WINDSOR RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO AREA COUNCIL
THE COMMITTEE RESUMED AT 1436 IN THE SHERATON ARMOURIES HOTEL, LONDON.
SIMCOE AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
SARNIA AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, NIAGARA PENINSULA AREA COUNCIL
LONDON AND DISTRICT SERVICE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 220
CANADIAN CHEMICAL PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION
OXFORD REGIONAL LABOUR COUNCIL
CONTENTS
Wednesday 19 August 1992
Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 40
Ontario Hospital Association
James N. Bartlet, chair, human resources committee
Brian Siegner, vice-president, hospital employee relations services
Paul LeMay, managing director, hospital employee relations services
Steven Langdon
Windsor Restaurant Association
Jim Evans, director
Tom Racovitis, director and vice-chair, municipal government affairs
United Steelworkers of America, southwestern Ontario area council
Steve Banks, servicing staff representative
Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce
Gerry McCarthy, general manager
Simcoe and District Labour Council
Peter Leibovitch, president
Form and Build Management Inc
Bill Ross, businessman
Garry Turner, businessman
Gerald Slemko, businessman
Sarnia and District Labour Council
Ken Glassco, president
Ed Nelson, board member
United Steelworkers of America, Niagara Peninsula area council
David McIntosh, volunteer organizer
London and District Service Workers Union, Local 220
Lin Whittaker, vice-president
Liza Timmers, member
Kirstn Bradley, union organizer
Canadian Chemical Producers' Association
Gordon N. Catterson, chairman, Ontario labour relations issue group
David W. Goffin, vice-president, business development
Oxford Regional Labour Council
Broderick Carey, president
James Davidson, board member
Jack Coups
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
*Cunningham, Dianne (London North / -Nord PC) for Mr Jordan
*Ferguson, Will (Kitchener ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Klopp
*Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Wood
*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:
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)
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
631
The committee met at 1000 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.
ONTARIO HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): Good morning. It's 10 o'clock. We're ready to resume these hearings. The first participant is the Ontario Hospital Association. I want to tell people that there are French-language translation services being provided. The receiving devices are available to you if you want to take advantage of those. We have a half-hour for this presentation. Please try to save the second half of the half-hour for questions, dialogue and exchanges. Go ahead, please.
Mr James Bartlet: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'm James Bartlet, chairman of the OHA human resources committee. We're glad to be here today as a provincial organization to make our presentation in Windsor. It also helps me, because I live in Windsor.
I would like to start, sir and members of the committee, by advising you that the Ontario Hospital Association represents 223 hospitals employing approximately 160,000 employees, of whom approximately 108,000 are represented by one of 18 unions.
I would point out that there were only 16 unions with representation rights in the hospital industry at the time of our submission last January on the discussion paper. At that time, that submission was made by Mr Timbrell in Kingston.
Collective bargaining for the hospital industry is governed by the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and, as a result, the strike-lockout sections of the Labour Relations Act are not applicable to us and will play no part in our presentation as they are not relevant. As the committee well knows probably, in place of the strike-lockout, we have a binding arbitration procedure.
I have with me today Mr Brian Siegner, the vice-president of OHA's hospital employee relations services, and Mr Paul LeMay, the managing director of hospital employee relations services.
Not only am I able to appear here in my capacity as the chair of the OHA board's human resources committee, I am also a trustee of the Salvation Army Grace Hospital here in Windsor and I am a practising labour lawyer with extensive experience in the private sector throughout southwestern Ontario. In my alter ego I am compelled to comment on the overall thrust of the proposed amendments in the strike-lockout sections.
In brief, I would echo the concerns expressed by many employers. The proposed limitations on the use of replacement workers seriously distort the balance of power between employers and unions. Sadly, from my experience as a labour lawyer, I think the beneficiaries will likely be non-union employees, border states and, in some cases, low-wage areas in North America remote from Ontario.
However, members of the committee, my primary purpose today is to present to you our members' views of the proposed amendments. Mr Dennis Timbrell, our president, did present to the Minister of Labour last January the OHA's response to the discussion paper on the Labour Relations Act, and that appears at tab 3 of our presentation. He also wrote to the minister on July 14 outlining our six major concerns with the proposed amendments, and his letter to the minister appears at tab 2 of our presentation.
In addition to asking that you seriously consider our position as set out in those documents, I appreciate the opportunity of being able to speak with you in the committee personally today.
Dealing with specific concerns, we would like to deal first with the proposed purpose clause. We strongly feel that it should not be in the body of the act itself. As proposed in the discussion paper, it should be a preamble to the act. There should be no thought in anyone's mind that the preamble is or is intended to be a substantive provision to be used in interpreting other sections of the act.
For example, there should be no possibility that anyone would take the position that the purpose clause should be used to determine whether or not an employer has bargained in good faith because the employer has not agreed to improve wages and/or benefits. Indeed, the concept of "improving...terms and conditions of employment" should be replaced with the concept of "negotiating" appropriate terms and conditions.
Further examples of why the purpose clause should not be in the body of the act are found in the proposed section 2.1, paragraph 3, "ongoing settlement of differences." What does that mean? Do the parties go to the board to determine the issues in dispute? What does the term "fair," as used in the proposed section 2.1, paragraph 4, mean in law?
Our second point in our presentation today deals with bargaining unit definitions. Simply put, neither employers nor unions are well served by fragmented bargaining units. At the same time, both need to have some certainty as to how the labour board will define a bargaining unit.
In the hospital industry, the board has long recognized that the interests of part-timers are different from those of full-timers. Against the backdrop that two thirds of the employees in the hospital industry are represented by a union and that in very nearly all cases where there is a full-time bargaining unit there is also a corresponding part-time unit, it is our assessment that the proposed changes will do three things:
1. They will encourage certification of fragmented groups. I would ask you particularly to note the change in the Ontario Labour Relations Board practice already from the Stratford decision in the mid-1970s, which stands for relatively broad groupings of hospital employees, to the recent Mississauga decision regarding the Practical Nurses Federation of Ontario, where the labour board certified a narrow registered nursing assistant group, and this was even before the proposed amendments were introduced.
2. Once a union has certified a number of fragmented groups at the same hospital, it will then be able to apply to the labour relations board to have the board combine the units for the purpose of collective bargaining.
3. Further, they will result in the combination of full-time and part-time units, with the resultant subjugation of the part-time community of interest to that of the stronger full-time group. Make no mistake. The proposed changes are not in the interests of part-time employees. According to the Ministry of Health statistics, 56,000 of the 160,000 hospital employees are part-timers.
We would like to comment also on the provisions regarding the discharge of probationary employees. We disagree with the application of the just-cause standard to this group of employees, and with the reverse onus for bargaining the standard. Again it does not meet the practical, day-to-day needs of the employer, the current employees or the prospective employees.
If you proceed with this amendment, that is, to impose a just-cause standard on probationary employees unless it can be negotiated out from the statute, at the very least it should be clear that where subsisting collective agreement provisions deal with the release of probationary employees, those collective agreement provisions would govern unless altered by negotiation -- a form of grandfathering, I guess.
Next in our presentation today we deal with expanded powers of an arbitrator. As you will note from our earlier submissions, we are not opposed to the proposals in this area. However, we do not believe that a complainant should be able to bring a matter under the collective agreement where the arbitrator will have the power -- and we've noted the article there -- "to interpret and apply the requirements of human rights and other employment-related statutes..." and also have access to any other forum on the same, or essentially the same, complaint.
We have taken this position before the task force on the Human Rights Code. In their report they appear to have generally agreed in principle with this idea; that is, we don't wish to take the choice away from the complainant, but once having made the choice, only one forum should determine the complaint.
1010
As a footnote to that, it is clear from the proposed amendments that there is a preference for the use of a single arbitrator rather than a three-member board. However, under the existing act, virtually all the collective agreements in the hospital industry provide for three-member boards unless the parties otherwise agree.
We believe it would be helpful for the act to clearly state that those provisions continue in force unless changed through negotiations. Should either party prefer a single arbitrator, they need do no more than utilize the provisions of section 46 of the Labour Relations Act.
On contracting out, we point out that hospitals already have significant collective agreement restrictions on their ability to contract out housekeeping, dietary and other operations; these have been negotiated throughout Ontario in collective agreements with hospitals. At the same time, and right now I guess, as a result of the Ministry of Health's approach to funding, hospitals are being required to downsize, to combine with other hospitals, to combine services with other hospitals. Further restrictions on hospitals' ability to adjust to new funding realities would appear to be contrary to this very objective of the Ministry of Health. There appears to be a different message emanating from the two ministries.
Finally in our formal presentation we would like to refer to the provision that the amendments will be retroactive to June 4, 1992. We have come here representing the hospital industry in the belief that there is a legitimate consultation process going on and that presentations will be considered. Consultation in any meaningful sense means that the government will be listening and that as a result of this latest series of your hearings throughout the province, there will be changes made to these amendments.
To then propose, as the amendments do now, that the resultant amendments, of which we may not even know the contents, should be retroactive to June 4 is completely inappropriate in our submission. These resultant amendments which will occur should take effect when the bill receives royal assent or on proclamation, as is the normal course of events.
We thank you for the opportunity to appear before you, and we would be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Five minutes per caucus. Mr Lessard, please.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you very much for your presentation. I noticed in your introductory remarks you indicated that you represent a great number of hospitals, 223, and there are 160,000 employees, so you're speaking on behalf of a very large group of people and institutions. In preparing your submissions to this committee, how were you able to canvass the views of such a large number of people? What process did you go through to do that?
Mr Bartlet: Perhaps part of the administration should reply to that. Brian?
Mr Brian Siegner: I'd be glad to do that. We are a membership organization. Consultation on a variety of legislative initiatives is a normal part of our business. We have a variety of ways of consulting with the membership. In this particular case, as soon as the initial act was set up for change and a document was put together, that was mailed out to all participating hospitals; that would be 223. They were asked for their comments. We have a steering committee, a human resources committee, of which Mr Bartlet is the chairman. We had a subcommittee of human resources practitioners within the industry that looked particularly at the proposed amendments, took into consideration the comments we had from hospitals and helped put together a brief, which was then approved by our steering committee and finally our board. So that, in a nutshell, is how we consulted in this particular case.
Mr Lessard: Part of the submission dealt with the interests of part-time employees versus the interests of full-time employees and how you saw those two interests conflicting. I'm trying to think of examples where it wouldn't be in the interest of part-time employees to have the same benefits or contractual arrangements as full-time employees. Can you give me some examples of why their interests might be so divergent that part-time employees might be hurt by that?
Mr Siegner: I can start and then maybe the chairman or Paul would comment as well. In fact, we do have differences already. As was pointed out, the vast majority of contracts, if I can use the nurses' contracts as an example, would in most hospitals have a full-time and a part-time unit, and there are differences. In fact, benefits would be an example where the part-time staff have a percentage in lieu of benefits. I would not pretend to speak for the union in this case, but I think if you'd quiz it you'd find that the majority of part-time staff prefer to have a percentage in lieu of benefits, as opposed to the full-time staff. There are different and separate seniority lists and layoff provisions etc and the interests of many individuals in most hospitals with respect to a full-time versus a part-time commitment would differentiate them.
Mr Bartlet: I could add that there is not the interest in pensions from the part-time group. Although they are now able to join the pension plan under the changes to the Pension Benefits Act, there has been very little interest shown in a pension by the part-time staff, whereas it's very vital to full-time staff.
Mr Paul LeMay: Whereas in some industries there's a difference in treatment between full-time and part-time in terms of the relative benefits received, in our collective agreements, while there may be differences, they're relatively equal. There is some dispute at times over precisely how equal they are, but they're relatively equal, and the more practical things come to the fore. Typically, in terms of any union's internal activities, they are more driven by the full-time employees than they are by the part-time employees. That's a normal sort of human condition. When you take a look at the differences that exist in hospitals, one of the key ones that stands right out is scheduling: Who is going to work the Christmas period? Who is going to work over New Year's? Who is going to get the preponderance of weekends? When you meld the units, you're at some risk that the voices of the part-timers are not nearly as well heard as they are when they're a separate group and you're negotiating separately for those scheduling arrangements.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to talk about an issue in the area of third-party picketing and organizing. As you know, under the legislation there will be the opportunity to organize and picket on private property, on property open to the public. I would imagine in many hospitals there's a licensing out of a variety of services, such as the cafeteria and things of this nature. Is it a concern of your association that there is the possibility of organizing and picketing in front of a licensed enterprise located within a hospital and what that might mean to those who have to use the services of the hospital?
1020
Mr LeMay: If I can respond to that, there is a concern. We recognize that the interest in picketing has primarily been a private sector one, but you've got two layers, perhaps, within hospitals where there is concern.
There are some hospitals in the province that under the bond program which started in the early 1980s have set up things like shopping malls as part of the facility. The one that easiest describes it perhaps is Ottawa Civic Hospital, where once you come through the entrance to the hospital there is a space of perhaps 30 or 40 feet and you then enter into a shopping mall where you have shops on either side of the corridor leading into the main part of the hospital. There has been some concern that you would have picketing in that circumstance.
We did address that in our submissions initially. Quite frankly, we concluded that from a hospital's perspective today, it was best to try to focus on those things that are primarily hospital-oriented as opposed to issues that are seen as more in the private sector, and that's why that's not reiterated here today.
But it does exist and your point is exactly correct. If you have Canada Catering providing your dietary service, cafeterias are open to the public. We've made the point that aside from having members of the public there, you also have patients' families, patients' relatives and sometimes patients themselves. They're generally in a traumatic situation. It's not a friendly place to be. There is concern, related perhaps to the magnitude of the patient's problem, but the last thing they need is one more hassle and one more appearance of conflict. From our perspective, it really has nothing to do with the primary purpose of the hospital, which is to provide patient care.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I appreciate the presentation as well. I want to ask a question on the purpose clause, because in you, Mr Bartlet, we've got kind of a two-in-one here with your labour law background as well.
If the wording proceeds -- and I make the assumption that virtually everything here is going to proceed -- and the purpose clause does have the words, "To encourage the process of collective bargaining so as to enhance...the ability of employees to negotiate with their employer for the purposes of improving" etc, what would be the impact? Give me some idea of how you may see that unfolding and what problems you see that creating.
Mr Bartlet: I see it really as a basis for a charge by the union to an employer with whom the union is negotiating, where concessions or even the status quo are being asked for, that it is bargaining in bad faith because it is not offering to improve wages and benefits in some way.
There is a purpose clause in the present act. It was a signpost as to what was felt to be the basis for the act, but it contained no substantive powers that could be relied on by either party. But if you incorporate it into the act itself, it then becomes a working provision on which people can rely.
We're very concerned, particularly about the fact that improving terms and conditions may not always, especially these days, be the position of the employer, which could result in a complaint of bad-faith bargaining. So particularly we have asked that "improving" be changed to "appropriate." That's my main concern in dealing with employers.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I appreciated three areas you spoke about: your concerns with the retroactive provisions, your concerns with the discharge of provisionary employees and your observation with respect to the purpose clause, that essentially it will now be taken into account when the board is being asked to exercise its discretion. It's a fundamental change.
One area I'd like you, as a legal person, to give me your thoughts on is the change of the powers of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Specifically, the applications to organize and to picket now with this bill can only be made to the board and there would be no action of any sort, arising in law or otherwise, to the courts; so the whole issue of picketing, whether it's legal, the correct number, proper restrictions, all of that, has now been taken away from the courts and exclusively given to the board.
I don't know what the courts are going to think of all that, particularly when there are questions of matters of the law being breached being delegated to the board. From a legal perspective and as someone who has obviously had substantial experience in this area, I'd like it if you could give me your thoughts on that major change to the board.
Mr Bartlet: We in the hospital industry of course have relatively little experience in picketing. We have informational picketing sometimes. We sometimes have picketing where the arbitration board decisions appear to be delayed longer than is necessary. From my own personal experience, I have a great fear of taking away from the courts the right to regulate, especially in illegal picketing. That would seem to me to be a matter that is essentially a civil right, where you are being picketed illegally, either by your own employees during a collective agreement or by somebody else's employees as third-party picketing. That, it seems to me, is a legal right you have to restrain that picketing, and I feel strongly that you should be able to go to the courts on that basis.
Mr Tilson: Comments have been made about the effects of picketing on third parties. I know very little about legal matters with respect to the labour law, but it seems to me that those matters would be affected, that it would be very difficult to proceed to the courts in those matters.
Mr Bartlet: I can see that the labour relations board has worked up jurisprudence on restraining legal picketing, and I would not have the same concerns in leaving that solely to the board.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today on behalf of the Ontario Hospital Association. You've provided an important contribution to the process, and we are grateful for your attendance.
Mr Bartlet: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, on behalf of myself and my colleagues.
1030
STEVEN LANGDON
The Chair: The next participant is Steven Langdon, member of Parliament. Mr Langdon, we've got 30 minutes. Please try to save time, at least half of that if you can, for questions and exchanges.
Mr Steven Langdon: Mr Chairman, it will undoubtedly be difficult but I'll certainly try. I think copies of the brief which I've prepared are being circulated to members of the committee.
I want to say, first, that it's good of the committee to permit me to make a presentation on this issue, which is so important to my constituents in this part of Essex county.
I want to speak to you, I suppose, partly as a fellow politician at the federal level as opposed to the provincial level, but also as an economist and as somebody who has done a fair amount of work on the early labour history of this province.
It seems to me, as I've listened to this debate go forward, that it is very important that we not lose sight of what seems to me to be the fundamental issue that has to be addressed directly, and that is the value and importance of trade unions to be recognized in a modern economy.
Underlying the opposition of some to this legislation as a whole -- and I make distinctions between the opposition to specific provisions within the amendments and the all-out opposition which is being put forward by groups of employers across the province; and it's to that latter group especially that I direct some of these remarks. It seems to me that their opposition to this legislation takes a view that unions hurt the Ontario economy, that they push wages too high and create rigidities in organizing workplaces within the enterprise that make Ontario an uncompetitive place for investment.
I think this view needs to be challenged head-on. Historically, unions have emerged in this province and elsewhere in the world in the very sectors that have been more productive and dynamic from an economic perspective -- the automotive sector, chemicals, electrical equipment, steel, the aerospace industry -- some of the most productive parts of our economy, some of the most innovative parts of our economy and of course the most heavily unionized parts of our economy.
It seems to me, too, that it's often because of the continuing push of trade union efforts to improve living standards for workers that the pressure has been on companies to make such economic improvements and make such investments in future productivity and growth.
It seems to me, in fact, that unions have been crucial not just in pushing things like innovation but in helping to deal with restructuring issues, which increasingly are going to be in front of us as we, as an economy, head into a much more internationalized economy.
On a broader level you have to ask yourselves too, I think, about the difference in worklife associated with unionization. I have worked in my past, and I suspect many people around this table have, in both unionized and non-unionized situations, and there is a fundamental difference that can't be denied.
In the unionized context, there was always an appeal and protection against unfair and arbitrary action on the part of the employer. That makes no assumption that all employers, or even most employers, are going to take such unfair and arbitrary actions, but it says that if they are taken by some foreman who's had a bad day, there is a possibility to appeal. I think that's crucial.
