function as an integral part of the educational team. They genuinely care about the teachers and students in this system and do their best to help them in any way they can. At least this was the situation before replacement workers were used by our employer.
Many employees now feel that they are not valued at all by this board and that they have been used and taken for granted for years and just expected to give and give without any understanding or recognition of their efforts. Many are rethinking their dedication to an employer who would treat them in the manner it did during the strike. Strikes are very difficult and are undertaken only as a last resort, but the use of replacement workers or strikebreakers is the most devastating tactic for employees to cope with and it undermines the collective bargaining process and the employee-employer relationship.
We are also concerned with the restriction in the proposed amendments to allow the use of replacement workers where the union has received support for a strike from less then 60% of those participating in a secret strike ballot. If a bargaining unit gets the 51% necessary for a legal strike, that should be all that is necessary to restrict the use of replacement workers. Once a legal strike is operative, why should employees have to prove anything further? Having complied with the percentage requirement for a legal strike should be enough. Democracy is 50% plus one.
2030
We recognize the fact that section 35 of Bill 40, section 81.2 of the act, addresses the issue of voluntary recognition for certification by proposing protections for employees in a bargaining unit between the date of certification and the signing of the first collective agreement. Access to the just-cause protection while negotiating a first contract is extremely important and necessary. It discourages employers from retaliating against employees and from treating them in an unfair manner during this vulnerable time period.
We certainly hope these proposals will ensure that all bargaining units that have been granted voluntary recognition by employers will be covered by all the provisions of the act. This would be a great improvement.
Our members welcome provisions under section 21 of the bill, section 43.1 of the act, which provide access to the just-cause clause provisions to all bargaining unit members upon certification of a bargaining unit prior to achieving a collective agreement. This too is a major advance which we applaud.
As a bargaining unit with voluntary recognition from our employer, we know that the amendments above, which are major improvements, will go a long way towards cementing the relationship between the bargaining unit and the employer.
We are very hopeful that time and a real attempt towards cooperation and fairness on both our employer's part and ours will resolve our problems and provide a more hospitable and productive workplace for us all.
The proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act will do much towards that end by removing the need for confrontation to resolve problems and substituting instead a cooperative approach to problem-solving that will streamline the mediation process and reduce conflict in bargaining.
By eliminating the use of scab labour in legal strike situations, the legislation will overcome the possibility of employers some time in the future hiring replacement workers to permanent positions in the bargaining unit that was previously on strike and whose picket lines these replacement workers crossed. The hiring of replacement workers to permanent positions would further damage the employer-employee and employee-employee relationships. Therefore, legislation prohibiting the use of scab labour in legal strike situations would most definitely go a long way towards avoiding acrimony and assisting to build harmonious relationships within the working environment.
In conclusion, we urge the panel to support the recommendations of this bargaining unit to drop the requirement of a 60% strike vote before the use of scabs by the employer can be prohibited; 50% plus one is fair.
We also urge this government to adopt Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment, because the proposals are fair, long overdue and necessary if the relationship between employers and employees is to grow and prosper. There will have to be vastly improved cooperation between employers and employees in the future if we hope to meet the many difficult challenges that lie ahead for all of us to provide adequately for the needs of all of our workers. We have a very big job ahead of us and we will only accomplish it and be successful if we work together side by side, hand in hand. These proposed amendments will help to make this possible.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to voice our opinions and concerns. Again, we commend you for your efforts on behalf of fairness and equity in the workplace. If you have any questions, I will do my best to respond.
Mr Walsh: At least 90% of our newly organized members are women. On average in Ontario, it's our understanding that women make approximately 65% of the wages of men. Men far outnumber women in union membership and it's our belief that if more women joined unions, the wage gap could be narrowed. In other words, we see this new bill as an effective form of pay equity legislation.
We congratulate the government on its efforts to improve workers' access to union organizing and the attempt to address the imbalance of employees' rights and employers' power. In particular, we urge inclusion in the final bill of the clauses that you already have in Bill 40 that we see here: the purpose clause; the restrictions on the use of replacement workers; the improved first-contract rights; the faster adjudication processes; the provision for full and part-time workers to be in the same union.