In places where unions do not exist, such security does not exist either. Aside from wages, aside from benefits, aside from giving workers a voice in provincial and federal decisions, that fundamental protection of the individual against arbitrary action is at the heart of the meaning of trade unionism for me and for many of the people in this community who have found, as they unionized over the years, that they were able to stop such arbitrary action.
Unions also seem to have been very important historically in broadening income distribution in industrial societies. More workers having enough money to be able to consume a wide range of goods and services has helped the economic growth of our society in Canada. The greater equality in countries like Canada, Britain, Germany, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries has also, in my view, made for much more civil and peaceful activity, much more civil and peaceful societies in the post-1945 period.
I ask all of you to consider this question carefully. Certainly all my life as an analyst before becoming a politician and as a political representative leads me to a very positive response that indeed unions have been and are good for Ontario. So where do you go from there?
It seems to me there are problems in the modern economy for trade unions. As the economy changes, it is part of a process, frankly, that has blocked the continuing expansion of trade unions in our province. The large manufacturing and resource enterprises where unionization has concentrated are moving towards computerization and high-tech production systems that reduce the number of workers employed.
This is leading to a situation where unionization and its benefits are increasingly a privilege that a minority of workers enjoy, while the majority of workers scramble in a much less protected, much poorer-paid range of service and small-scale production jobs in which productivity improvements are also much less evident.
I have noticed even in this community, with its high union membership, that the result is coming to be a resentment and a jealousy on the part of many non-unionized workers, not just because they cannot obtain the workplace protection and better wages and benefits of unionization, but because their own situation makes it much more difficult to form unions. They feel excluded from benefits which unionization brings and they sense a growing inequality in their communities as a result.
Why are they blocked from unionizing? I don't think anyone around this room should be naïve. I think of my own experiences working my way through university. I spent some time working for a small metal manufacturing plant of about 30 workers which the Steelworkers tried to organize. They succeeded in signing up the number of cards they needed for a vote, but by the time of the certification vote the management had quietly but effectively spread the word that the plant would be shut down if workers voted for the union, and the workers, frightened for their jobs, voted against unionizing in the formal vote. In the two months following this result, just incidentally, the management systematically fired all those who had led the drive for the union, and these people of course had no recourse to any kind of grievance or arbitration process.
1040
I know for a fact in this case that the owners of that company would never have shut it down. It was a family firm which the family depended on for its livelihood. But they were outraged that workers might win some power in their factory. That reality, in many small workplaces and service sector facilities, exists. Threats can be communicated easily. Especially given the high unemployment of 1992, such threats can be very effective.
These two realities are why I think Bill 40 is an important step forward. Unions do help citizens in our society. Growing unionization helps improve productivity in Ontario, on the one hand; on the other hand, present laws make it difficult for unionization to occur in many service and small-scale manufacturing enterprises. If we believe in the value of unions -- I certainly do and I hope most people around the table would -- the laws will have to be improved to provide a fairer balance so that working people in Ontario will feel free to choose the benefits of trade unionism.
They will of course always been free to reject that option. Nothing in this legislation, as I read it, makes it possible for a minority of workers ever to force the majority to join a union. This bill will improve the chances of a majority being able to achieve its unionization goal without unfair harassment, threats and other pressures from employers. It will also provide some security to workers in those early years of a union's existence, when the employer is still trying to resist unionization by, frankly, ignoring the union or refusing to negotiate seriously with it.
This will also balance the two sides in a labour dispute. Employers may lock out workers, workers may vote to strike, but it will no longer be possible for one side to hire replacement workers and continue production just as normal while the other side exclusively bears the costs of the dispute. That, it seems to me, is an unbalanced situation that we have at the moment. This measure in here with respect to replacement workers provides balance in terms of the economic pressures which each side has to bring to bear in a labour dispute.
The result, too, of the use of replacement workers has always been longer strikes, more bitter strikes and more difficult periods of getting back to normal in the workplace afterwards. The contrast is what we see here in Windsor in the labour relations which exist now with Ford, Chrysler and GM. They would never dream of using replacement workers here these days. The result has not only been shorter strikes when they take place but it has been much more serious and effective bargaining early in the negotiation process.
I want to finish with just some comments on the economic impact of the bill as I see it. Parts of the business community in Ontario claim that these reforms will hurt the Ontario economy, this despite the fact that such heavily unionized firms as Ford, Chrysler and GM are increasing their investment dramatically in this province, in some cases even saying that they are doing so because the trade union movement is so strong in this province, and particularly in this city. The fact of that strength makes it possible to better work together towards productivity improvement.
I've worked as an economist in many parts of the world, including various countries in western Europe, and all the evidence I've seen suggests that greater unionization and greater security for those unions brings economic benefits.
In the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Germany and Austria, there is very strong unionization, from which cooperative relations between business and labour have been worked out in a whole series of plant, sectoral and national-level institutions.
This cooperation, which is based on full worker involvement in many economic decisions, has led to dramatic successes in industrial adjustment, in economic growth rates, in high levels of investment and innovation, and in low rates of unemployment. These are countries with strong, competitive companies as well as unions -- Akzo, Volvo, Bayer, Volkswagen, BMW. You can go through a massive list, all of which have become world leaders from their base in countries characterized by high levels of unionization and marked trade union security.
The contribution of such unionization to successful industrial restructuring can be seen clearly in a case that I'll give you from the Netherlands that I did some research on before I came into politics, when the textile industry faced powerful competition from low-cost imports. Working through a business-labour sector committee set up by the government, the Netherlands was able to, first, rationalize much uncompetitive textile spinning capacity into a smaller, modernized, single enterprise; second, provide workers affected with two years of full wages for retraining purposes, giving the great majority new jobs; third, assist several large textile firms to diversify into new areas of production such as windsurfing equipment, for instance, which permitted survival of the companies and many jobs within these high-wage enterprises. At the same time, major transformations took place in the large Dutch synthetic textile producer, Akzo, involving new innovations, shifts to new product lines, and phase-out of more traditional products, all worked out through management-union planning and negotiation.
I interviewed a lot of the company managers engaged in this effort at industrial change, and their universal position was that the cooperation and hard negotiation that took place with the trade union movement was crucial to the success of this restructuring.
What all this suggests is that high levels of unionization contribute significantly to economic growth. The existence of democratic and dynamic unions makes for real communication between workers and management. That communication can be the basis for crucial cooperative efforts in the economy to identify new economic opportunities, organize public support for moving into such areas, undertake workplace and product innovations, and work out training needs for the future. Strong unions also broaden income distribution, improve home-market demand for goods and services from Ontario firms, and provide the basis from which export gains can be made in the future. As I see economic problems in Ontario in 1992, then, growing unionization is part of the solution, not part of the problem.
There are those who say the timing of this legislation is wrong. In my view, the timing is crucially right. The laws have to be in place to contribute to growing unionization as the economy slowly improves, so that we do spread benefits around this time and avoid the increasing inequality that resulted in the 1980s, in the post-recession period of that time. That increasing inequality has been an important factor in making this recession so difficult. Building toward a fairer society where incomes are better spread and productivity is growing, I think, is essential to moving ahead economically, to avoiding in the future for this province such long periods of economic stagnation as we've been experiencing in the last two and a half years. I'd certainly ask you to pass this bill as quickly as possible.
1050
The Chair: Mr Phillips, three minutes, please.
Mr Phillips: You don't have to worry about it passing quickly because it's there and it's going to pass. The rules have already been passed.
Mr Langdon: You're going to cooperate?
Mr Phillips: No, it's closure. It's finished, it's done. The rules are there and the opposition can do nothing about it, so you can sleep easy tonight knowing that's a done deal. The timing is all set out, the number of days' debate and what not. Rest easy on that. It offends us in opposition, but those who support it wholeheartedly need not worry.
I would make one observation on your paper, which I think I read carefully, to acknowledge that a unionized environment often is a very good work environment but that there are a lot of non-unionized environments that are equally effective and fair and equitable. I think that's what your brief says. I believe that. I believe there are lots of non-union organizations that have a different structure but an equally fair structure. I think your brief suggests that.
The thing that's on my mind in Ontario is just the dislocation that's going on throughout our employment centres. As I look at those organizations that are closing, completely shutting down, about 70% of them are unionized. Although only about 20% of the private sector is unionized, about 70% of the closures are unionized. A lot of the CAW people were in yesterday and I was pointing out that I think the CAW has been particularly hard hit.
My question to you really is this: What are the aspects of this bill that you see helping to cope with that situation? If that's reality -- and I think all of us, perhaps even yourself, might acknowledge that we're in kind of a global trading environment now where there is, I gather, the need to adjust -- how do you see this bill helping organizations cope with what I see to be perhaps the most significant problem facing people in Ontario right now, and that is jobs?
Mr Langdon: Let me say three things. First, I too in my daily life am an opposition politician. I just can't resist making the point that the rules that have been passed in the province of Ontario are equivalent to the situation which used to exist at the national level. They provide for a good deal of debate and consideration.
Mr Phillips: You haven't followed this, then.
Mr Langdon: I have, very carefully.
Mr Phillips: This bill was introduced in June and will be passed, complete, by the middle of October. There has never been a major bill in Ontario ever passed in that short a period of time.
Mr Langdon: The point that I'm making is that at the federal level it is now possible to do this kind of thing in the space of a week or two.
Mr Phillips: From first to third reading?
Mr Langdon: Absolutely.
Mr Phillips: God. You surely don't agree with that.
Mr Langdon: No, we fought it very hard, as indeed we fought some of the changes which tightened things up under a Liberal government previously.
Mr Phillips: Which we're fighting down here in Ontario.
Mr Langdon: But I simply make the point that what seems to me to have happened with the Legislature of Ontario is the introduction of some constraints on speeches which, frankly, to those of us who are at the federal level look like remarkable latitude. The amount of time you have to speak, the amount of say you have on a piece of legislation, the amount of time a piece of legislation has to be considered through is so much broader than is the case at the federal level that, frankly, I stand still, amazed at the freedom you have.
Mr Phillips: But you wouldn't support these rules.
Mr Langdon: I'm simply making the point that the contrast between the federal and the provincial level has been somewhat reduced. There is still so much more freedom at the provincial level that I suggest you revel in it.
Mr Phillips: Really?
Mr Langdon: Absolutely.
Mr Phillips: You don't believe that.
Mr Langdon: I do, actually.
Mr Phillips: God.
Mr Langdon: On the second point which you raised, certainly I would agree that we have here a province in which there are various forms of workplace organization. Some of those forms don't involve unions and work extremely well. My friends in the Steelworkers may not like me saying this, but there's not much question that Dofasco has been very successful in its relationship with its employees without a trade union. But there are a great many companies in which people have sought over the years to form unions and have found it very difficult because of the nature of our labour laws. It's important that those labour laws be balanced so that it is possible for people to make the choice that they want to make freely, either to be part of a trade union or to not be part of a trade union.
On the third point with respect to closures and jobs, there are a number of factors and a number of elements in this legislation that are especially helpful. One is the establishment of a requirement that bargaining take place in the case of a closure. It will no longer be possible for a plant such as Allied Chemicals in my constituency here in Essex-Windsor, which has simply unilaterally announced a closure and then dictated the terms of that closure, or for a company like Paragon Tools here in Windsor to shut down and simply transfer its facilities and contracts and so forth to the United States without any negotiation taking place. That's an important step forward.
It's also an important step forward if we can convince people across this province who are not in the traditionally unionized sectors that they have a chance to unionize, that they have a chance to get fairer treatment if they feel they're not receiving it at the workplace. This will be something that will balance out the economic situations that face firms in this province so that, for instance, one large auto parts company which has traditionally fought unions will not have an advantage, as a result, against other large auto parts producers that have unions. If we can even out those economic situations, that's going to make for less pressure coming from imbalances that exist here in our province that lead to shutdowns.
Mr Tilson: I agree with Mr Phillips that the whole exercise we're going through is probably a charade and that there will be very few amendments, if any. Regarding your request that the bill be passed quickly, I think it will be passed very quickly. I've never met you, but I'm certain Mr Rae and his government appreciate your coming down and offering your support to this bill, which leads me to my question.
The bill will be passed and will be passed with very few amendments. I get back to the question that you have asked: Where do we go from here? On the one hand, the right hand, I suppose, the management is saying: "Businesses are going to close down. They're going to move out of the province. Investment is not going to come to Ontario. It's going to be a bad place to do business." On the other hand, the left hand, the union leaders are saying: "This is just fearmongering. The impact on investment is not what they're saying."
1100
Gord Wilson has come to us and said this type of criticism is similar to business's opposition to child labour legislation at the turn of the century and business's opposition to women's suffrage, going back in time.
Mr Hargrove has come forward and said he wants no part of joint operating programs in which union and management work as a team to administer solutions to problems in plants. He said, "We reject the philosophy that workers' wages somehow have to be tied to the success of the corporation."
Statements such as that are as extreme on the left hand as the other statements perhaps are as extreme on the right. In other words, this legislation, I say to you, has created an unbelievable wedge that I believe will take years to make the two groups come back closer together. If we're going to solve these economic problems, the unions must be here and business must be here. I think we all agree to that. The difficulty is that this is what's been created by this bill.
So I ask you your question: The bill will be passed probably in its entirety. Where do we go from here?
Mr Langdon: With respect, Mr Tilson, let me suggest two things. First, on the question of amendments to this whole process of developing labour reform legislation, the Minister of Labour, Mr Mackenzie, appeared here back in January with a discussion paper which I made a presentation on. I indicated at that time that I was especially pleased with a number of the provisions in the legislation, including the fact that it would be possible to get automatic certification with 50% as opposed to the present 55%. I also suggested a number of ways in which I thought the package, as set out in the discussion paper, could be made stronger and more effective for my constituents.
Mr Mackenzie also had a fair number of other representations during the course of his hearings. The result is a bill which, frankly, represents a considerable compromise, as I see it and as many of my constituents see it. Many of my constituents would not be pleased at the fact that there has been a retreat from 50% to 55% for automatic certification. Many of my constituents would have preferred some of the changes I suggested to strengthen, as I saw it, the collective bargaining process. They have been rejected, and my constituents have said that a fair number of suggestions from the management side have been incorporated.
As I've watched this whole process of labour reform follow its tortuous course for virtually two years now, I have seen a dramatic series of changes which tells me nothing except that this government is listening very seriously and taking very seriously some of the concerns you've been articulating with respect to the views of the business community.
I think, however -- and this is my second point -- that once you see a piece of legislation passed, the shotguns from both sides will be lowered and it will be possible for people to get on with the business of working things through in a somewhat reformed, but not dramatically or radically reformed, labour relations context. Frankly, I think that is what we need at this point. That's why we need to see this piece of legislation go through quickly, so that this uncertainty is eliminated for the business community.
The only other point I'd make is that you suggested perhaps a sense of moving to the extremes, but I'd call it perhaps a sense of increased bitterness in relations between business and labour. I think it has much more to do with a whole set of issues such as the free trade agreement --
Mr Tilson: You don't really believe that, do you?
Mr Langdon: Actually, I do -- such as a series of legislative actions on the part of the federal government, than it has to do with anything the province of Ontario has done. I think the province of Ontario has tried very hard to establish as good relations as possible with both the business community and the labour movement in order to try to achieve economic progress for this province and an increase in jobs. I think that's a been a very serious priority, which explains why certain actions which some of us as New Democrats might have liked to have seen taken have not in fact been taken. But as I sit and work in Ottawa, I do not see a similar approach on the part of the federal government, and I would hope --
Mr Tilson: I'm sure you're keeping your fingers crossed that management is wrong in these allegations they're making at these hearings, because if they're right, we're in deep trouble.
Mr Langdon: With respect to that, I think you will always have threats used in this kind of context. There were threats used of shutdowns before the free trade deal.
Mr Tilson: I submit it's not a threat. They're clear facts they're putting forward.
Mr Langdon: It was a clear fact before the free trade deal in the 1988 election, written by Stelco to its workers, that if that trade deal was not passed, it would be seriously damaged. If it was passed, they would have guaranteed access to the American market. It was passed. They have been seriously damaged because they have not had guaranteed access to the American market.
People say a great deal in the midst of disputes. What they will in fact do in the aftermath of a decision is something which I think can be better judged through the discussions which have taken place in the Premier's Council than can be judged by the public utterances of both sides. I would be very surprised if within the confines of the Premier's Council the message was as hard and as bitter as what is being stated publicly by business.
Mr Tilson: Business isn't invited to the council.
Mr Langdon: Business, as I'm sure you know, has a long and considerable membership list on that council.
The Chair: Mr Langdon, thank you. You've obviously provoked a significant response from the membership of the committee, and we thank you for coming here this morning. We appreciate your contribution. We trust you'll be keeping in touch.
1110
WINDSOR RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Restaurant Association, Windsor-Essex-Chatham region. Please come forward. Tell us your names and titles and commence with your submission.
Mr Jim Evans: Good morning. Thank you very much for this presentation, ladies and gentlemen. We're a volunteer group of the Ontario Restaurant Association, specifically Windsor, Essex, Chatham, and we've recently added Sarnia. With me is our president, Evelyn Slobasky. Tim Watson is out of town; he is our chairperson of municipal government affairs and unfortunately will not be represented today. His vice-chairman and a director of our association is Tom Racovitis. My name is Jim Evans. Each of us is very active in our association, and it's a growth situation inasmuch as we've gone from a membership of 60 to well over 100. That being the case, I would ask our members to stand and be identified in the room today, please. Thank you.
We will split the time between myself and Mr Racovitis. I will open, Mr Racovitis will close, followed by the questions.
On behalf of the Windsor Restaurant Association, we are very pleased to be here today to discuss Bill 40 and the impact it will have on the restaurant and tourism industry in Windsor. Restaurant operators, suppliers and employees in Windsor are very concerned about the impact that Bill 40 will have on our establishments and the economy of Windsor. We are very concerned that this bill will undermine investor confidence and will contribute to additional job losses in Windsor and in Ontario.
As business people, we are concerned that changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act contained in Bill 40 appear to be designed for large industrial and manufacturing operations and do not recognize the needs of small operators such as the many family-run establishments that dominate the food industry. Small independent operators make up close to 80% of the restaurant industry. It is the small business sector that is also responsible for most of the job creation in Ontario over the last 10 years, and it is this sector which is critical to Ontario's economic recovery.
In the restaurant industry most operators do not have a separate human resources department, cannot afford labour relations experts, rely on labour from family members and manage the operation in a hands-on fashion. This creates serious problems for small operators when they are confronted by the increasing regulatory climate, which translates into a growing administrative and paperwork burden being placed on small employers by the government. The end result of placing a growing administrative burden on small employers is to discourage them from creating the jobs desperately needed to pull Ontario out of this current recession.
Unemployment is the most pressing problem facing Windsor and Ontario. Economic projections from the Ministry of Treasury and Economics suggest that unemployment will remain at unacceptably high levels until at least 1995. It is therefore imperative that fighting unemployment should become the government's top priority. Policies which undermine this objective should not be pursued. Bill 40 will not create one job in Ontario. Instead it may undermine investor confidence and encourage or force some employers to leave Ontario. This will only result in increased unemployment.
Fairness: The government has often indicated that it is undertaking changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act in order to increase fairness and balance in the labour relations system and to ensure that the rights of all participants are protected. Unfortunately, Bill 40 fails to accomplish this and does not equally address fairness within the labour relations system. For a small operator-owner facing a large, well-financed union before the board, there is no fairness. Smaller operators have no expertise, no resources and no time to ensure proper representation before the labour relations board.
As small operators, we are concerned that the labour relations system systematically discriminates against small employers, relative to big business and big unions. Because the system is designed for big business and big unions, often small employers are overwhelmed by the labour relations system, and subsequently needs and rights are ignored.
As small employers, we believe the goal of Bill 40 should be to make the labour relations system more user-friendly for both employees and small employers. It should not be a system designed to regulate big business and big unions. This does not accomplish the goal of improving workplace relations, and in some cases reduces the rights of individual employees.
We believe it is important that amendments to Bill 40 be introduced which will simplify the Ontario Labour Relations Act and protect the rights of employees and small employers. We believe a great deal of workplace conflict can be reduced if the labour relations system is simplified and made more user-friendly. To help accomplish this task, we would like to put forward a number of constructive proposals which we believe will strengthen the rights of the employees and improve the labour relations system, especially in the service sector and the small business community. There are three points that I would like to highlight at this time.
Firstly, we believe that a toll-free information line should be established in Ontario which would be accessible to both employees and small employers. An information line would ensure reliable and non-biased information is available at any time it is needed. This would help reduce the potential workplace conflict caused by misunderstandings of the OLRA or a misinterpretation of one's rights and responsibilities. We believe the toll-free information line should be available and accessible so as to clarify and resolve immediate workplace issues on the spot. We believe that improving the amount of information available to all parties will significantly improve workplace relations.
Secondly, we believe that a free legal assistance service should be available to employees and small employers to help them protect their rights within the labour relations system. Since the system is designed and administered for big business and big unions, it is important that a legal mechanism which would help protect the rights of individual employees and small employers be put into place. We envision this system working in a manner similar to that of the employer and employee advisory offices within the workers' compensation system and that it would be provided free to participants upon their request. As the labour relations system becomes more complicated, we believe it is important that mechanisms be put in place which ensure that rights of individuals are protected.
Thirdly, another initiative which we believe would help improve the labour relations system, as well as strengthen the rights of workers, is to simplify the certification process and reduce the need for protracted board hearings. For small, hands-on operators in the restaurant sector, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to participate in protracted board hearings, because the operators are tied to their workplace and their customers and simply cannot drop everything to rush down to the labour relations board. This becomes a very acute problem, especially during a prolonged certification process.
At this time I'd like to conclude and turn it over to Mr Tom Racovitis.
Mr Tom Racovitis: Good morning. The certification process as proposed in Bill 40 is a major concern to restaurateurs because it doesn't address the needs and concerns of the employee or the employer where both traditionally work together. Unlike the traditional manufacturing segment of our economy, the foodservice and hospitality industry is much more closely entwined already, whether union or non-union.
Employees are maintained and improved through our industry. They are an introductory level of work. Our industry is very competitive, and for every auto or steel manufacturing company there are literally hundreds of restaurants, a profession in existence in every country of the world for many centuries before the Industrial Revolution.
We can't be a growing and viable part of the economy with additional restrictions and legislation. We are concerned that the individual rights of all employees be considered. Truthfully, how many complaints are filed by employees in our industry as compared to a lot of others when you consider the numbers? Progress can only be achieved in the workplace where the employer-employee relationship is based on mutual trust and respect. Unfortunately, Bill 40 does not promote this principle but rather prevents it.
1120
We believe the proposed certification does not guarantee all employees a secret vote, is not productive and doesn't promote harmonious labour relations in our industry. To improve the democratic nature of the certification process, we suggest the proposed certification process be modified to allow a fair and simple, board-supervised, secret ballot process. This would result in people making a fully informed decision.
We believe all employees should have the right to freely voice their views on joining or not joining, and further, not have their rights infringed upon through limitations and their right to change their minds.
By introducing a secret ballot certification process, the certification process will be brought out into the open and in doing so reduce the potential for intimidation and conflict. We also believe that when a union is certified through a democratic vote, it is perceived legitimately in the workplace and it will decrease the potential for conflict.
We are very concerned about the workplace conflict which could develop if a union is certified when it does not have majority support. This could easily be the situation when certification takes place as a result of an unfair labour practice and the level of union support is not considered, or when employee petitions are rejected because they were filed after a union's application for certification but before the board certifies the union. Both of these situations would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the union to represent the interests of a bargaining unit in which it does not have majority support.
As part of the certification vote system, we encourage the adoption of a mechanism which would provide for free, open meetings between unions and employees, and employers and employees before certification would take place, meetings taking place under the supervision of a board representative. The board rep could answer questions and ensure employees have a much more informed decision. A vote would take place between 24 and 72 hours after the meetings. We believe this would substantially reduce the possibility of workplace conflict.
Replacement worker ban: For the individual or independent operator, this is one of the most concerning elements contained in the bill where it would place restrictions on the use of current and replacement workers during a work stoppage, especially banning the use of family members. This proposal could have a devastating effect in the restaurant, tourism and agricultural industries, as well as our suppliers.
This replacement worker ban could result in the closing of many of our suppliers, our food distributors and food processors at a time when we most need their product. We cannot stockpile products ahead of time as manufacturing and automotive industries can. We wouldn't have food to serve our customers, be it a wedding or special occasion, or even government hearings, and to get that lost customer to return would be a long time coming, especially to our United States friends. Without customers and cash flow for even a Friday, Saturday and Sunday, many independent restaurants would not be able to make their next payroll.
Speaking to that, our industry has been suffering economic and volume hardships since 1989. We employed 219,000 people in Ontario in 1989, not including the related industries that support ours. In 1991, we had 145,000 people; 60,000 of the jobs were lost in the last 24 months.
In the restaurant industry, profit margins are very low to begin with, much lower than a waiter's or a waitress's expected gratuity, as a matter of fact. In a border city like Windsor, it's even worse. People have an alternative 15 minutes away where there's only a 4% sales tax and no GST.
As well, major product costs are much less than ours. In many cases, the staples are one third of the cost of ours at wholesale, 30% less than ours, not to mention the capital cost, the financing cost of supplies and a much bigger market to draw from. We know this playing field existed before, and we competed effectively before. That market has shrunk as much as 90% for some establishments in this city.
In conclusion, we urge the government to consider our proposals and to reconsider the plan to pass Bill 40 before the year-end. Due to the long-term effect this legislation will have on the economic health of Ontario and the increase in potential for major job loss in the hospitality industry, we respectfully urge you to consider the ideas we have put forward here today and the formal amendments presented by the Ontario Restaurant Association.
We're an industry, especially in Windsor, still bleeding and staggering from the GST, the cross-border shopping, the permanent closing of many industrial plants in our city, contrary to what was said earlier, where people will say the employer is simply bluffing. There are a lot of empty plants in this city that are the result of the so-called bluff. Recently, we also had many white-collar job terminations in this city.
A big difference for us in the Windsor area -- and I don't ask for special privileges for us in Windsor, but to draw a parallel, restaurants in Toronto are playing on an equal playing field, as are restaurants in the more internal part of Ontario. Our main competition on this side of the border is the alternative shopping across the border, and it's become a major problem to this whole community, not just the foodservice industry.
I'd like to close with a quote from Albert Einstein: "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." Thank you very much for your time.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): In your presentation you focused a lot on Windsor. When you deal with Chatham -- that happens to be in my riding -- I want a bit of clarification when you say "family-owned operations" or "small employers." What size ratio are you looking at of employees who work in those facilities?
Mr Racovitis: Individual operations could be as much as 100 or 120. Those are exceptions; those aren't the rules. The majority of restaurants in the city of Chatham, as a matter of fact, are privately owned. There are very few major corporations or major restaurant companies there.
Mr Hope: I was listening very carefully to what you said and you reflected a lot of what is going on in Windsor. You mentioned a 1-800 line. I've talked to some employers, and most of the people in the restaurant industry in the Chatham area don't even use the 1-800 line for employment standards, because they're using -- they would like to be treated as an employee, so it's the family businesses that I'm looking at.
When I read your presentation, I'm led to believe, and I know I'm wrong, that most of the employers are bad employers, because all of a sudden you think there is going to be, according to what I read in the presentation, a massive rush to organize. The restaurant industry in my community fought with us against plant closures because it knew the impact. If we're not there to spend, they're out of business. They were there with us in the fight against plant closures.
I know for a fact, from my conversations with a number of the employers in the Chatham area, that they're not even worried about this, because even with your toll-free lines or whatever, they believe people have rights and they understand that. There's no change in certification; you have to get more than 50% of them mad at you, so you're going to have to be a really bad employer. But when I read your presentation, your presentation sends a signal to me that you're seeing devastation hit your businesses, and I'm sure that all your employers are not bad employers, that they've all got over 50% of them mad at them.
1130
Mr Racovitis: Far from it. Most employers in our industry are extremely good employers or they wouldn't be in it, because they came out of the working ranks in the first place.
Mr Hope: That's why I have to ask the question. What is the fear of the association if you are treating your employees with respect and dignity? Not everybody's out for a high wage, because some of them working in the restaurant industry -- I know your staff turnovers are high. With that in mind, I can't see the massive rush and the concern behind this, I guess because you still need the number for certification. The numbers haven't changed for certification. And when you're asking for toll-free lines and legal assistance and everything, it sounds like you're looking for the worst to occur, and I don't think that's going to happen.
Mr Racovitis: We're looking for people to be totally and completely informed. You mentioned the standards act earlier. The standards act, if you look at it from an employee's point of view, is confusing. If you look at it from an employer's point of view, it's only for the employee. There is absolutely nothing, no protection at all, for employers in the province when it comes to protecting themselves from unfair treatment from other people and being set up. It's happened. There have been many, many occasions when this has taken place. I think where we're concerned is not the idea of being certified. I think that isn't of major concern. It's the process, the locking-out or the inability of people to conduct business.
If you're in a catering and restaurant business and you have a commitment to people to provide a service, and if you're catering to people -- especially in our community, cross-border -- once they break the habit of coming here it is a hard, long time to get them back, number one.
Number two, they said earlier that they wanted equity, that where the employee is on strike, then the employer shouldn't be able to operate. But nothing prevents the employee -- and it's a fact that they will go and work elsewhere, with the competition. In the meantime, the employer that's being struck at the time, whether it's right or wrong -- and I don't advocate that the company that would be on strike would be totally blameless. But in this particular case, a great many of our businesses are very family-oriented to begin with. To say nobody can operate, that you can't fulfil any of your commitments as long as they're on strike, it's almost like you're being held hostage. There's no contest.
Mr Hope: You hit the key word: family.
Mr Racovitis: Absolutely.
Mr Hope: I have to pass on to my colleague because he wanted to ask a question, but you hit the key word. You treat people like family --
Mr Racovitis: We do, anyway.
Mr Hope: -- and then you don't have to worry about organizations.
Mr Racovitis: That's nice in theory, except that there are people out there who can really --
Mr Hope: Well, it does happen.
Mr Lessard: I know that we're running short of time, and so I won't ask a question but will just make a couple of comments. I want to thank you very much for your presentation here today and the fact that you were able to bring so many members of your association here with you. You've done a good job of indicating some of the problems that we have here in Windsor, being a border city, because maybe if you're in Toronto and you want to buy a pair of shoes, you'll drive to Buffalo, but if you're hungry, you're not going to do that.
I contrast the presentation that you've made, where you've had a lot of constructive suggestions, with that made by the chamber of commerce, and I understand that some of your members are members of the chamber as well. Their comments were basically just to withdraw this legislation and forget about it. So it was good to see some of your suggestions. I kind of like the one about the free legal assistance. I have sort of a vested interest in making legal assistance more accessible, and I know that's an initiative in this community that was undertaken by the CAW many years ago. They established the pre-paid legal assistance plan, and it's been a great help for people in the city. I just want to thank you, and those are my comments.
Mr Offer: We have a few questions. Thank you for your presentation. I'm wondering if you can share with the committee, not just from the restaurant association, but what the impact of the legislation might be to convention trade in this city. I have no doubt that there is probably some significant convention trade, and I have no doubt that these types of issues may have an impact, positive or negative, on that, especially when you have a city just across the river so close. I'm wondering if you might just share with us your thoughts on that issue.
Mr Racovitis: Sure. One of the big things to consider in that is the idea -- and I want to clarify. We're not sitting here in a panic that everybody's going to run out and get organized and unionized and so on. I would say 95% of all the people sitting in this room work day to day, day in and day out and seven days a week, with their employees. So I think we do have a fairly good relationship.
Where part of the problem comes in is in the event that somebody is subjected to this kind of legislation and there is this lockout and you do have commitments to specific types of fairs or catering, tourism, the trade shows that potentially we could bring into our community, or Toronto, anyplace in Ontario.
I think you can't take one blanket when it comes to putting together this kind of legislation and it'll fit everybody. It's like one pair of shoes will fit everybody: It just doesn't work, and I think there's got to be some realistic consideration given to the hospitality and service industry, as opposed to the manufacturing industry, which has a lot of different components to it compared to our industry.
We're dealing with personality, we're dealing with attitude, and a city and a community and a province, as a destination point, is primarily judged by the restaurants they go to, the events they've been to, the social structure of it. People visiting our province don't go into the factories and see whether they're nice and everybody's happy and everybody's friendly, but they do come into the restaurants, they do come into the hospitality industry. And being the hospitality industry, there's got to be some consideration given in that respect for us to keep on moving forward in the biggest growth potential areas, the tourism and hospitality industry. It's been proven all over the world, not just here.
Mr Phillips: Just because of time, I too will make more comments than questions, because I agree with much of your presentation, frankly, and I disagree with the government members, in that I think Mr Hope's suggesting that the only place that will be subject to unionization is the terribly unfair employer. I don't believe that to be the case. I think there will be lots of examples where very fair, equitable employers, for whatever reason -- perhaps they're running through some difficult economic times -- will find that it's difficult to meet the expectations of the employees. I just fundamentally disagree that the only place that will be unionized is that.
I wish we could be more optimistic for you on the timing. The timing, frankly, is set. The rules have been passed. This bill is going to pass in the Legislature, probably by Thanksgiving. We have been arguing in favour of several of your proposals, and we will continue to do that, but we all live in a democracy where the governing party, in the final analysis, is able to do what it wants.
If we do have time for a minor question --
The Vice-Chair (Mr Huget): You've just got about one minute, Mr Phillips.
Mr Phillips: I'll make the observation that we do believe this is going to have a significant negative impact on the investment in the province of Ontario. The government doesn't believe that. Only time will tell. We'll only know that, unfortunately, in my view, three or four years from now. We're all trying to put our best judgement on it. We're arguing that this will have a negative impact, the government is saying it won't, and it has the cards. So anything your group can do to help the government understand the specifics of the economic impact I think would be helpful.
Mr Racovitis: I can confirm that fact, by the way, on our own part.
[Interruption]
Mr Phillips: No, I'm just telling you that the decision has been made on when this bill is going to be passed. The minister has said already that he personally has been through this for a long period of time. The opposition only saw the bill in the middle of June, so we're on a very short time frame. In our opinion there should be far more debate, much longer hearings, more people should have an opportunity to present, all of those things. I'm just trying to be as honest with your association as I can be.
Mr Evans: Could I ask the NDP one question?
The Chair: Excuse me, sir; we have expired the time allocated for this presentation. There's another group waiting patiently behind you. I would like to thank the Ontario Restaurant Association, Windsor/Essex/Chatham region, and each of you for your presentation and contribution here this morning. It has been noted by all members of this committee that your presentation was very constructive, and we thank you for taking that very constructive approach.
1140
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO AREA COUNCIL
The Vice-Chair: The next group is the United Steelworkers, southwestern area council. If you could come forward, please, and identify yourself for the purposes of Hansard and then proceed with your presentation. Try to leave some time in the half-hour allocated to you for questions and answers.
Mr Steve Banks: My name is Steve Banks. I'm a servicing staff representative with the United Steelworkers of America. I'm here to address you on behalf of the southwestern Ontario area council of the United Steelworkers of America. Our area council extends from Ingersoll west to Windsor. The local unions which comprise our council negotiate collective agreements with more than 50 employers, and we're privileged to represent more than 4,500 employees.
We negotiate with employers in the manufacturing, auto parts, metal stamping, nursing home, credit union, cement and rock quarry, steel fabricating, trucking, environmental waste and hazardous spills, metal recycling, grocery, food and retail store sectors of southwestern Ontario's economy. As you can see, we are involved right across the economy and have a real exposure to the needs of working men and women in this part of Ontario.
As a union organizer, negotiator and spokesperson, I have come to understand the limitations of the present Ontario Labour Relations Act and why the act must be changed. Bill 40 represents an effort to achieve some important improvements which are long overdue. In my opinion, the bill will improve the climate of labour relations, reduce industrial conflict and lay the groundwork for the kind of participatory workplace which employees demand and which employers must recognize is the key to economic success.
In my remarks today I want to focus on three reforms included in Bill 40 which will make a real difference for our members. In highlighting three reforms, I do not want you to think that there are not many others that are worthy of detailed comment. You have already heard from our national director, Mr Leo Gerard, and from our District 6 director, Mr Henry Hynd. They have reviewed the philosophical foundations for reforms. They have drawn your attention to the security guard provisions, the improvements to the certification process, the reforms to the first-agreement arbitration provisions and the elimination of post-application petitions. They also addressed the question of broader-based bargaining. I want to take a moment to comment on that question, because it is an important deficiency in Bill 40.
The need for a task force on broader-based bargaining is very important to the non-union sectors in our region. You must appreciate that in the industries which do not conform to single-plant structures, it is virtually impossible for workers to join together and speak with a single voice through a union. As a result, sectors of our labour market that are the weakest and the most marginalized will not gain real benefits from Bill 40. We reiterate the need for a real examination of broader-based bargaining structures, including a review of sectoral employment standards options so that the vehicle of collective bargaining can bring more workplace involvement for those now excluded.
As Director Hynd told you, we cannot tinker with a mini-study. A task force, which our union urges you to recommend to the government, must be open to new ideas and must recognize the crucial importance of women, visible minority employees and employees with disabilities and others excluded from the mainstream of collective bargaining. Bill 40 is a start, but is not enough. I now want to comment on three topics.
1. Complaints during organizing activities: I know from my experience, and it makes a lot of sense to me, that the best way to defeat a union organizing campaign is to fire the organizer. A lot of employers have figured this out. In fact, I think it's fair to say that the discharge of union organizers is an epidemic in Ontario. If you fire the organizer fast enough, you win, even if you lose the subsequent hearing at the board. You win because you defeat the union's organizing campaign. Perhaps you have to pay the discharged employee some money or take the employee back, but the message to all other employees is clear: "If you mess around with union organizing, you'll be out on the street for a long time and you'll have to fight to get your way back in." It's 1992 and that's still what happens.