From our experience in organizing and attempting to get first contracts for new groups over the past five years, we would suggest the inclusion of the two things that were mentioned by Dorothy; namely, the employer to provide a list of employees at the time of certification, and two, the restriction on the use of replacement workers in all legal strikes.
Finally, no discussion is complete without a comment on the vitriolic and misleading campaign being waged by some against the bill's passage. The crowning insult appears on billboards around Windsor and intends to be a serious comparison between Karl Marx, Lenin and Premier Rae. The caption reads: "It didn't work in the USSR, why Ontario, Bob? Stop proposed labour act reforms today."
What didn't work? Progressive social policy? Fair labour laws? Anyone moderately acquainted with life in the Soviet Union knows that there was no such thing as a free trade union or collective bargaining. One of the marks of a democratic society is the right of workers to freely organize and join trade unions.
At a time when the federal government seems bent on attacking the social safety net by cutting transfer payments and slashing programs, it's refreshing to see a government come up with a progressive law that achieves a better deal for the average worker. Our district supports this bill and asks the committee to consider the few changes that we believe will improve it.
Mr Phillips: Just a comment on your brief: I'm not sure whether it's Mr Walsh or Ms Greenway. You talk about the federal Tories, and I'm no friend of Mulroney's, but you should be aware that the federal government's transfers to the province this year have gone up almost 20%, $1.4 billion from the federal government to the provincial government. Transfers to the school boards have gone up 1%, so the province gets $1.4 billion more from the feds and has transferred to schools, hospitals, colleges and municipalities about 10% of that. I just make that observation for you because, as I say, I'm not defending Mulroney, but I was surprised the OSSTF didn't comment on the transfer payments from the province to the school boards.
My question really is along the replacement worker issue. I understand your point in here. School boards, as we all know, depend on a vibrant private sector for the tax base. I used to be chairman of the Metro school board, so I have a little bit of appreciation of this. Some of the members' concerns are that there are certain businesses that if they shut down even for two weeks are finished for all intents and purposes.
I think there are some newspapers in competitive situations that couldn't survive any extended shutdown. There are some retail businesses that couldn't survive any extended shutdown. There are some manufacturing operations that couldn't survive any extended shutdown. Recognizing that, does the OSSTF have the same view on replacement workers in those industries? Are you suggesting that they be banned totally, so that during a strike the organization must shut down? Is that your view, on the OSSTF?
Mr Walsh: Yes. The OSSTF position is that there should be no use of replacement workers in a legal strike situation in any circumstance. In the situations that you suggest, let's assume, for example, that a retail store experiences a strike, and because we accept your position, the store is closed as a result of that strike.
Mr Phillips: That is your position?
Mr Walsh: No, that's your position and I'm accepting it for the purposes of argument right now.
Mr Phillips: I just want to clear it up. I thought that was the OSSTF position, that the enterprise should close during a strike.
Mr Walsh: Let me just continue with the scenario. If it's not clear at the end, perhaps you can come at me again. If as a result of the strike the store is forced to close, then what happens to all those employees? They're all out of a job. They're all on the street. They have a job no more. It would be insanity for any organized group and the representatives of any union to be putting the employer in a position where it puts all the employees out of a job. If there are circumstances where certain enterprises cannot stand a strike, then the employees can't stand the strike either, and so there's pressure on both sides to come to a collective agreement without resorting to a strike.
Strikes are in fact the breakdown of the negotiation process. Most negotiations end without any resorting to a strike, but there's a pressure on both sides, even in the circumstance that you've posed.
I challenge also the premise that you put forward. It seems to me that there are many enterprises now that even without being able to use strikebreakers, are going to be able to conduct business almost as usual.
In fact, even without strikebreakers, many of the operations of the school board were quite unaffected by the strike and they had great difficulty bringing pressure on the employer.
There are many businesses which currently use equipment that needs very few workers, and a few people, like the superintendents in the plant and the management, can keep the plant going for a very long period of time.
2040
Mr Phillips: Okay, that's helpful. It's a different position than the previous group, and I understand that.