How can any self-respecting legislator complain about reforms in Bill 40 that will expedite board hearings where an employee has been disciplined, discharged, or otherwise penalized during trade union organizing activities? The new law will require that the board begin to hear the matter within 15 days. The proposal deals with the problems of adjournments and continuations by requiring that the hearings proceed from Monday to Thursday, until the matter is concluded. In addition, the board will have to give its decision very quickly, with reasons to follow if either party requests them.
2. Just cause and arbitration: Of equal importance is that the bill provides workers in a newly certified bargaining unit with just-cause protection from the date of the certification by the board until the first agreement comes into effect. No longer will employers be able to fire with impunity, under the guise of business reasons, without subjecting their decision to a just-cause review by an independent adjudicator. In addition, all collective agreements will be deemed to have a just-cause provision. Surely these changes will receive the warm support of this entire committee.
As a union representative who appears before arbitrators on a regular basis, I know how important it is that workers benefit from effective arbitration. That is why I welcome the improvements to sections 45 and 46 of the act. The involvement of settlement officers encourages settlements. The results of settlement officer involvement have been astounding. When the appointment of an arbitrator comes from the minister under section 45, the settlement process should be available. Setting out the time for the release of decisions is also crucial. There is no excuse for unwarranted delays by arbitrators. It is valuable for the minister to have new powers to make orders as are necessary to ensure the speedy delivery of decisions.
There is something else I want to add about arbitration. Bill 40 addresses certain real problems that need fixing. Arbitrators should have the power to determine the nature of the differences between the parties in order to address the real substance of the disagreement. Preliminary and technical objections that do not really focus on what's going on in the dispute should give way to the real disagreement. I think the arbitrator should have statutory approval for interpreting and applying all employment-related statutes, including the Human Rights Code, the Pay Equity Act and the soon-to-be Employment Equity Act. These changes are essential and long overdue.
The expedited arbitration system has been working well in Ontario. The provisions for referring grievances to a single mediator-arbitrator to resolve them in an expeditious and informal manner is a really good improvement. It also makes sense that the parties must agree on the nature of the issues which will be dealt with by the mediator-arbitrator.
3. Anti-replacement provisions: The employer-dominated media and the media organs acting as employers have swamped the public debate about anti-replacement during a legal strike or lockout. It is beyond me why you should be swayed by their hysteria.
The anti-replacement provisions that have been proposed, which we support, will reduce picket line violence and focus the parties' attention on resolving the labour dispute. Instead of trying to beat and destroy the union, I believe the quality of dialogue at the bargaining table will improve where the survival of the union is no longer an issue for either side.
The fact is, no employee wants to destroy his or her employer. We all understand that destroying the employer means our unemployment. To say that the anti-replacement provisions will enhance a union's bargaining power is a failure to recognize the inherent limitations on that bargaining power.
1150
Our members who may strike are employees of struck employers. They have seniority, job security, employment benefits, friends and relationships which all revolve around their employer. These union members, employers and employees determine the bargaining issues and will vote to accept or reject any collective agreement.
Eliminating replacement workers will finally bring Ontario up-to-date with our neighbours in Quebec and with labour relations regimes throughout the western industrial world, save the USA.
I do not think we should be looking south of the border for a model for any social or economic programs for the citizens of Ontario. The members of our council live and work very close to the border. We have enough experience in Windsor with the political climate across the river to appreciate how little we can learn from the American experience.
As Director Gerard told you when he addressed you, Professor Lord Wedderburn of the London School of Economics examined some of the reforms set forth in Bill 40 so they could be assessed in the context of labour relations systems in western Europe. The fact is, there is nothing particularly new, novel or unusual about any of the items, including the anti-replacement provisions.
Replacing workers who engage in lawful strikes just doesn't happen in civilized societies where employees' rights are affirmed in the political and legal culture. Ontario should be no different. The business community has got to lower the volume if we are going to repair the damage it has caused to our labour relations climate.
Our council supports Bill 40. We think this committee should support the bill as well. I urge those of you who continue to express your opposition to these changes to re-evaluate what it is that motivates you. Some of you may never have experienced the power of the employer in the workplace. Some of you may not know how the workplace atmosphere can be tainted during an organizing campaign and how a representation vote just cannot represent the true wishes of those voting.
The workplace isn't the same as any other place. We finally have a bill that has recognized that employees in the workplace need some help to participate in the economy and to improve their lives. I urge you to move Bill 40 through the Legislature and to royal assent without delay. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Questions?
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Thank you very much, Steve, a very good presentation. I'm glad you were able to make it here. As to your comments in regard to legislators who are not willing to support this, it's unfortunate they aren't here to listen to your presentation, because it was very good.
You've done a lot of organizing yourself, and you talk about some of the harassment or organizers being fired. There are people who think, even today, that doesn't happen. Of course we know it does, whether it's firing, intimidation, harassment or coercion. Do you have any examples of these things happening, whether to yourself or to some of your colleagues?
Mr Banks: A number of examples. My union is presently involved in a campaign in the city of London, where I met with four individuals of the employer. Within a matter of two weeks, two of those four individuals had been terminated. The reason? Business reasons. Our campaign up to that point was sitting at approximately 33%. That was two months ago. We've signed one card since then. The employees are terrified in there.
Mr Hayes: You represent part-time workers too?
Mr Banks: Yes, I do.
Mr Hayes: That's probably mostly in the food industry?
Mr Banks: Yes.
Mr Hayes: There are some who oppose the bill who feel that if you have a larger number of full-time workers versus a smaller number of part-time workers, the full-time workers may push through a vote. They are insinuating that maybe the part-time people wouldn't want the same benefits or type of benefits that the full-time workers would. Do you know of any cases where the people you represent, the minority, who would be part-time, would vote against having the same type of benefits the full-time people would be receiving?
Mr Banks: My experience has been in the grocery food industry, where the employer tends to hire more part-time employees than full-time. In the cases I have seen, the part-time numbers are almost four to one, yet those individuals do not receive the same rates of pay as full-time employees or the equivalent in benefits. I have found that the majority of those part-time employees are women who are working for better than minimum wage and it's secondary income for them. We're now seeing that we have a large number of part-time employees maybe working for two or three different grocery stores on a part-time basis. The full-time issue of employees in the grocery food industry appears to be going to a part-time basis.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. In the area of certification, you brought forward this whole question of organizers having difficulties and things of this nature. In the bill it says -- I'm paraphrasing -- that where the true wishes of the employees are not likely to be ascertained because the employer has contravened the act, then the union will be certified. There is a very strong penalty put in here in the area of organizing.
It's a given that we're not at all calling into question the right of an employee to associate or join a union and that the employee should have the benefit of being able to make a free choice one way or the other. This section deals with the area where the true wishes of the employee can't be ascertained because the employer has contravened the act so there's an automatic certification by the board.
If we accept the principle in its truest form, that the employee, the man or woman in the place, must be protected from any contravention of the act, should this section not be amended to also include any contravention by the organizing body, that if that body has contravened the act then that application must immediately be dismissed and cannot be brought back for a period of 10 months to a year? Would you support a change, an amendment, which would address that part of employee intervention?
Mr Banks: Based on my experience in organizing, the cases of employer intervention in a campaign far outweigh organizers being involved.
Mr Offer: It's not a question of how many; it's a question of the principle. It doesn't matter if it's 99 on one side and one on the other; let's deal with all 100 instead of only 99. It's not a question of numbers; it's a question of employee rights.
Mr Banks: I also believe that employee rights, upon signing a card, are protected, are looked after by the organization, the union and the board.
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to thank United Steelworkers, southwestern area council, for appearing before the committee this morning, and you, sir, for putting forward the council's views.
The committee has concluded its deliberations in Windsor. We will resume in London at 2:30 this afternoon.
I'd like to take the opportunity to thank the community of Windsor for its hospitality and many of its citizens who have come out to these hearings. I think they're very productive hearings and I look forward to the same type of hearings in London, Ontario.
The committee recessed at 1200.
AFTERNOON SITTING
THE COMMITTEE RESUMED AT 1436 IN THE SHERATON ARMOURIES HOTEL, LONDON.
SARNIA LAMBTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: Good afternoon. We were scheduled to start at 2:30 this afternoon. We're a little late getting started because of the travel difficulties but, those having been overcome, we're ready to start with the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce. If they're present, would they please take a seat in front of the microphones and tell us their names and titles, if any. We've got their written submission that'll be made an exhibit. Please try to leave the second half of the half-hour for discussions and dialogue. Go ahead, sir.
There's coffee outside. That's for people who are here as observers. Participants, make yourselves comfortable and at home.
Mr Gerry McCarthy: Thank you, Mr Chairman and ladies and gentlemen. I will preface my comments today with a small explanation, that we have submitted on two different occasions our briefs to the government relative to this bill and the discussion paper that preceded it. I will tell you that the language we will use is substantially more direct than the first presentations we gave. I'm not suggesting it isn't still reasonable and methodical; however, if it appears to be blunt, that's because it is. We hope to get your attention with some of the real concerns regarding the potential impacts of this bill on the business community in Sarnia-Lambton.
Let me begin candidly with the statement that this government -- and I will address this entire brief as if it were going to the government. I recognize that some panel members are not all part of that government necessarily.
Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): But they want to be.
Mr McCarthy: But they may want to be.
This government holds in its hand the responsibility to enact one of the most critically important pieces of legislation in the history of this province, legislation that could, if we accept the theories and speculations of those who oppose it, wreak economic havoc on the people of Ontario for decades to come.
Let's just assume for a moment that these theories could be true or even partially true. The fact is, we don't know. Similarly, let's assume that the government's theory is true and that these reforms, so called, will bring harmonious, non-violent relationships to the workplace. The fact is that you don't know.
Our concern is, how can we, the government and the unions of Ontario, be so careless or so irresponsible as to assume that any of us knows the answer? Neither you, the government, nor we, the business community -- if you'll agree that there are two sides to this issue -- has the right or the mandate to foist any type of uncalculated or untested theories on the people of Ontario or on their sons and daughters. You were elected to govern and protect the welfare and health of our people and our economy. You were not elected to speculate with our futures.
The enormity of these reforms and the tolls they could exact on the people of Ontario dictate that in a free and democratic society we should insist on a consultation process that works, a process that addresses the real issues in an open, honest and productive fashion. To date, we have not found a way of getting a consultation process that actually works. In our former address to you, in fact on two different occasions, we outlined, in what in our view was a reasoned and responsible manner, the very real concerns that we in Sarnia-Lambton had regarding these reforms.
You indicated through the ministry staff that you would take the time to come to Sarnia and review these concerns with members of the business community and labour leaders. On several occasions we communicated our desire to engage in fruitful discussions with the various stakeholders, but to no avail.
We recommended to you a solution that would enable both sides to take the necessary time to rethink their positions and form a consensus model panel in order to accurately and amicably determine the types of reforms necessary to ensure a productive and fair work climate for the province of Ontario, again to no avail.
Now that we find ourselves in the 11th hour of this issue, we will once again restate our significant concerns regarding these reforms. We concede the fact that the Ontario Labour Relations Act will likely see some changes, but emphasize again that for the most part it has been balanced and works fairly for both business and labour.
Clearly, as business people we're fearful of the impact these changes may have. While we worry about our own futures, we want you to understand implicitly that our greatest fear is that these changes could so radically alter the balance of power in favour of unions that we may never, as a province or as a people, enjoy the prosperity and vibrancy that historically has had Ontario as the leading economic power in Canada.
The fallout that may result will be the legacy of your government. The responsibility for this predicted demise will be exclusively yours and, in the end, the very people who supported you into power could be the ones most affected and most disappointed.
Again, nobody knows the outcome -- not you, not business and not labour. That being said, we implore you to stop the passage of this legislation until you have taken the necessary time to accurately and definitively demonstrate to the people of Ontario that you are prepared to listen, consult and resolve these contentious reforms to the reasonable satisfaction of all the stakeholders and not the select few whose apparent mission is to ignore economic realities and the will of the people.
Our jobs -- my job -- our economy and our future as Ontarians will depend on your responsible and caring handling of this legislation in months to come. We challenge you to do the right thing and to see this as a provincial agenda for all the people of Ontario and not as a partisan agenda that repays those who you think supported you. In the end, you may be repaying them with the greatest disservice of all: no jobs.
In the face of prevailing economic realities your Treasurer, the Honourable Floyd Laughren, said it best in his explanation of Ontario's economic situation when he said: "This underlines the message that the economy remains in serious trouble. Economic renewal that creates and maintains jobs in the future is vital to our province."
We couldn't agree more. To date, you have not been able to guarantee that these reforms will create or maintain one job in the province of Ontario, nor can you deny the speculations that they could in fact cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, depending on whose survey you choose to listen to. Surely with that kind of disparity in numbers you would consent to a more thorough evaluation of the impact of these changes. Responsible, democratic and clear-minded people would do nothing less.
In our original submission to the minister, dated back in January, we identified to the government how highly dependent Sarnia-Lambton's economy is on the petrochemical and refining sectors. Accounting for over 10,000 direct jobs and a like amount in indirect supplier jobs, these companies and their workers contribute significant amounts to the provincial tax base as well as providing the backbone of revenues for our municipal coffers.
We told you about the critical value added contribution that these industries make to the provincial economy. Industries such as automotive, pharmaceuticals, textiles, steel, plastics and rubber converters are dependent on the feedstocks manufactured in Sarnia Lambton, and their contribution to job creation via the multiplier effect is well documented.
We told you that these sectors are globally based and that they can and will invest their capital in jurisdictions that will maximize their return on investment. We told you that there is no inherent need for them to invest in the province of Ontario. Since we told you these relevant facts, we have surveyed these industries to determine what impact the passage of Bill 40, as presently constituted, will have on their future investment plans. While I'd like to tell you that their response was that they're packing up their tents and leaving for the Gulf coast, I can't do that. That's not going to happen. What I can tell you is that the majority of those surveyed indicated that their investment decisions will be negatively impacted as a result of this misguided legislation.
My rhetorical question, then, to the government is that if that's true, where do you possibly think Mr Laughren's "economic renewal that creates and maintains jobs in the future" is going to come from?
Let's speculate that these predictions are only half true. Can you or I, or anybody for that matter, afford to take that risk on behalf of the people of Ontario?
The most significant concern we have is the prohibition against operating during a strike. We have stressed to this government on several occasions that the petrochemical and refining industries operate in an expanding global market and that market share depends solely on the ability of the manufacturer to reliably and affordably supply customers with product. Because these are continuous-process industries, any impediment to this process results in loss of market share, in turn resulting in loss of jobs. Being a reliable supplier is absolutely vital in today's globally competitive environment.
The buyers of these feedstocks don't sit idly by waiting for a work stoppage or a strike to be resolved. They can and will and do buy elsewhere, and probably from another country. There's never been any assurance, nor will there ever be, that after the interruption they will come loyally flocking back to purchase from you again.
We understand why the government has deferred any decisions to include the agricultural sector in this legislation. Wisely, a task force has been established to determine the impact on what your own government refers to as a continuous-process industry.
We strongly urge you to recognize the parallels and the similarities in our continuous-process petrochemical and refining sector and recommend that you defer any legislation that has the potential to permanently damage their ability to operate and grow until such time as you have legitimately allowed for open, honest and productive consultation among all the stakeholders.
We can find no evidence that any petrochemical plant has ever been shut down in the province of Ontario as the result of a strike. We can assure you, under the provisions outlined in Bill 40 regarding the use of replacement workers, that you cannot operate a plant as complex and as environmentally sensitive as a petrochemical plant or a refinery with supervisory or office personnel. It just can't be done.
Let me be clear here. Neither the chamber of commerce nor the companies which comprise our membership are anti-union. On the contrary, we see our unionized workforce as a key partner in the economic welfare of our community. Frankly, the relationship between members of our manufacturing sector and the Energy and Chemical Workers Union has historically been very amicable. Together, they have demonstrated to the world that through cooperation they are number one in North America for on-the-job safety. Similarly, they enjoy wages, security and benefits that are the envy of the manufacturing sector.
The point is that there is nothing substantially wrong with the relationship between our manufacturing sector and its unionized workforce; it's healthy, it's reasonable, it's productive. The universality of Bill 40 threatens to undo 50 years of building that relationship.
We appreciate that not all sectors have this type of enviable record and admit that there are pockets of workers throughout Ontario who have been unjustly treated. Like you, we are shocked to hear that some individuals, many of them women with limited language skills, are forced to work in sweat factories for $1 an hour. Similarly, we feel that people who work in their home and work on piecemeal work for ridiculous wages are unjustly treated. We also cringe when we hear about violence on the picket lines.
In both cases, we recognize the problem, but would suggest to you that Bill 40 is not the answer. Each will require an individual remedy and stronger enforcement of the laws. Both of these examples are against the law and should be dealt with by using the full measure of that law. By reinforcing the mandate of those sworn to uphold these laws, you will have a much better chance of fixing the problem than by passing a bill that has little likelihood of dealing successfully with pockets of injustice.
The prohibition on replacement workers does not deal with the problem in the workforce and penalizes all for the offences of a few. The prohibition on replacement workers will be nothing more than an economic blockade that will impact all of Canada, and at a time when the rest of Canada and indeed the rest of the world is removing economic barriers and blockades, the last thing Ontario needs is to put another one up.
The risks are far too great to comprehend passing this part of Bill 40 without radically altering it. Again, we implore you to rethink your position and engage in true consultation for as long as it takes. We're not suggesting that the Labour Relations Act shouldn't be reformed, but to introduce such sweeping, one-sided proposals at a time when employees and their employers should be reaching out to each other in a spirit of cooperation and understanding is frankly economic madness.
As a border community, Sarnia-Lambton has been pulverized with the effects of cross-border shopping. Add to that the rationalization of our manufacturing sector, the recession, the GST, the worst tourism year in Ontario history, rising unemployment and a very ballooning welfare cost and we've got some problems. We can find nothing in Bill 40 that will improve any of these situations. If anything, our business community has told us emphatically that the passing of Bill 40 will worsen our position for a long time. If you doubt me -- and I wouldn't doubt that you do -- go ask them. Take the time to go ask them.
Your government needs to understand the very essence of economics. This is not a lecture. The employers of Ontario are the ones who invest their capital, employ Ontario workers, generate the taxes, pay the payrolls that allow our workers to spend their money and contribute to their taxes to your government to manage our programs and maintain our living standards. It really doesn't get any simpler, yet you're prepared to ignore the overwhelming cry that has gone out from every business person in this province. I think we have to stop this madness and start getting down to real business.
We owe it to you and to the unionized workers of Ontario to listen to your concerns and your recommendations. You owe it to the employers of Ontario to do the same thing. The only way this can be accomplished is to work together on a truly legitimate consultation process that brings cooperative, productive harmony to the workplace. I think the people of Ontario are counting on you to do that.
Included in this presentation are a number of additional concerns. I can't go through them all today because they are many and significant, but I do believe that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce -- which we contribute greatly to -- has addressed many of our concerns in the attachments we've included in the brief that's in front of you.
I'd be happy to entertain any questions that you might have regarding the Sarnia-Lambton business community's concerns.
1450
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Offer, Mr Phillips, Mr Brown. Three minutes, please.
Mr Offer: I'll be as brief as possible. I note on page 4 your hope that the legislation might be stopped at this point so that the necessary consultation could take place. I'm hopeful that there will be changes to the legislation, but I think you should be aware that we are certainly under a time allocation process where after these public hearings there will be a certain amount of days for clause-by-clause and there is no question that the intent of the government is that this is going to be law before Thanksgiving.
I certainly do agree with the position you've put forward, as a result of some very strong and serious concerns by a number of people, on the legislation, that maybe the government would stop and say, "These concerns have to be addressed." Unfortunately the time allocation motion we're working under will not permit that.
My question deals with the replacement worker issue. You've brought it forward, and you've brought it forward in the area of the chemical engineering scenario. I'm wondering if you might want to expand upon that as to what the impact of the provision might mean in that area.
Mr McCarthy: If you're referring to the ability of the plant, the management of that operation, to operate successfully at all under these provisions, the answer is not at all. The provisions as outlined in the amended bill indicate that with some supervisory help, some non-bargaining-unit individuals, you may be able to go in and operate the plant. That's fine for the writers of that legislation, but turn the paper around and ask the operators of those plants whether it's feasible and the answer emphatically is no, it can't be done.
Mr Phillips: I share your concerns. The problem we have now is that I think the government members would say, "The business community is crazy in terms of their reaction to the bill, and it won't cost jobs."
Mr Ferguson: We've never said that.
Mr Phillips: Well, that's what you're saying, it will not cost jobs. I believe it will cost jobs. Our problem is that we're rolling the dice on the future of the economy of the province.
Mr McCarthy: Precisely our point.
Mr Phillips: I agree with you on that. I'm frustrated because I legitimately don't think any of the government members believe this will cost jobs. I have not talked to a single business person who isn't -- a single business person. It's the only issue I've ever seen where privately you talk to dozens and dozens and dozens of business people who say this is going to have a negative impact.
I just want to share with you our frustration, because as my colleague said, the time is set, this bill will be passed, third reading, by Thanksgiving. I think it's going to have a negative impact on the economy. I appreciate the work the chamber's done. Nobody can predict it with accuracy, and we unfortunately will only know three and four years from now the true impact.
I didn't have a question; I just wanted to share with you a concern that we have about the negative impact, but the challenge we face is to persuade the government members of it. They just don't believe it.
Mr McCarthy: Mr Chairman, could I comment just on a relative point that both of them have made regarding the time frame here? It seems that we're in a bit of a time panic here to get this thing passed. I remind you that this legislation has been working for some 45 years and changes to the act have been incremental, and that's really been accepted by both sides as these changes have occurred.
An analogy I can offer to Mr Offer is simply that if a man is standing in the middle of a street about to be struck by a vehicle and his greatest wish in life is to have a stop sign, he wouldn't be too displeased with a yield sign.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Thank you very much for your excellent presentation, Mr McCarthy. I think you have highlighted very well the concerns of the community in Sarnia-Lambton. I'd like to just follow through on a couple of points you made that I think are very important.
You talked about the fact that what the government has attempted to do is to universally apply Bill 40 to all the sectors across this province, and we have been hearing now for a couple of weeks that simply isn't going to work. We heard last week from the retail sector, the grocery area, tourism, the restaurant people. The replacement worker section is simply going to bankrupt those individuals, and I think you've indicated that as well. What this government needs to do, instead of hurrying through and bringing this into law, is an analysis sector by sector. Is that what you would hope would happen as a result of this?
Mr McCarthy: I couldn't agree more. In fact that's the point we've emphasized in our presentation, that fundamentally there is nothing wrong with the labour relations. As soon as I say that, of course, someone will suggest, "Yes, but it could be better here and better there." Those are things that can be negotiated among the stakeholders but not legislated through government, and the success of those negotiations, as they have been discussed by both parties over the year, is a matter of record.
So if there's nothing really substantially wrong with this sector, why fix it? This is not a new analogy, but frankly, where there are problems -- if there are pink ghettoes, then go clean them up. Fix those areas that require fixing. But the universality of this bill is not warranted, it's not required. I have to agree -- and I can only speak on behalf of the chamber of commerce in the province of Ontario. If the 65,000 member companies who comprise the membership of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce unanimously agree that this bill will be counterproductive to economic growth in the province, how can anyone suggest that they're all wrong, any more than I would stand up and suggest that all unions are wrong or all union representatives are wrong with respect to their concerns? That's a fool's game.
The Chair: Thank you. Mrs Cunningham.
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Thank you. By the way, welcome to the committee, to London. This is where I work, and I know that you'll look forward to hearing from some of the representatives today, certainly from David Winninger and myself.
This is an excellent brief, and we have received this kind of input to the committee. I noticed your editorial comment on page 11 when you said, "If you doubt me, take the time to ask them," and then you added, "And I wouldn't doubt you do." That's our biggest problem here today. When I read these kinds of briefs into the Legislative Assembly, I was met with cries of "fearmonger," which isn't a word that I was used to, but it was one that I heard probably for the first time in my political career.
I'd ask you this: Our recommendation, from the Conservative caucus at Queen's Park, has been that we enter into, as a result of these hearings, some tripartite hearings, a committee, both the business community, certainly the labour community and government. I'd add to that now, because now we're getting the public sector employees, hospitals, school boards and municipalities. I'm wondering what your view on that would be.
Mr McCarthy: The best answer I can give you -- and I took a page from the minister's, Mr Mackenzie's, own book; not book literally, but his own philosophy. We would look to some of the European communities and start to establish the kind of labour climate they have in Europe.
Now that's a difficult task. You can't take something that's worked for 50 years here and suddenly change it to make it look like Europe. But if that's your goal, if you really think you can do that, start looking at the process they've used. The process they have used very successfully in some countries is this consensus model panel, where the various stakeholders -- and you mentioned them -- sit together and establish what works without compromising the economic growth of that country.
I would agree with you that if that's the interpretation that we could build into an Ontario system, it's certainly worth trying. But you have to stop where you're going and begin to re-form and rethink what the definition of "consultation" is, and then make it happen.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Huget.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): It is very nice to see you again, Mr McCarthy.
Mr McCarthy: You too, Mr Huget.
Mr Huget: We have ample opportunities to discuss a number of issues, and certainly we've discussed this one before and continue to discuss it. I want to refer to the part of your presentation that really says, I think, between the lines, that if this labour legislation is passed, it spells economic doom for Sarnia-Lambton.
I want to remind you that about 10 days ago, Shell Canada announced that it was very seriously considering a $300-million investment in Sarnia, partly because of the initiatives that were taken during the provincial budget and the federal budget that, in the view of the spokesman for the company, made Ontario an attractive place to invest.
I think you and I will agree that the workforce in Sarnia, union or non-union, and management in Sarnia, indeed the chamber, have played a very significant, positive role in positioning that community to be able to be competitive now and in the future.
1500
I think everyone involved in those major industries in Sarnia-Lambton is certainly taking that approach, and I've always been relatively impressed with the level of cooperation. Although it is not perfect, I wouldn't go as far, I think, as you do in your brief to say there are no problems. But while it's not perfect, I think it's been a very productive relationship and I see no evidence of that changing.
If you and I can agree that the workforce and the employers and the chamber in our community are working constructively and have relatively good relationships -- you mention a safety record that I am even more proud of than you are -- I guess my question is: What is there in this legislation that will change that relationship? What is there specifically that will change what has been historically and will continue to be a very constructive approach to the economic wellbeing of our community, not only on behalf of the chamber, but the employers and organized labour as well?
Mr McCarthy: Let me answer your question this way, Bob, and I agree with you that the relationship has been relatively harmonious, not perfect, as you suggest, but at least working in a good and productive direction. That being said, why do you want to tamper with that? If it is not substantially broken, why do you want to substantially fix it to the degree that you're suggesting?
Beyond that -- I am sure members of the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association will address this later on tonight -- you need to be aware of the North Americanization of some of these continuous process industries, not the globalization, but the North Americanization.
What that says in brief is that various multinational companies -- and we better get used to that term because that's what about 60% of our economy is comprised of. If they traded globally before, and they will continue to do so, globally at that time or yesterday meant that we would look at Canada as a pocket of investment and the United States as a pocket of investment and within the decision-making processes of those corporations they would elect to locate various capital dollars in each of their jurisdictions economically, whether that included Europe, Asia, South America or otherwise. The trend will be towards the North Americanization of those marketing blocs, meaning that Canada will be lumped in with the United States, not Canada separately from the United States.
This bill has some really serious ramifications if it passes as it's presently constituted, because there will be no decision as to where in Canada we will we locate our next plant or our next major expansion; it will be where in North America. I don't care about the realities, Bob, I'm more concerned about the perceptions, because you know dollars go where they're perceived to be welcomed. If they go to the North American bloc now and look to locate, you tell me they're not going to locate in the US versus Canada, because there will be no decision to be made if the North Americanization of our process industries continues. That's my concern.
The Chair: Do you want to respond to that? Because if you do, you've got to do it briefly.
Mr Huget: I will, just very briefly. I think it's safe to say that I don't share some of the concerns you put forward. I do understand fully, though, the perception issue, and I understand that that can be a problem. I guess if there's anything that saddens me, Gerry, it's exactly that.
In many cases, we're dealing with -- and certainly not from you, so please don't take this personally -- rhetoric and non-substantive sort of allegations that have created a perception that unfortunately just isn't quite reflecting of fact. Had everybody decided to treat this legislation and discussion of it on a rational basis, on the basis of fact, I think it would have been a far more constructive process.
In terms of the North American issue of our industry, in Sarnia-Lambton if you want to market a product that's in the largest market share in North America, the most heavily populated area of North America, a community that has the infrastructure and the skilled workforce and an eight-hour drive from the major markets of our industry, I still think it's a darned good place to invest and I still think that companies will invest in Sarnia-Lambton. My reason for saying that, Gerry, is simply Shell's announcement that it finds Ontario an attractive place to invest.
The Chair: Sir, I think I've got to tell you I think our time is up. We've got to move on. Mr McCarthy, thank you on behalf of the committee for appearing here, speaking on behalf of Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce. It's important that you've been able to participate, and we're grateful to you.
SIMCOE AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: The next participant is the Simcoe and District Labour Council. Will the people speaking on behalf of the Simcoe and District Labour Council please come forward, have a seat; tell us your name and your title.
Mr Peter Leibovitch: Peter Leibovitch, president of the Simcoe and District Labour Council.
The Chair: We're going to distribute the written material you have. Carry on with your submission. Please try to save the last half of the half-hour for discussion.
Mr Leibovitch: My name is Peter Leibovitch, and I'm president of the Simcoe and District Labour Council, representing approximately 4,000 workers, and also president of Local 8782, the United Steelworkers of America, representing the workers of Stelco's Lake Erie Works near Port Dover.
I'm here today because the organizations and members I represent firmly believe in the need to amend the existing Ontario Labour Relations Act. I am not a lawyer and will not argue the merits of the proposals for amendment on legal or technical grounds. I'm an industrial mechanic by trade. Most of the members I speak for are blue-collar workers, the people who have traditionally been shut out of the decision-making process.
Aside from voting for governments every four years, we've had no opportunity to participate in shaping the economic wellbeing of our society. Over the past half-century, the trade union has been the instrument by which working people have been able to fight for their fair share of the wealth they helped create.
The main positive result of the process of unionization in North America has been the creation of what we call the middle class. Hundreds of thousands of miners, steelworkers, auto workers and other union members were, for the first time in history, able to afford to own their own homes and cars; they could take a trip to Florida; they could send their children to university. In short, it is no exaggeration to say that social stability was guaranteed by the union movement's success.
It's a curious fact that the current debate on the need for labour law reform has seen logic turned on its head. When business groups portray Bob Rae as Karl Marx, and respected trade union leaders like Leo Gerard as greedy bosses, they are sowing the seeds of class warfare. By saying there's no place for unions in our society, they are declaring war on the very institutions that helped keep the social peace in Canada.
There are those who concede the importance of unions, but only grudgingly as a necessary evil. The existing Labour Relations Act reflects this view, resting on the proposition that the relations between workers and management are adversarial by definition. What the law does, then, is simply provide the rules and regulations to keep the warfare between the two parties within acceptable bounds.
The proposed changes to the law reflect a different attitude and philosophy. They assert in the first place that unions are a positive force in society, that unions are the instrument through which working people may empower themselves. This new point of view addresses not only the traditional question of how wealth is distributed in society, but the more fundamental matter of how wealth is created.
It seems to me that the business community's anger about the anti-scab amendment is phoney. After all, if the proposed amendment had been in effect last year in 1991, it would have affected only five workplaces in the manufacturing sector. The real source of their outrage, I believe, lies elsewhere.
The core of the debate on this legislation goes to the essential question of the role of workers in our society. Are we to be included as partners in a truly democratic and inclusive society or, as the corporate opposition seems to want, will we remain faceless, voiceless drones at the beck and call of our boss, with no role other than to obey orders? If the latter is not the case, how, then, can we explain why workers are so often accused of disloyalty when they seek to join a union? Why do companies fight so hard to prevent unionization? Why do many apparently respectable corporations stoop to blackmail when workers do join unions, saying, "If you join the union, we will close the plant."
1510
At Stelco's Lake Erie works, where I represent 1,000 workers, we have achieved something new and important primarily through the proactive stance taken by the union. The interests of both the company and the workers have been advanced because we have insisted upon our right to be consulted and involved in the process of change going on in the industry.
In fact, we believe that Stelco's Lake Erie works should be an example for Canadian industry at large on how to survive in the intensely competitive environment. In the midst of the most serious recession in a generation, my members are among the most highly paid in the North American steel industry and yet the plant remains among the most competitive in the world. The secret of our success is that new technologies have been introduced with direct involvement by the workers themselves. As a result, drastic cuts in the costs of production have been achieved through cooperation, and my members retain both their jobs and earning power.
At Lake Erie works, the union has fought for the right to be involved in decision-making with the company at all levels. We have also argued, with some degree of success, for changes in the basic nature of work on the shop floor. In other words, we have challenged and transformed the old master-servant relationship.
At Lake Erie works, our contract language guarantees us the right to limit contracting out. Conventional wisdom claimed this would only increase the cost of production; reality has demonstrated the opposite. And, yes, it took a strike to win that concession.
We also have language guaranteeing an equal say in restructuring. We use the resources of the shop floor -- the skills, knowledge and experience of our members -- to increase the efficiency of production. Similarly, we have won the right to involvement in continual training to constantly upgrade that shop floor resource: the workers' skills and responsibility.
All these gains -- let me repeat, they work both ways -- are characteristic of a well-paid, active, responsible workforce, workers with a stake in their employment. These gains could have been achieved only through the union. My members have the rights they enjoy because they are represented by a union that brought them to the bargaining table as an equal partner.
One final point: The bargaining table is not static; it grows all the time. We don't live in a classical capitalist environment any longer. There are no more single owner-operators. Like most other industries, the steel industry is made up of a lot of powers and interest groups: the banks, the shareholders, the board of directors, the consumers -- particularly, of course, in the steel industry, the auto industry -- and the workers who make the steel.
It is essential now more than ever before that the workers have a strong presence at the table. We believe that only the union can give them that presence. This is why we believe the amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act must be adopted quickly and in the new spirit of goodwill which they represent.
The Chair: Mrs Witmer, Mrs Cunningham, five minutes, please.
Mrs Witmer: Mr Leibovitch, you've made some very serious allegations here. You've indicated that some very respectable corporations stoop to blackmail when workers join unions. Can you name those respectable corporations that have stooped to blackmail?
Mr Leibovitch: I can quote from the public press. For example, Ron Foxcroft of Fluke Transport said that if the Ontario Labour Relations Act law was changed, he would move his operation to Buffalo. I can tell you about a respectable petrochemical company where, when there was an attempt at unionization, it was considering which plants would be shut down and it made it quite clear that one of the reasons it would consider shutting down a plant is if it had a union. I can talk to you with first-hand knowledge of people with whom I've worked who have been fired for attempting to organize plants. It's very common. Actually, all you have to do is read the Ontario Labour Relations Board reports on section 89 violations.
Mrs Witmer: So that's your definition of blackmail.
Mr Leibovitch: If you were told that if you join a union you will lose your job, I would say that is blackmail of the worst kind.
Mrs Witmer: You go on to say, "The business community's anger about the anti-scab amendment is phoney." Now, we just heard from the Sarnia Lambton Chamber of Commerce about the impact the replacement worker section could have on the petrochemical industry. If they were closed down, they could lose their customer base and obviously the people they supply would no longer have a need to come to them. In fact, we heard from a grocer last week that when his business was shut down because of a strike, it took him one year to get back the business he had. Would you consider these claims to be phoney concerns about that section?
Mr Leibovitch: There's a two-part answer to your question.
First of all, on the question of safety of plants and maintaining their capacity to produce, even in the unionized sector where there are strikes, for example, in the steel industry, we've always had agreements on picket lines. For example, the coke ovens have to maintain constant operation 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and even in the process of strikes we've allowed and agreed to make sure those facilities are maintained so we have our jobs to come back to.
On the question of who suffers because of a strike, yes, it's true that a business will suffer and the workers on the job suffer. I could say the same in terms of people who lose their earning power for maybe three, four, five months of a year, understanding that we do not get covered under UI or welfare benefits when we are on strike. We make $100 a week and it takes those members who are on strike maybe a year or two to make up for their lost wages because of that strike.
Unfortunately, it is the kind of labour relations atmosphere that we've created where we say that the ultimate method of arbitrating our disputes is a strike. It's a two-edged sword. Both management and the workers get hurt by a strike, there's no doubt about it. That's why there are very few strikes when you take a look at the amount of unionization and the relationship between that and the number of strikes that go on.
Mrs Witmer: Let's go back to the comment you made about the business community's anger about the replacement worker section being phoney. Would you not agree that, unfortunately, you can't apply Bill 40 universally across all sectors across the province? There are going to be sectors where, if you do implement that piece of legislation, employees will lose their jobs because customers simply will not be there if a company is forced to close and is not able to continue to function. Do you not think there's a need for more discussion around Bill 40 on this issue and a need for some amendments?
Mr Leibovitch: What you're saying is the classic argument by companies of why you shouldn't have a union. We're not dealing with the nature of labour relations in your question. You're saying that if you have a union, you have the right to strike; therefore, that might harm the business, so you shouldn't have a union.
What I'm saying and you're misreading --
Mrs Witmer: No, I did not say that.
Mr Leibovitch: I am sorry; I'm taking --
Mrs Cunningham: That's fearmongering on your part.
The Chair: One moment, please.
Mr Leibovitch: Excuse me, I'll answer and you can say what you say.
The Chair: One moment. I'm indifferent as to whether two or three or four people talk at the same time. However, the Hansard staff have a heck of a time deciphering that. Out of courtesy to the Hansard staff, and perhaps to the people who are trying to listen, could people talk one at a time? Go ahead, Mr Leibovitch.