On the transfer payments, did you have a comment on that?
Mr Walsh: My understanding is what I said in the brief, which is that the transfers to the provinces had been reduced, that the share Ontario got was considerably cut, and that as a result of that, the provincial government made cuts to each of the areas: health, education and social services.
I should say, and I think it's a fair comment by you, that for us to appear uncritical of this present government for its increase of 1% -- I am critical. I think they should have increased the payments to education far greater than that. They made an undertaking when they came to government that they were going to increase the numbers up to 60%.
Mr Phillips: I remember that.
Mr Walsh: It's an undertaking that I'm not making issue with here because it's not on the agenda, but you can be sure that in a couple of years' time, we will make an issue about that.
Mr Phillips: Since you mention it, you might want to look at some of those numbers, anyway.
Mr Offer: I have a question on your brief. On page 5, you speak to the issue of democracy being 50% plus one, and it's quite clear.
Actually, on your first page, you speak about combining bargaining units of part-time and full-time workers. That's now allowed under the legislation. Part-time workers in a part-time unit, with full-time workers in a full-time unit, can be combined. However, the issue is that it doesn't require a majority of each of the units to combine. If there are enough workers in the full-time unit who wish to take over the part-time unit, that happens. It's clear under this legislation that it happens. So my question is, keeping in mind page 5 of your brief where democracy is 50% plus one, would you support an amendment that would state that the combination of part-time worker unit and full-time worker unit could only take place if a majority in each unit wanted it to happen?
Mr Walsh: On the surface of your question and your observation, I guess the answer would be yes. My problem is that I haven't looked at that particular clause in detail, so I'm hesitant to give you a formal OSSTF position on it because I don't know what it is.
I know that in our own experience, we were attempting to organize the staff support branch, and we wanted all the employees. We were happy to take the part-timers. It was the school board that didn't want them to be included, and so presently they are an unrepresented group. I know among teachers, who are not covered by this bill I understand, in similar bargaining circumstances there isn't any problem bargaining for both full- and part-time under that.
But as to your specific question, I can't give you any kind of official answer. On the surface of what you've said, it should be a majority.
Mr Tilson: Your comments at the end of your presentation, specifically on page 7, have really echoed what has irked the Premier. He's called the billboards "billboard politics," and whether you like them or whether you don't like them, the fact of the matter is it's quite clear from presentations that are given at this committee, comments that are made in the press, other places, other presentations that are made throughout this province, that business is very frustrated with this specific bill.
In fact they're saying that what has happened is that this bill specifically has created the perception that Ontario is a very, very hostile place to do business with, that this bill is going to create a high cost and a very hostile place to do business. Whether you agree with that or whether you don't agree with that, the fact of the matter is that's a perception that is coming forward in the press, that's coming forward at this hearing.
My question to you is, because you're educators, what recommendations do you have to this government to develop policies that will enable this confidence in investing in this great province to be regained?
Mr Walsh: I guess the first thing would be to pass this bill quickly and put it into practice, so that people could see that the fears that the business community has expressed were unfounded and that in fact this will lead to a far better bargaining climate. It will lead to far quicker resolutions of differences. It seems to me when you have employees who don't have burrs under their saddles because they've got grievances that are still sitting out there six months and 12 months down the line, those issues will be settled quickly and we should see improvements in productivity as a result of the passage of this bill.
In terms of the hostile environment that has been created, I believe that the hostile environment perception has in fact been deliberately created by the corporate community and it's a most unfortunate thing that they've done. You can simply take a look at the vitriolic kind of campaign that's involved in setting up pictures of Karl Marx and pictures of Lenin and putting Bob Rae in the same circumstance. Just putting those things together and suggesting that this bill is moving towards a Soviet style or communist style of government is so outlandish, it's incredible.
I would think, sir, that you would want to distance yourself and your party from such billboards and put that clearly out there, because the right to organize and the right for people to freely associate is a freedom that's expressed in democracies. It's a freedom that this bill moves towards. It's an expression of democratic action. It's an expression that improves the lot of the bulk of the population.