Mr Leibovitch: I think also you're taking it off track. If you take a look at what I'm trying to say, it is that if you grant workers the right to a union, you're empowering those workers and you're giving them the opportunity to take more responsibility in their working lives and in the success of the industries they work in. If you take a look at unions as a negative factor, if you see that the only thing the union is there for is a strike, then it leads you to that line of questioning. I think that has clouded the whole debate on the Labour Relations Act.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Mr Leibovitch, in your presentation it seemed to me that you were outlining a very important point, that is, that workers do have a vested interest in the success of their company. They want to see companies succeed because that means their jobs are going to be more secure, particularly as we move into a more North American trade environment and a more globalized trade environment.
If you're in a workplace environment, whether it's unionized or not, and you have good labour-management relations, do you see Bill 40 affecting those at all?
Mr Leibovitch: Actually, many of the amendments that are now being discussed in Bill 40 have to do with making the procedures under the Labour Relations Act much more efficient and much easier to handle from the point of view of both the union and the company. The speeding up of the arbitration process, giving the right to the arbitrator to handle more than just what's in the collective agreement, the encouragement to use dispute resolution mechanisms to avoid confrontations, are all things that lead to better relations between the workers on the job and management. Those are things that have not been discussed much publicly at all.
1520
Mr Sutherland: Earlier too in your presentation you talked about threats of closing down plants if they unionize. We've heard arguments that currently there is a level playing field in the labour relations environment. Given those comments you made earlier, do you feel there is a level playing field, and if there isn't a level playing field, what steps are needed to create a level playing field?
Mr Leibovitch: I think the concept of a level playing field is a misnomer. There's never been a level playing field in workers trying to organize themselves. Most workers approach a union under the threat of losing their jobs, in most instances, and even if they lose their job and get it back, normally it's about five to six months after they've been fired. The intimidation factor has already played its course and it impacts on the bargaining unit that's trying to be organized.
I would say that in order to have a level playing field -- and I don't think this legislation gives you a complete level playing field; it still keeps a lot of power in the hands of management -- it would be the acceptance that workers have a role in industry and have a role in the places they work and management's acceptance that workers, as an organized voice, strengthen that industry and strengthen its ability to compete in today's world.
We can get all the laws we want, but we all know that if you have a lot of money and a lot of power, there are ways to circumvent those laws or at least stall them from taking effect. In organizing campaigns, that happens quite a lot. Having some of the changes we have now to the law, particularly getting rid of the counterpetition, will create a little more of a level playing field.
Just picture yourself in a plant where you've signed more than 55% or 60% of the cards, and then somebody who's pro-company comes to you on the shop floor and says: "Will you sign this petition saying you're against the union?" You know that if you don't sign this petition the foreman or manager will find out immediately, and you know what the result of that knowledge being transferred to the management will be for you in the future if the union is not successful. You may smile at that, but when you're making $8, $9, $10 an hour and you don't have a job to go to after you get laid off or fired, it's not a very happy proposition.
The Chair: Mr Winninger, quickly, please.
Mr David Winninger (London South): Mr Leibovitch, you heard the last presenter say never mind the reality, the perception is that our modest labour reforms will drive investment from Ontario. Given the experience in other countries, given the fact that the unionized workplaces tend to be more productive, given your own experience in Simcoe, where enhanced worker rights actually increased productivity, why do you think the employer community persists in this misguided concept that our modest reforms will drive out investment?
Mr Leibovitch: I think we're dealing with a question of rights as opposed to privileges. There are many employers, especially in the non-union sector but some of the employers in the union sector, who have contributed to the campaigns. I don't understand why, because they've been very successful in Ontario. But there are employers, by the way, in the unionized sector that have no real problems with these changes. Contrary to what I heard before, I've spoken to employers who haven't seen these changes as at all hurting their chances in the business community.
I think what has occurred here, as in many other things, is that when you take a privilege and make it a right, those people who have enjoyed granting that privilege feel that their power has been limited. Yes, in a sense we're granting more powers to workers on the job to participate in the economic decision-making of their day-to-day lives. I don't see that as anything but constructive and positive.
I think the crux of this whole debate is whether you see unions as subversive, disloyal organizations or whether you see unions as being a positive force in a democratic society. I think the whole of the debate against unionization is basically a contemptuous attitude towards workers.
Again, not all businessmen have spoken that way, but there are those who have a vested interest in keeping unions away. Let's be frank and be factual about it.
For example, in the steel industry, whether you're unionized or non-unionized -- if you've been reading the trade papers lately, Dofasco, which made a reputation of not being unionized, is going to have to cut its workforce by over 5,000 workers and has lost a lot of money because of the nature of the economy in a North American climate today. That has nothing to do with unionization. I would in fact go so far as to say that if Dofasco had a union and had good relations with its workers in a unionized atmosphere, it might be able to handle those changes in a manner that would be more healthy than the way it is going to handle it in the next couple of years.
Mr Phillips: Just a couple of comments and a question: Earlier this morning we heard the NDP member from the federal House saying the relationship between the workers and the company at Dofasco was very good, just for your information.
This has been a very useful brief for me, because it highlights, I think, the polarization. I think it's tragic, in many respects. Words in your brief like "sowing the seeds of class warfare" and "phoney" illustrate for me that we unfortunately have divided up in camps on this thing. I think one side or the other may be right. Unfortunately, if you're wrong and the business community is right, we've got some serious problems.
My question is this: I follow very carefully the Ministry of Labour closure statistics, as I'm sure you do too. I've followed them for the last 18 months. These are plants with 50 or more employees that have closed. As you no doubt know, although the workforce is about a third unionized and the private sector about 20%, 70% of those who have been laid off through plant closures have been unionized -- many Steelworkers, as I'm sure you know, and CAWs.
So in terms of looking ahead at the positive aspects of this legislation, when so many of the jobs being lost, so many of the plants closing are unionized -- and it's actually accelerating; year to date, we're up 30% the first seven months of 1992 over the first seven months of 1991. It doesn't look like it's abating. I'm really worried about that, because it is our major industrial base, our major economic base, and many of the unionized jobs.
In both your role as the labour council president and in your role as president of one of the major steel locals, and recognizing that these plant closures must be, I would think, your number one priority, can you tell us the two or three things in this legislation that will help your members to deal with their livelihood and their plant closures?
Mr Leibovitch: Again, we're dealing on two levels. I don't see this legislation as a panacea to our economic troubles because, as you probably know -- and you know the statistics better than me, especially with your background -- these plants were shutting down with or without Labour Relations Act changes. So if you're asking whether it's going to immediately create jobs or stop these plant closings, there's a lot of non-union plants south of the border that are shutting down right now. There are people being laid off right across North America at a pretty rapid clip, especially in basic industry, primary industry and the manufacturing sector, which is very scary. It should be scary for everybody, because that's the basis of our economy.
If you're asking how this could help, I believe the only way we're going to survive is by creating the kinds of jobs which sustain the society we have enjoyed for the last 50 years, particularly since the Second World War. Those jobs are basically technologically advanced and highly skilled jobs.
1530
It's the role of the unions -- and by the way, if you read my brief, I accused the business community of sowing the seeds of class warfare. If you read the brief closely, I talk about how the union movement has to be involved, and the workers on the job, not only on the question of how you distribute wealth but how you create wealth. What is the role and responsibility of all sections of society in producing a healthy economy?
If anybody has a stake in a healthy economy, obviously it's the union movement. We're not there to shut jobs. We're there to keep jobs going, to keep them open. We have to be involved much more closely with corporations in dealing with questions of how to expand our technology, our capacity to produce and our efficiency. I believe that's where the labour relations amendment, the spirit of the amendment and some of the things after the union is in -- nobody's talking about what happens after the union gets in, except for the anti-scab law. There are a lot of ideas in here about how to encourage cooperation between the union and management in terms of dealing with the new technologies and in terms of giving workers a say in their role on the job and creating more efficiencies.
I'll give you one example in our plant. I talked about contracting out. It used to be, among experts, that if a union took over limited contracting outright, costs would go skyrocketing because we would then demand that all the jobs be in-house, and the prices would go way out of line. The fact is -- and you can check with Stelco -- that just the opposite happened. One of the reasons we cut the costs of production so much is that we increased the efficiencies on the job so we didn't need to use contractors and contracting-out services. We did it in-house. It took a lot of reorganization on the shop floor, which our people actively participated in with a great degree of success, so much so now that the company is advertising this as one of its successes in dealing with the workforce. That is an example of proactive participation by the workers, the union and the company together.
Mr Phillips: There's nothing in the bill, though, that will help you.
Mr Leibovitch: As I told you, in the bill they create structures, an employee-employer dispute resolution mechanism of speeding up the processes, of encouraging the Ministry of Labour to be more involved with problems before they get to arbitration, before they get to the strike area. It is also a way of encouraging the union to get involved in the day-to-day decision-making process of how that plant's run, not only in terms of dealing with contracts every three years.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Leibovitch, for appearing today on behalf of the Simcoe and District Labour Council. You've made a valuable contribution to this process. We appreciate your coming here to London to speak with us this afternoon. Take care.
FORM AND BUILD MANAGEMENT INC
The Chair: The next participant is Form and Build Management Inc. Would the people speaking on its behalf come forward and have a seat and tell us their names. Their written material has already been distributed. It will form an exhibit. Proceed, if you will, with your submissions. Go ahead, please: your names, titles if any, and your comments.
Mr Bill Ross: Essentially, we are three small business people from London. My name is Bill Ross. I have with me Mr Garry Turner and Mr Gerald Slemko.
The Chair: Welcome.
Mr Ross: Thank you. Before I get into the text of our presentation, I would like to make it very clear that we're not interested in any type of warfare whatsoever -- it's enough to keep our businesses going today -- but we felt your task force was important enough to take time to put this together for you.
Mr Turner, Mr Slemko and myself, as I explained, have chosen to come to you today, first, to clarify that this is not a union versus big business issue and, second, to provide input from the perspective of the small business entrepreneur, a perspective we feel has been given insufficient importance in the deliberations to date.
Studies commissioned at all levels of government in recent years are being used as cornerstones for the economic growth strategies of the 1990s. They unanimously concluded that virtually all employment growth of the 1980s sprang from the small business sector. This trend will only accelerate in the 1990s, as large business continues to automate and downscale its labour force to stay globally competitive.
We therefore feel these essential individuals to your scheme for economic revitalization should have their concerns regarding this and other pertinent proposed legislation carefully examined before changes are implemented, something we feel has not been done effectively to date.
Currently we are mired in an extended recession that has seen a record number of bankruptcies and plant closings. To reinforce that, I've enclosed the most recent article from the Globe and Mail that has the statistics. You will find that as the last attachment to our presentation.
Unlike recessions of the past, where business closings were offset by a large number of new businesses being created, the current one has not experienced this phenomenon. There are several reasons for this, but I can assure you one of the main causes is overintrusion from all levels of government into the business sector, deterring many aspiring entrepreneurs from creating the businesses and employment we so desperately need.
The proposed changes in the labour laws, in our opinion, have more potential to further shrink and weaken an already harried and dispirited business sector than any of the recent enacted government reforms. The timing of these proposals at best appears questionable, and our concern for the apparent lack of study into their long-term economic impact as it relates to small business leaves us apprehensive and deeply troubled.
This apprehension appears widely shared, as it has manifested itself as the catalyst for the formation of a swelling number of small business organizations being formed solely to oppose these changes. This phenomenon is unprecedented in the business history of this province, a testament to just how widespread and vehement opposition to these changes has become.
It is our understanding that in the recent years the Ontario Labour Relations Board has decided, in over 90% of the cases brought before it, in favour of the union and has made decertification almost a non-existent practice. In light of this, we question the need for including measures to enhance the Ontario Labour Relations Board's power and increase its pro-union bias. Our feeling is that the current legislation should be more closely examined as to whether it is equitable to all involved parties before granting additional powers to the board.
As an example of what it's like to appear before the board under current legislation, Mr Turner will recount his experience before the board. Garry?
Mr Garry Turner: This is an experience I went through last year, actually. I was part-owner of a construction company that employed between 13 and 25 people, several for up to eight years. The local union tried to have the company certified through the employees several times. They showed no interest. In January 1990, we were in the process of hiring four employees from a defunct company which actually was a competitor, which had an agreement with the union local.
The union brought a claim against the labour relations board that our hiring of these employees was an effort to defeat the union of the defunct business, because one of the employees was considered to be a key asset. The decision was rendered that the employee in fact was an asset of the defunct company and therefore it was considered a sale of business. Therefore, our business was bound by the union's collective agreement and consequently our firm was unionized.
The company, after realizing an average growth of 17% a year over 11 years in business, as a result of this decision had its market reduced by 45%. Our total revenue the following year dropped 40% and 10 employees lost their jobs. The remaining employees have reduced hours. After 11 years I felt obligated to leave, because the business could no longer support two active partners.
1540
The hearing before the board took one and a half years, our defence costing approximately $20,000. The board made this decision with no regard for the wishes of the employees, despite their expressed opinion to remain non-union. It also determined that I do not have the right to seek employment where I desire, for now I am considered a saleable asset and can only seek employment with a unionized firm. I question the ruling of the board in that the business and employees have both suffered by its ruling, with neither party having an effective say. The labour relations board should represent all labour, but it did not in this case.
In a letter dated June 19, 1991, to Marion Boyd and forwarded on July 5 to Mr Mackenzie, Mr Mackenzie states: "The Ontario Labour Relations Board is an independent tribunal with the exclusive jurisdiction to decide matters properly before it. I am sure you will appreciate that I cannot comment on the decisions of the board or in any way interfere in its deliberations."
It appears that this panel may be in a position now to make some recommendations to the board. I have some listed here: that the Ontario Labour Relations Board be representative of the labour population it is intended to support, over 60% of which is non-union; that the Ontario Labour Relations Board be accountable for the process and decisions it makes to a second body; that the Ontario Labour Relations Board undergo intermittent reviews of its procedures and decisions by a second, impartial group; that the Ontario Labour Relations Board consider and respect the choice of employees in labour matters as well as that of union leaders and set aside ample time to hear applications for decertification as well as certification.
That's all I have. Thank you.
Mr Ross: I've included a comment here that Garry made to me as we were going through this. He was referring to his experience, and his comment to me was, "The small businessman does not have a chance against big unions who have lots of money and people hired exclusively to organize."
The apparent loss of personal freedom of choice, both to the employee and the business person, that appears inevitable under these proposals will certainly lead to fewer entrepreneurs being enticed into investing in our province. Entry barriers to business creation are too overwhelming and rewards too few to entice the risk-taker into the marketplace. Governments must realize they bear a significant responsibility for suppressing the entrepreneur.
Mr Slemko, who currently operates several enterprises in the province, has other concerns, particularly that this legislation and its impact is being viewed more in isolation as opposed to the total context of heavier government involvement in the private sector, which cumulatively has increased the cost of doing business in Ontario significantly.
Mr Gerald Slemko: As Bill mentioned, I've been involved in a number of businesses in Ontario, both in the service sector and in the manufacturing business. Prior to that I was a chartered accountant and have worked with small business for a number of years.
As I sat down and looked through the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act and talked to a number of acquaintances and businessmen, I started to realize that the impact of these changes is something that really must be evaluated in a broader context.
When I first started out in business in the early 1980s, most of my attention was spent on business strategy. We were looking at competitors, market analysis, financing, the things that are necessary to make business successful. But as I look back over the last 10 years and evaluate where my time is being spent as a businessman, the focus has changed. It's changed dramatically from competing to a situation where our time, my time, employees' time, is spent complying with government legislation.
Over the last five years in particular we've seen a major onslaught or barrage of legislation which has limited business not only in its ability to function but has forced a reallocation of resources to compliance rather than a reallocation of those resources to development, the execution of business strategy and being competitive in a marketplace. For the last three years alone we've seen the GST, environmental laws, pay equity, proposals for employment equity, pension reform, labour act amendments and others. I have no objection personally to the plans. I think it's important that there be legislation to protect employees, but the cost of complying with this legislation is becoming a major task for small business.
This does not create one job and probably results in the elimination of many positions in business. If we were able to take the resources that we allocate to compliance and interpreting and reallocate these to marketing, product development and technology, we'd ultimately create more jobs and be more competitive in this province.
Business is being continually inundated by legislation. It's difficult to understand, as Garry talked about in his situation, it's difficult to comply with and it's difficult to absorb at the rate it keeps hitting us. It's also making us a less competitive environment.
Understanding, interpreting and applying labour legislation on top of all this is creating a dilemma for business. We really need to have a moratorium on legislation until we try and catch up and adjust and are able to deal with the changes that have already occurred.
As we look around, we've seen the world has changed. We've seen changes occurring in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe; we've got the European economic community; we have a US-Canada free trade agreement and now we have a North American free trade agreement, all in the course of two years.
When I started in business in the 1980s my competitors were Canadian. With the breakdown of the borders and the globalization of business, I'm now faced with world competition. To be successful, I must be competitive on a global basis.
When the minister introduced the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act in the Legislature he commented in his opening remarks that one of the intents of the legislation was to recognize that Ontario must be competitive in an international marketplace. As I look through the proposed amendments, I wonder whether the minister really understands what it takes to be competitive in the marketplace today.
It is important that the proposed amendments to labour legislation be assessed in a global environment. We're not competing with Canadians today; we're competing with the world. Labour is becoming a commodity. It moves to the country with the lowest cost. The question we need to ask is: How are we going to be competitive in this international marketplace?
The Ontario government has just introduced a discussion paper for an economic strategy for Ontario, yet we're talking about major amendments to labour legislation without having first discussed and implemented an economic strategy for the province, which is undergoing dramatic economic changes. It would seem to me that we're putting the cart before the horse. Ontario as we knew it in the 1980s no longer exists. We're currently going through not only a recession but an economic restructuring, the impact of which we still don't know.
The government must focus on economic revival in a changed world. Job creation must be at the heart of this economic strategy, and to create jobs we must make Ontario an attractive place to invest, to work and to live.
I believe that the proposed amendments to the labour legislation do not achieve these goals. The legislation I believe is punitive to business, particularly small business. It adds one more piece to an already complicated equation and will deter further investment rather than encourage it.
As Bill mentioned and as we all recognize, small business will continue to create more and more of the jobs in the province of Ontario. Our ability to compete, to be successful and to earn a return on that investment is what's going to create jobs in this province. The labour legislation isn't going to create jobs. The proposed amendments to the labour legislation do not encourage further investment in this province.
I personally want to contribute to the growth and prosperity of Ontario. I believe in Ontario. But I also believe that the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act are premature, do not take into consideration the reality of a changing world and will deter future investment in Ontario.
Mr Ross: We strongly advocate that governments immediately focus on the revenue-creating side of our society rather than the spending one, given the huge negative fiscal imbalance that exists because business in incapable of maintaining revenue growth at a rate to match government's ability to spend.
The surviving small businesses in Ontario are virtually in the same mode, a survival one, where reducing operating costs is essential to offset shrinking revenues. This too often means reducing one's labour force or forgoing hiring new employees, a decision being made increasingly easier by governments which, through their desire to legislatively intrude into the operations of business -- too often, I might add, to satisfy political and philosophical goals -- make the cost and the trouble of increasing employment a poor investment decision.
1550
Your proposed legislation we believe will be a major disincentive for the small businessman to increase his labour force, for by so doing he becomes a more attractive target to dues-hungry unions that have no apparent concern whether the employer is fair but rather how much they can add to their coffers.
Certain entrepreneurs who are surviving, and some even doing rather well, refused to join us today for fear that recognition would draw attention from both government bureaucrats and union organizers. This statement alone is a sad commentary of where today's governments have led us. It's a statement that says the entrepreneur who built the wealth of this society is now afraid to talk to or be seen by those who govern it.
In short, our fear is that this legislation is not an issue about union versus big business, but rather big union versus small business. I thank you very much for your attention. Are there questions at this point?
The Chair: Yes. Mr Winninger, three minutes, please.
Mr Winninger: I think I can agree, first of all, with you on a couple of points. One is that small business creates the lion's share of jobs and, second, there will always be places where jobs will migrate, where lower wages will be paid, where poorer working conditions will exist, where environmental and health standards might be ignored. I can agree with you that far.
The challenge to us is, how can we create well-paid, high value added jobs in a cooperative and productive working atmosphere? I would ask you, do you in your small businesses enjoy a cooperative working relationship with your employees and, if so, how can our modest changes to the OLRA possibly impact on that harmonious, productive working relationship? I would particularly like to hear from Mr Turner, because I'm somewhat mystified as to how unionization led to a loss of 45% of your market in your former business.
Mr Turner: Essentially the reason is that it funnelled our business into one certain direction. We weren't allowed to do certain types of work, because we'd be infringing on other locals or other unionized trades. Before we were certified we did a gamut of different types of jobs and that marketplace was taken away from us. That's pretty well it.
Mr Winninger: By whom?
Mr Turner: The charter of the union we signed with. We're not allowed to take work from the electrical workers or the steelriggers.
Mr Sutherland: Just one additional question: You mentioned in your presentation how small businesses are attractive to unions in terms of organizing, but from my experience talking with union organizers, they tell me that the majority of drives they undertake are at the request of employees contacting them. So I'm not quite sure how you make that assertion.
Just in terms of competitiveness -- you mentioned competitiveness -- it seems to me that to be competitive you need a good product or service that you're offering, you need a well-motivated, trained workforce and you need to have a dynamic approach to business to respond to where the new needs are. I don't see how Bill 40 affects any of those elements of being competitive.
Mr Ross: Are you addressing me?
Mr Sutherland: Sure, and maybe this is something you can comment on.
Mr Ross: From your opening comment, I think you must have taken the text of this incorrectly, because what we're in fact saying is that small business is comfortable, that we can hide. The larger we get, the bigger we become a target, because they do tend to go after the larger companies and they've got the majority of them unionized now. We were concerned about growing the companies and becoming a target.
Mr Sutherland: My question was not so much unions going after them but employees calling unions to come in and conduct drives.
Mr Ross: In that one, Mr Turner probably could -- it gets very dicey. I've heard that comment many times. I've talked to union organizers. In many cases I know that is absolutely not the reality. They go after the workers. They have full-time organizers. These guys are out trying to pay their bills, pay their taxes and keep afloat. There are guys fully committed to signing up people, and there are quotas and they have to get people on those cards. We don't have that luxury.
Mr Slemko: I'd like to address Mr Winninger's comments about the workforce and how this bill would in fact affect us.
One of the companies I own is in the service industry. We bought it 10 years ago and we had about 10 employees. Today we have just under 100 employees. We went from a company that was not existent or not competitive in a marketplace and today we're probably the number one competitor in our market.
We are in the service industry. We operate 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. We provide service during that period. To the extent that we were unionized -- and as we've become larger, we've become more attractive -- we risk the right of lockout, no replacement workers. We'd lose all our contracts of supply.
The telecommunications industry has experienced tremendous technological change over the last few years. American competitors could come in and very quickly, without even establishing an operation in Canada, take over our business.
Mr Winninger: Have you had a strike?
Mr Slemko: No, I'm not unionized.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I was listening very closely to the questions by the government members and certainly to your responses to those questions. I certainly do hope that the response they heard dealing with how this bill may impact upon you in your job-creating role is one which is taken to heart when we deal with the bill.
Certainly you know that a great deal of the discussion talks about the fact that we are dealing with a bill, the impact of which we really don't know. There have been some concerns that it's going to cost X amount of jobs and X amount of billions of investment; there are those who refute that.
You are saying here, based on your information, that this study, the way I'm reading it, is an absolute precondition to going forward on a bill of this kind. Before we deal with a bill of this nature, let's deal with what the impact of the legislation will be, good, bad or indifferent; what it means to the retail sector, the agricultural sector and the manufacturing sector, and what it means to the creation of jobs and the creation of a perception of investment. I'm wondering if you could share with the committee your thoughts as to the need for an impact study.
Mr Ross: If I could start, I mentioned that there has been a grass-roots swell of small business organizations that have sprung forward because of the concerns of this legislation. Many of these organizations, whether you feel they're biased or not, have commissioned studies, and in every study I have seen the impact is extremely negative.
I'm quite prepared to look at a balance on the thing, and we've posed questions several times to union people and so forth: "What is the need for the changes? I don't understand them; I really don't. Give us some studies. Substantiate something, or let's get involved in a bipartite study, and that way there can be no mistrust."
This has been absolutely, flatly rejected. I have to be honest with you: It creates real concern and scepticism on our part as to why we're going forward with this. That's really the only answer I can give you. It's very troublesome.
Mr Offer: Thank you for the response, because it's certainly a message we're hearing quite clearly throughout, that there is the need for a tripartite process made up of business, labour and government. Let's look at changes, let's look at how we can address the changes and let's do that while being sensitive to the impact of those changes.
A lot of people are saying, in this new era of competition, that this is not only the best way; it's the most reasonable and responsible way. I think your response surely bears that out today. I just thank you for coming before the committee.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you very much for an excellent brief. I think you've probably impacted upon all of us with regard to your sincerity and your personal experiences. We thank you for being brave enough to come before this committee under certain circumstances.
I do have a couple of questions, but before I ask them I'd like to tell you what the response is that we've been getting to one of the questions, and that is, what is the purpose of the replacement worker clause? I mean, why would the government want it? The only response we've been able to get has been that there won't be as much difficulty on the picket lines. Any member here who wants to refute it, feel free to do so, in your own time of course. But I can tell you right now that's the only one.
Even the union people who came into my office this morning were not supporting that clause. They were in my office today because they're afraid to come before this committee. I have to tell you that we really do have a very poor atmosphere for making changes in Ontario right now. I had to slate in the one day I'm here this week to hear 15 people today and one Friday with regard to this legislation.
First of all, they're small business workers and owners -- workers, I have to tell you, unionized and otherwise -- and they couldn't come before this committee; there was no time for us to hear them. There are 1,200 who have been refused. Obviously I'm tremendously disappointed in the process and the rush.
So my two questions: My first one is to Mr Ross. I want you to expand upon what you talked about, being an entrepreneur and being suppressed, because this is a community that values entrepreneurship, and if it's suppression by government, that's the kind of stuff that we all want to hear about.
Then I have a question for Mr Turner. I just don't understand about this saleable asset part, and I don't understand what it means to your future employment. If you could both take those questions, I'd appreciate it.
Mr Ross: I'll take the first one. I specifically alluded to government suppression of business, and you'll notice it's "government." It's not a specific government; it's governments. I am also the chairman of the economic advisory board for London. In that capacity, I get invited to listen or speak to various government people. Mr Winninger, we've invited you up, and Mr Jamison from the NDP. We have tried to communicate with the NDP as best we can to try to set up mutual avenues for trying to do perhaps a more constructive job of changing the labour environment.
1600
Monday, I was invited by Tom Hockin, the minister for small business, to meet with him because of my capacity as the chairman of the London Development Advisory Board. I said exactly the same thing. I essentially told him small business is too complex in Ontario. We don't understand it. You're way ahead of us; we can't keep up with what you're doing. You have to slow it down. I said this to Elaine Ziemba. She agreed with me on employment equity. It had some impact, I would like to feel, but you're just too far ahead of us. We understand workmen's comp comes after this. We can't do it. We don't have the resources.
If you check our revenues, Mr Hockin's main concern was the fact that they're not getting the revenues from us and they're not getting the growth of numbers in the small business sector. So there's a sincere concern there. We covered a gamut of issues with him, but I got into this issue of too much government intrusion into our sector, and he absolutely agreed, from all levels. He cited cases where a guy up north wanted to extend a dock 20 feet. He had to get nine legislative approvals, from three levels of government, to move that dock 20 feet. It's untenable. We just cannot do it.
Our recommendation to him was -- and he heard this right across the spectrum -- the small business sector is not looking for any handouts whatsoever. We don't want government grants. We don't want you to give us government assistance. What we would like you to do is back off on implementing any new legislation till we understand the complexities of it, cut your spending and cut your taxes and so forth, because we can't pay the bills any more. Anybody successful is looking at 52%, and that's on profit, okay? That's not cash in the bank; that's money that we don't have. So we have to borrow to pay our taxes, even if we're successful and profitable.
I've invited members of your cabinet to come with me, spend a day, go through my books. Spend a day with me. See what it's like trying to create jobs and business. I'm very successful, and I have been for 17 years, and I can't make any money right now.
Thank you for your attention.
Mr Turner: To clarify the statement I made here a little earlier about the saleable asset, when the labour relations board made the decision against us last year, its claim was that one of the people we had hired had to be considered an asset; he was a key asset. When he came to our business, he actually brought value. That's where that term came from. Because of that judgement a year ago, in 1991, I guess I myself am in the same boat now, or anyone, for that matter, who wants to move from one company to another. They have to be careful where they go because they have to consider that they are maybe an asset to the company they're leaving.
The Chair: I say thank you to Bill Ross, Garry Turner and Gerald Slemko for taking the time to be with us this afternoon and sharing their views with us. You've made an important contribution to the process and we appreciate it.
SARNIA AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: The next participant is the Sarnia and District Labour Council. Would the people appearing on its behalf please come forward, have a seat, tell us your names and titles and proceed with your submissions. Your written material's been distributed and will form part of the record.
Mr Ken Glassco: I'd like to start off by introducing myself. I'm Ken Glassco, president of Local 914 of the Energy and Chemical Workers Union in Sarnia. I'm also president of the Sarnia and District Labour Council, representing about 5,500 workers in the Sarnia-Lambton area. My tag team partner for the afternoon is Ed Nelson. He's a national representative with the Energy and Chemical Workers Union and he's stationed in Sarnia. I work with Ed quite closely.
I would like to take this opportunity to address you regarding Bill 40. With all the hype dealing with this piece of legislation, I get the feeling that every word uttered today can and will be used against me in the future, mind you, but I get to speak after the chamber of commerce, so I can slide a few things in here. I will not deal with the bill specifically, but with personal and closer-to-home reflections.
The opportunity to join a union is a right, I believe. That is my belief and, for the most part, probably yours also. The fact is that if we all believe this, then why is it such a problem; not a minor problem, but a serious infraction of our human rights?
Presently in Sarnia we have a very active organizing campaign in place in which I've been very actively involved. Prior to one of our organizing meetings at a local establishment, I was approached by one of the employees. To say this employee was scared is an understatement. This employee wanted the right to sign a card in such a manner (1) as to prevent any other employee witnessing this secret ceremony and (2) that information not be relayed to his supervisor that this particular employee had signed a card.
I'm embarrassed to admit that in 1992 anyone would be fearful of what should have been one of his basic rights. We provided for this and other employees a room with drapes closed and no other witnesses so that these employees could pay their dollar, sign their card and leave via the patio door. I asked this person why. I just couldn't fathom how they could be that scared or that fearful. They informed me that certain individuals were relaying information to the company and that their own boss had made mention that he did not take too kindly to his workers signing union cards.
Another story in Sarnia from a couple of years ago, another union, another organizing campaign: This campaign was not successful and the union organizers left town. After a few months, for whatever reasons, the leaders and pro-union employees were weeded out with regard to hours of work and benefits and were left to ponder their own future. What really happened was that everybody ended up getting cut back in their hours of work so that they basically didn't have any hours left. I suggest to you that the reason they were discarded was not because these good employees suddenly turned bad; it was because of their involvement in an organizing campaign. Yes, it is 1992, but some companies and individuals still manage to operate as if it were 1942.
The use of replacement workers is another drastically needed change. It has gone on for too long, and many strikers-picketers have been hurt. Let's face it: The only leverage we as employees have is to withdraw our services. Companies that hire replacement workers, I feel, are doing several things.
1610
1. I don't believe that they're necessarily bargaining in good faith. If they have the option of hiring other workers in, then why should they negotiate in the first place?
2. Most of us -- probably all of you here -- feel, "My job is my job." We as workers are very proud of our jobs and wish to do everything possible to enhance them, make them easier, enjoyable and, at the same time, more profitable. For the company to have the right to replace me, if I don't agree to its terms, is unjustifiable and disgusting. I believe I have rights also.
3. Too many picketers and too many replacement workers crossing picket lines have been hurt and even killed on picket lines, which we heard mention of a little while ago. I believe it is time for this to cease. If a company wants to try to run a highly volatile petrochemical plant, as in the Sarnia area, with management, so be it; being at the plant gate will be close enough for me. Hiring replacement workers to run these units in our place would be very dangerous. I would much rather have the management people doing it, especially if I'm going to be at the gate.
Ad libbing a little bit, Polysar -- I think it was Polymer at that time, 1976 -- had a very short strike of about four or five days, which was a mistake; you can lay a lot of blame, but it was really a mistake. They decided at that time that they were going to run particular parts of the plant, and they did. They didn't run it at the rates or with the methods that we would have used had we been in there, but they did not hire any replacement workers. They ran it with their management-clerical staff but at a greatly reduced rate, because they just didn't have the people around to do it. But we didn't have very many altercations, either, at the picket lines. Because of the way things were going, we didn't have a lot of traffic crossing through them.
At Dow Chemical in 1988, they had a lockout, which was what it was termed. I was not personally involved in that. It is not one of the plants I represent. They ended up running their plant with their inside clerical and management-type workers, and to my knowledge, I guess that worked out not too badly. The problems were that they needed other services, and they hired in replacement workers to cross Local 672's picket lines. That is where the problem surfaced with these huge trucks trying to cross the picket lines to pick up and drop off chemicals or whatever.
Hiring outside employees to cross our picket line causes agitation, creates animosity among the employees and, I believe, has gone on long enough. A month ago in Sarnia, a person had to be charged by police for the injury of two picketers at a construction site.
I realize that I did not relate specifically to Bill 40 or even try to cover all parts of the bill. I feel that in your deliberations in these hearings you will probably hear that over and over again.
I want to close by relating to a couple of things, a few I have written down and an article I picked up from the Toronto Star on the weekend. I'm quoting the Star: "A southeastern Ontario company was saved by an offshore financial group and is now under new management. This group was very concerned" -- this financial group -- "because the employees were represented by a union. Upon completion of the deal, a principal" -- in this group -- "stated, `The union has definitely been a big reason why we've been able to re-establish.'"
I'd also like to refer to quotes that were made in our newspapers a week or two ago in the Sarnia area. I've been out of town a bit myself on union business, and I haven't been able to pick up on all the news, mind you. But Shell Canada Chemical announced that it is very interested in building another plant in the Sarnia area. They related a couple of reasons: (1) the provincial budget, and (2) the federal budget.
I must also add that Shell, back in the late 1970s, decided to build in the Sarnia area. The first thing Shell did was come to the union, the ECWU, and tell us that it wanted our involvement in building this plant from day one, and that is really the way it started. It was a separate collective agreement; it applied to a certain number of employees, and it still applies to those groups of employees. Together the employees who were unionized and the company built, and they still manage and run that place together.
I don't have to bring to your attention the economy and the downsizing and the way everything has been going. The company I work at is called Polysar, and it was recently purchased by Bayer AG of West Germany. We all know that when that happens, many things happen, and "downsizing" and "restructuring" are very good words that everybody uses.
Again, the first thing the management group at Polysar did was come to us, the union, and say, "Here is what we want to do, and here is what we want to do together." Between all of us involved -- and that included 1,200 bargaining unit people and 500 or 600 salaried people -- we feel we've been able to pull that place back together, and we've been able to operate it through attrition and retirements and whatever. It was just recently announced, I think two or three weeks ago, that there will be no layoffs at Polysar. A major portion of that has got to do with our relationship and the way we've been able to work it out at Polysar.
It's very hard to comprehend statements like the one I quoted from the Toronto Star; why all the concern about making what I feel is an archaic law in tune with the 1990s. I tried -- unsuccessfully, I might add, and I tried with my own company, Polysar -- to get a copresenter to address you as a bipartite presentation. I don't believe they wouldn't do it because of total disagreement on the issues; I just really don't believe it was the "in" thing to do. Everybody's drawing up their sides, and it just wasn't the way things should go.
Thank you for your attention, and Ed and I will try to answer any questions you might have.
The Chair: Thank you for a submission that was pithy and left sufficient time for discussion.
Mr Glassco: That's a compliment, coming from you.
Mr Offer: Thank you for the submission. I think it's a very important presentation. I have a question that centres on the organizing aspect in any particular workplace. I must tell you, I am less concerned with how the organizing campaign starts, whether it's from an employee or outside, than what happens after it starts. That's where my major concern is.
I think you referred at one point to legislation for the 1990s, and I want to talk about that.
In the bill there is a provision that says that if, during an organizing campaign, an employer contravenes the act so that the true wishes of the employees can't be ascertained, then the board can automatically certify. I think that's been put in to try to address some of the concerns in the area of intimidation and coercion. I think we all agree that the right of the individual, the man and woman in the workplace, to choose whether to join or not to join a union should be free from coercion and intimidation. That's a right. I don't care where anybody stands on the bill: This is not a bill about unionization; this is an issue as to the right of an individual to choose.
But it seems there's one part missing, and I'd like to get your thought on that. If we're going to build a balance into the bill, then as you might expect, we have heard some concerns that not only is the employer sometimes guilty of some aspect of coercion or intimidation, but sometimes -- and we hear this anecdotally at best -- the organizing drive is guilty.
Would you not agree that in order to really embrace the principle of the right of an individual to choose, free from intimidation and coercion, that clause should be expanded to not only include an employer who may be found in contravention of the act but also the organizers on the union side contravening the act, that if that took place, the drive would automatically be dismissed and could not be brought back for 10 months to a year? I'd like to get your thoughts as to whether that is an amendment you would support.
1620
Mr Glassco: I guess I would have difficulty trying to ascertain what a union organizer or a union could do that would be unlawful or contrary to the Labour Relations Act. In dealing with the people I've been dealing with, we tell them the way it is. You explain all the options. Here's the way a union runs. You make these decisions and it's this and it's that and whatever, and then they make their own decision. So I guess I don't understand what I could do, as an individual or as a union, to break the law so that I should be punished or whatever. I don't know what we could do or what I could do for that matter.