It's not surprising that business in fact is losing some of its power under this bill. I might remind you, when property rights were what you needed to have to have a vote, they worked strongly against the labour unions when the labour unions were trying to get the vote for the ordinary worker; again, it was an attempt to not lose some of the power.
Here again, we've got some loss of power involved and there's some fear of it, some genuine fear from some smaller businesses and I think some less genuine fear from the likes of the multinationals that have been putting much of the big money up behind this campaign.
2050
Mr Tilson: The business people of course are saying, "Well, we're concerned, but we're also repeating what is being told to us by investors from within and outside the province of Ontario, from outside the country, as far as investing in this province."
However this climate was created, the fact is it's been created. There's been an inadequate consultation process -- and I know that Ms Murdock will be on the edge of her chair to deny that fact -- but the fact is that delegation after delegation is coming to this committee and simply saying, "There's been inadequate consultation from the business community to deal with all of these matters," and that the government isn't listening to all of the facts and the fears that are being put forward by the business community.
Is it a win-win situation, or should it be, "Maybe we should have a tripartite review of business, government and labour"? This has not taken place on this very important bill.
Mr Walsh: You are a far better judge of the amount of consultation than we are.
Mr Tilson: But that is the frustration that they're putting forward, the frustration that you're seeing. Sure, there are tactics that unions use that I don't like; there are tactics that business uses that I don't like. But the fact is that they're very frustrated; that's the expression that they're putting forward, rightly or wrongly.
Interjection: Where do you think labour went for years?
Mr Tilson: Mr Chairman, are you going to continue to allow the applause and outbursts from this audience?
The Chair: Yes. Go ahead with your question.
Mr Tilson: No.
Mr Lessard: Thank you both very much for your presentation. I especially want to thank Dorothy Greenway for giving the very passionate account of a personal experience. I think it's important for us to hear firsthand personal experiences when we are involved in considering legislation.
You mentioned during the dispute in organizing that the employer was threatening to divide the unit into two groups, and you didn't explain that. I wondered what the reasoning would have been behind that.
Ms Greenway: We had two certificates: one for the office, clerical and technical group and one for the educational associates group. We wanted one bargaining unit with all of those people as one group. The board of education was aware of that, and it negotiated with us right from day one as one bargaining unit. But when we came to an impasse, that was one of the things where we had trouble. They threatened to split that once again into two groups, and we would have to negotiate as two groups. We would have two collective agreements, and that was one of the issues in our strike.
Mr Lessard: I think many people who might be unfamiliar with the labour movement might have this image of a sort of uncompromising, militant, macho type of group. What we see now is that a great many women are entering the workforce, and you've indicated that in your brief. I would suggest, and that's what we are suggesting, that this is part of the reason we need to make some amendments to the Labour Relations Act, because there have been those changes in the makeup of the labour force.
In your example, you've indicated some of the problems that you perceive you had because you were a predominantly female bargaining unit and as such probably found it very difficult to finally reach a decision to eventually go out on strike. I wondered whether you could outline some of the considerations you may have faced, because we're presented with the prospect by the opposition that if there isn't that threat that replacement workers can be used, then employees might just go on strike at the drop of a hat because they can bring employers to their knees.
Ms Greenway: Definitely we were petrified. We had been negotiating for two years by the time we got our collective agreement. Getting involved with the union and organizing in the first place is frightening. It was a very difficult process. By the time we organized and then went through preparing a brief and then the negotiations that followed that -- and we negotiated a long time -- it was a very difficult decision to make, to go on strike, and our members had never experienced anything like this before, ever.
Consequently it was not a decision that we made very easily. We made a last-ditch attempt before we finally did; we had our strike vote and we tried one more time to go back to the table because we did not want to go on strike. Strike was not what we wanted. We wanted a settlement and we wanted to get back to the table, but we could not get them to talk to us again and we eventually did have to go on strike. But it was definitely a last resort because we were very afraid of it.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to Mike Walsh and to Dorothy Greenway, who are here this evening, on behalf of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, District 1. We appreciate your taking the time to come in. We're sorry that you were scheduled late in the evening. As you undoubtedly know, large numbers of people wanted to participate in these hearings. Only a fraction of those people who applied were called upon and we're grateful to all of those throughout the day and throughout this evening. We thank you for coming here and sharing your views with us. Thank you, people.
Mr Walsh: Thanks very much.
The Chair: There are a couple of matters. I do want to thank the committee members for their cooperation and of course thank Pat Girouard, who is here with Hansard; Anne Anderson, who is the legislative research officer, works very hard; Todd Decker, the clerk of the committee --
Mr Phillips: He works hard.
The Chair: He works very hard and very professionally. David Augustyn, a co-op student who lives on Port Robinson Road West in the city of Thorold who's working with the Clerk's office; the interpretation services, Sylvie Soth and others; and the people who handled the electronics, Teresa Jodoin and today helping her, Joe Andriaccio. These people are skilled, talented, professional people who make this committee's work much easier. Mr Offer?
Mr Offer: Mr Chair, as you will know, I informed you earlier that I wanted to bring forward two matters for ministry staff to clarify in as short a period of time as possible. If I might at this point, I'd like to present those questions to them.
We've heard a great many submissions on the issue of membership lists. I would like to ask the ministry staff if they could inform this committee, as soon as it is reasonable in the circumstances, whether, as a result of the purpose clause -- I won't go into the purpose clause -- and the expanded powers of the arbitrator, the argument can be made in front of the board now with some degree of certainty that the membership lists are to be provided, keeping in mind the purpose clause of the legislation.
The second one deals with the very same issue, the very same matter. The wording of the purpose clause talks about encouraging the process of collective bargaining so as to enhance the abilities of employees to negotiate with their employer for the purpose of improving their terms and conditions of employment. My question on that basis is, would there be, with some reasonable degree of certainty, the opportunity to argue by a union representative that employers should provide and make known their confidential financial statements, keeping in mind the wording of the purpose clause?
The Chair: Are there any other matters?
Mr Brown: Just on a brief point of order, Mr Chair: I found the proceedings today enjoyable and interesting, but I share Mr Tilson's view that these have been at least a little bit unusual from my perspective in that there has been a large amount of participation from people who were not members of this committee or presenting to this committee.
In my experience at committees, which has lasted, I guess, about five years, this is highly unusual procedure. I'm just not sure where the precedent comes from for permitting this. It's always been the view, at least I thought it was the view, that this is an extension of the Legislature and the rules that applied in the Legislature shall apply here.
My concern is that there may be some presenter who comes before this committee who might find a crowd unfriendly to whatever his particular point of view is and might find himself intimidated. I don't think that happened today and hopefully it won't happen in the future, but the idea that it may happen defeats this committee's purpose and I would just ask that you consider that.
The Chair: Your point is well made.
Mr Hope: On that same point, Mr Kormos --
Mr Lessard: Mr Chair.
Mr Hope: Or Mr Chair.
The Chair: I've been called worse.
Mr Hope: Not being a member of a committee of the Legislature but an active participant in this community, with a number of government presentations for the past five years, it is not uncommon for both employers and employees to make viewpoints heard, because as we reflect in southwestern Ontario, sometimes they forget about us through a consultation process. I think, for Mr Brown's purposes, it is not unusual, in previous governments or in this one, to have participation, which only shows that it's a more democratic process of allowing people to consult.
The Chair: Mr Brown and before him Mr Tilson had clearly been speaking not to the participation of people as formal participants but to the participation of onlookers, as I understand it. If I'm wrong about what they were addressing, they'll correct me. Go ahead, Mr Brown.
Mr Brown: That's precisely the point. I can recall in this community some years ago participating in public hearings such as this, only they were held at the Cleary Auditorium, I believe, on Bill 162, where the present esteemed Treasurer of this province was presiding in the chair of this very committee and where he admonished the group on several occasions not to have any participation, for the very reasons I've outlined, and it in fact did not happen. I think there's ample precedent and ample reason for the traditions of this Legislature to continue.
The Chair: I hear very well what you've said and I've paid careful attention to it. Any other matters? We are adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning here in this same place. Thank you, people.
The committee adjourned at 2103.