Mr Offer: What if that employee felt intimidated or coerced into making --
Mr Glassco: Signing a card.
Mr Offer: I'm not saying that's a fact. I'm just saying what if an employee felt for whatever reason intimidated or coerced, not just by the employer but by the organizer, shouldn't there be a penalty not only on the employer who contravenes but also on the organizer?
Mr Ed Nelson: Tell us what we do then. Give us an example of what we do -- and I'm an organizer -- to contravene the Labour Relations Act. I know what companies do.
Mr Offer: Then I'll ask you, as a principle, if we agree that there should be a right of an individual make a choice, as I do, whether or not to join a union free from coercion or intimidation, if we agree with that as a principle, then don't you also agree that the participants who may be involved in the organizing drive, either from the employer's side or the union side, should suffer a penalty if they have done anything in the employee's mind, as decided by the board, that might affect that?
Mr Nelson: Maybe you should come on the next organizing campaign I have and listen to what the employees say about the coercion that they suffer at the hands of the company, and you can watch me, as an organizer, organizing and obeying the laws. You can watch that, and I'm sure every union in the province would invite you to come along on these campaigns and watch what we do and observe.
Then go into the companies and observe what they do to the employees in a subtle manner, "If you join the union" -- whisper, whisper -- "we may close the plant down." That's what happens. That's the reality of the situation in Ontario, and maybe you should do that if you want to find out what really goes on out there, because you don't know.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you for your presentation, Mr Glassco. I think you were genuinely sincere in the comments that you made. However, you mention here all the hype. I think the reason for the hype and the concern is that there certainly is the perception and the reality as well that we're dealing with an agenda that really was created by the union leadership and the agenda we're dealing with does not include the viewpoints of individuals or the business community.
I think it has created some uncertainty in this province, and as a result, we have a polarization, and at a time when we need to be bringing business and labour together, unfortunately the process the government has used, instead of having true consultation, we've all been forced to deal with one agenda.
But my question to you is, we do not dispute -- I don't think anyone disputes -- the right of an individual to join a union. That is a right that all individuals are entitled to, and obviously they also should have the right to leave a union, if that's their choice.
You talk here about the very clandestine, covert manner in which unionizing is done, and you've given an excellent example of a room, and what have you, curtains drawn. If that's indeed happening -- and I know it is, because we know that during a unionizing drive there is harassment, there is intimidation, not only from the union organizers but also from the company and the employer; we know what happens on both sides, we've heard examples and we know that's true -- if that's the case, why could you not support a secret ballot vote that would give all employees in that workplace the opportunity to hear what is involved in becoming a union member, what are the dues, what are the implications of a strike, give the employer an opportunity to make his or her presentation as well, and then ask the Ontario Labour Relations Board to conduct a secret ballot vote where the entire workplace has that freedom to choose whether or not it wants to join a union? Why would you not support that?
Mr Glassco: I feel myself that they have that right now. Okay? We have a very active campaign on in the Sarnia area, and we talk to everybody we can. No, we're not going to throw it up to a meeting and have a secret ballot and say, "Let's do this, let's do that." They have the right now to sit down and decide. If they sign a union card, then that's the way it goes. If we get over the 55%, then I would imagine it's going to fly.
You have that group out there in which some of them don't even really care. They're really not that interested one way or the other, and they won't show up for a vote and they won't show up to do anything else sometimes that's associated with the plant. They're just basically there to do their work.
We believe that if we get out there and work with some of those people and talk to some of them and we get the required number, 55% plus, whatever, then that's really the way it is. If they don't like that, then somewhere down the road, a year or two years, whatever it is, they can get out of it.
I'm associated with many union people in the Sarnia area and if they are not happy with a union, whatever a union is, then they get up and pack their bags and leave. Or they say, "I don't like this union; I'm going to go over to that union," which creates some problems sometimes, mind you, but they can get out and go elsewhere.
They've really had that right when they sign the card. To me, that is their secret ballot, whatever. The only reason we had to have curtains drawn and make it clandestine was that this one particular individual was scared to death that he was going to be history if the boss ever found out. This individual stuck around for the meetings, listened to everything everybody had to say, listened to the debate, listened to the criticism that people would throw up, "Well, if you got a union, this could happen," and all the rest of it. He had really already signed his card but was just scared to death that the boss was going to find out, or even that his co-workers were going to find out. He just couldn't handle it.
Mrs Witmer: I guess the problem I'm having is that I hear from unions about the need to empower employees, the need to involve employees in the workplace, increase productivity, determine the future directions, and yet you are unwilling to share information with employees to fully inform them as to the obligations of union or non-union membership. You talk about empowering. Why do you not want to empower people to be fully informed about joining a union?
Mr Glassco: You should come along with Mr Offer down at the end there when he comes to our next organizing meeting, because we don't hide anything. Ed and I work together. We lay out exactly the way things are. Okay? I've never found him to lie or trick or try to coerce.
Mrs Witmer: So why are you afraid of a secret ballot vote?
Mr Glassco: We're not afraid of a secret ballot. When you have over 55% of the people saying yes, they've already cast their ballot. It's down and it's in.
The Chair: We've got to move on. That's going to be one heck of an organizing campaign.
Maybe, Mr Chairman, we can invite the panel here to come to our next meeting, and they can stand there and listen to what the workers are fearful of. It's an open invitation: Holiday Inn, next Tuesday.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Huget.
Mr Offer: We would be in contravention of the act. It would be in contravention of Bill 40.
Mr Nelson: No, it wouldn't.
Mr Huget: Thank you for your presentation. I think it was a very good presentation.
Interjections.
Mr Huget: Mr Chairman, can I continue somehow here?
The Chair: Go ahead. I'm listening carefully to what you're saying. So are these people.
Mr Huget: I was more concerned about Hansard being unable to record all the comments at once.
The Chair: They can hear you.
Mr Huget: First of all, I want to say that when you refer to the experience of having to draw curtains and people having to do very much in secrecy -- and I think Mrs Witmer referred to the organizing process as being covert and clandestine and having to sign cards in darkened rooms so no one can see you -- well, when the day ever comes in this province or in this country that I can sign a union card on the steps of city hall at 5 o'clock during rush hour, I'll be a very happy man.
Because organizing is referred to in that light, I want to know the reasons why. What are the reasons, first of all, for some of the fear? What are the reasons for people having to make a decision to go into a darkened room, sign a card and exercise a democratic right? I'd like some views from you on the reasons for that employee fear.
1630
Mr Nelson: First of all, they're not scared of the union, because they're there, and I don't think they're scared of the government, because it's not there, but they are scared of the company, because the company has made it quite clear over the years -- in most of the companies we try and organize -- that it doesn't want a union. They send letters to the employees that they don't need a union because "We look after you."
One of the strange things in this province is we have a very good relationship with a lot of companies -- the Energy and Chemical Workers Union is one of the most forward-thinking unions in this country when it comes to empowering workers, and we've proved that time and time again -- but these same companies that we have a good relationship with, if you go 20 miles down the road and you try and organize the other part of that company, all hell breaks loose.
On one hand, they love us to death when we're in the plant and they want us to be part and parcel of everything, but try and organize another plant they have that's not organized and they pull out all the stops: They hire the lawyers in Toronto to write these very fancy letters, subtly implying to the workers, "You don't need a union and this is how you do it or you don't do it."
They're scared of the company. Companies don't want unions in this province. That's the fact. They don't want them because they see it as a loss of power from every level in management. It's power lost to them when the union comes in and they don't want to lose that power, yet in some instances where we have organized, we've been able to do certain things within that company that have made it more productive. Then they say, "We were against you when you came in, but you've shown us that we can work together, and you do work together, and we approve it."
Mr Huget: Just to follow up a little more on the organizing theme, what has been your experience about how organizing campaigns start? I think there are people on this committee and there are people out in the business community who would suggest to you that somewhere in some hidden location in Canada a large union looks at the map of Canada and says: "There's a town, Sarnia. Let's go out and organize all the people in Sarnia." My experience has been that it's employees upset about working conditions that contact the union to help it organize.
The Chair: Do you want to comment on that, please?
Mr Nelson: Exactly. That's what happens. In my experience, and I've been involved in a lot of organizing campaigns, never once have we approached these employees. The phone call comes in from the employees, through phoning the Ontario Federation of Labour, and sometimes they phone the Canadian Congress of Labour. If it's in our jurisdiction, we get a call to contact the employees. That's how organizing starts in this province, from the employees, not the employer.
The Chair: Thank you both, Ken Glassco and Ed Nelson, for appearing here today on behalf of the Sarnia and District Labour Council. We appreciate your interest and your involvement and trust you'll keep in touch. Take care. Have a safe trip back to Sarnia.
The next participant is the United Association of Pipefitters, Local 663, if those people would please come forward and have a seat in front of a microphone.
Any matters that people wanted to raise? I understand that ministry staff wanted to respond to some of the issues that were raised by members over the last day or two. This would be an appropriate time for them to do that, subject to any objections by members of the committee.
Mr Offer: No objection from me.
Mr Jerry Kovacs: I think they were your questions, Mr Offer, and it might be helpful for me if you could restate them. I have notes from ministry staff who were here before.
The Chair: Perhaps, Mr Kovacs, you could just address the issues that you have prepared and then if there are supplementary questions, I'm sure they'll be asked.
Mr Kovacs: I understand you were asking questions about how the proposed provisions dealing with expedited hearings during organizing campaigns would operate and, in particular, I think you had concerns about the mandatory consecutive sitting days that the section provides for. Perhaps you can tell me exactly what your concerns were so that I can better address them.
Mr Offer: If I remember correctly, the request that I had was based on a concern that the lack of discretion in the expedited hearings might negatively impact on the worker who has requested the hearings. In other words, a worker wants an expedited hearing and makes a request; once that request is made a certain time frame, without any discretion, kicks in.
My concern was, what happens if after the request there is a day or days that the worker who has made the request can't attend? Does that jeopardize the worker in the hearing?
Mr Kovacs: I think you should refer to existing provisions in the Labour Relations Act which have similar mandatory wording in describing the board's requirement to conduct and complete hearings. In particular, if you look at the existing first-contract arbitration provisions, in subsection 41(2), which is the application to the board for a direction for first-contract arbitration, the board is directed to make its decision within 30 days of receiving the application, so there is a comparable example of a mandatory time limit.
The board has then, in circumstances such as you have described, considered the particular circumstances of the employee's, the applicant's or the respondent's problems, and has used its general powers under -- and I'd refer you to another particular section -- existing subsection 104(13). That provides the board a general power to determine its own rules of practice and procedure.
There's a parallel existing problem and the board has dealt with these circumstances. If you look at how the board has interpreted that parallel provision, I think you'll be able to generalize on how the board will interpret the new provisions.
Mr Offer: Okay. I don't know, Mr Chair, if the other deputation is here yet, or if there are other matters which ministry staff is ready to respond to.
Mr Kovacs: There was one other question, yes.
Mr Offer: I guess I have a concern in that these provisions in Bill 40 dealing with this mandatory time frame are different than the first-contract legislation within the bill. There is more of a flexibility. In fact, we've heard that's indeed a concern. I thank you very much for that response.
I must say that my concern was on the basis of the worker who requests an expedited hearing -- bang, bang, bang, it has to be heard in X amount of days; there cannot be anything different -- and then within the time period there's some family problem or there are a myriad of difficulties and the worker just can't get to the hearing. I'm not yet comfortable, but I thank you for the response.
The Chair: Is there anybody else who wanted to address that particular issue and that particular explanation by Mr Kovacs?
Mr Kovacs: There was one further question that ministry staff advised me of, and I believe, again, Mr Offer, it was yours. It was with respect to what would become section 7 of the act, dealing with consolidation. It's at section 8 of the bill. Subsection 8(1) requires that consolidation applications can concern only the same trade union. I think it was the definition of "trade union" that was at issue.
The labour board, in determining applications for certification, currently will define a particular local of a national or international organization as a trade union for the purposes of the act. So it will depend on the circumstances of the proposed consolidation that arises under the proposed new section 7. It's possible that different locals may constitute different trade unions. However, if a number of locals involved in a potential consolidation case have been certified or have bargained through the name of their parent body, then perhaps they would constitute a "same trade union" within the context of subsection 7(1).
The Chair: Did anybody want to question further or comment on that? Thank you. Perhaps you could stay there for just a moment, please.
Mr Hope: Mine is to legislative research.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Mr Turner, from Form and Build Management Inc, mentioned his labour board case, and I was wondering if the ministry is capable of getting a copy of that judgement.
Mr Kovacs: Yes, I can. I'll do so and provide it to you.
The Chair: Is that acceptable?
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Hope: What I would like to try to do is get some information from legislative research. It revolves around the strike issue and the replacement worker issue, and I'm just trying to put a picture into place here.
I'm wondering if legislative research could tell me -- and I know you couldn't today -- how many collective agreements are in place in the province of Ontario, how many strikes occurred in the last 12 months and in the last 24 months and the length of the strikes in the 12 months. I'm not sure if you keep documents back longer than 12 months, but just if you've got it and it's at your fingertips. Also, what I would like to know is, out of the lengths of strikes in the 12 months -- I don't know if you've got that -- how many had reported violence in them, and out of those violent incidents, how many were through the use of replacement workers or transfer of work or moving of equipment.
I think that'll keep you busy for a while. Sorry for the inconvenience, but it's important that we have this to try to put into perspective what's being said to us.
Mrs Cunningham: Just on that point, I think I asked the same question last week as we wanted to expand on some of the information that was put before the committee at the time. Perhaps we could look at it over the dinner hour and see what's available, but the questions have been asked.
The Chair: Yes.
Mrs Witmer: I thought maybe in the time it takes to hold the hearings, the government might consider doing a full economic impact study.
The Chair: You're asking Ms Anderson to do that?
Mrs Witmer: Since it has not yet been done.
The Chair: That's a request, I trust.
Mrs Witmer: That's a request.
The Chair: It's noted. I'm sure any number of people will take it back to whomever they're responsible and accountable and answerable to.
Mr Hope: If I may, because we're talking about a recession, and I don't know if your documentation or your microfilm goes back, but if she's talking about an impact study, why don't we go back to the 1930s, when the Depression was on?
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Hope. No other matters. We are recessed until 6:30, at which time we will be back here again. People of course are welcome to attend, and I look forward to seeing people here.
The committee recessed at 1645.
EVENING SITTING
The committee resumed at 1830.
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, NIAGARA PENINSULA AREA COUNCIL
The Chair: It's 6:30. We're ready to resume for this evening. The first participant this evening is the United Steelworkers of America, Niagara area. Please come forward and take a seat in front of a microphone. Tell us your name and your title. We have your written submission, which will form an exhibit to the proceedings. Leave the last half of the half-hour for exchanges.
Mr David McIntosh: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, my name is David McIntosh and I'm here today on behalf of the Niagara Peninsula Steelworkers area council to express some thoughts on Bill 40.
The United Steelworkers are pleased that the government has proceeded with labour law reform, although we feel that these modest reforms are but a first step and that in order to achieve a truly level playing field in labour relations there is much more work to be done.
Ontario's current labour laws were written when the workforce was mainly men working in large industrial places. Today, due mainly to the fiscal follies of the federal government, the workforce now consists of a great number of part-time workers, the majority of whom are women and immigrants, and few are covered by the present legislation.
We don't believe that this bill will result in massive job losses as predicted by some business groups. Any group that requires the services of a public relations firm such as Hill and Knowlton must expect to have its pronouncements met with a degree of scepticism.
Unions are a force for social good, and many of the social policies we all enjoy today such as public medicare and pensions exist largely because the labour movement campaigned hard and long to achieve them.
There is nothing in Bill 40 that proposes that union membership be mandatory. Rather, it aims to give people the choice to organize or not, free of the intimidation and fear that exists in many of today's workplaces.
If people are treated with dignity and respect, are paid a decent wage, work in safe working conditions and can trust their employer, then the chances are they will never feel the need to form a union.
I should like to touch on a couple of the areas of Bill 40.
The right to organize has been extended to a number of groups currently excluded. United Steelworkers can only view this as a positive step.
While the scope of the act will be amended to include domestics, this is essentially meaningless unless mechanisms are put in place to ensure their ability to bargain. Most domestics are employed singly, in separate workplaces by separate employers, with little in the way of job security. Some form of organization needs to be developed whereby both domestics and their employers can be represented in order to negotiate their particular interests.
We are of the view that security guards should be able to join and be certified in the union of their choice. Ontario is the only province which holds that security guards cannot freely choose which union will represent them. In all other jurisdictions there have been no issues concerning conflict of interest, and the proposed amendments address the issue of conflicting interests between a security guard's duty to his or her employer and loyalty to other employees.
Employees wishing to form a union must be protected from employer reprisal by the total prohibition of discipline and discharge, unless the employer obtains prior leave from the Ontario Labour Relations Board. This is the only way to ensure that employees are making a free choice to organize based on their knowledge and the information supplied by either side. This step would also reduce the fear and threats that all too many employers lay on pro-union employees.
The elimination of a membership fee is a positive step. While this may make it marginally easier for unions to convince workers to become members, it will certainly remove one of the most time-consuming objections employers use to delay a certification application. Surely a signed card is sufficient proof of support.
While we support the lowering to 40% for the amount required for entitlement to a certification vote, we cannot support the retention of 55% for automatic certification. We feel, in accordance with all elections or ballots held within the Steelworkers, a simple majority should suffice for automatic certification. A signed card is as sure a proof of support as a secret ballot. Indeed, if parliamentary elections were held under the rules that are being imposed on workers during organizing drives, there would be far fewer politicians holding office today.
Again, Ontario is the only province that does not restrict the use of anti-union petitions. The overwhelming majority of these petitions are found to be either involuntary or tainted by employer involvement and are thus disregarded by the board.
However, the time and expense required to oppose a petition often results in delay of the certification process and frequently damages the newly created and often fragile bargaining relationships.
If workers wish to decertify, they can do so currently under the act by applying to the board in the months just prior to the termination of their collective agreement. Decertification, by the way, requires only a simple majority vote.
We therefore urge the government to take the necessary steps and completely eliminate petitions.
In conclusion, we believe that the assertions of some segments of the business community regarding Bill 40 and its adverse effect on Ontario's economy are pure guesswork at best. Investors put their money where it will get the best return, and it stands to reason that a business that is more efficient and more productive will also tend to be more profitable.
A recent study by researchers at Carnegie-Mellon University found that unionized workplaces are as much as 31% more productive than non-union, and even that unionized branches of large companies were more productive than non-union branches of the same company.
Further, the Economic Policy Institute in the US also sponsored one of the most thorough and comprehensive studies of unions and international competitiveness. They concluded that there is no connection between unionization and trade deficits. The study also demonstrated that unionized workplaces have led the way with regard to flexibility and productivity, enhancing innovations. Increased productivity is more likely to take place where workers share the benefits, there are long-term employment guarantees and workers are protected from unjust dismissal. These conditions are more likely to occur in a unionized workplace.
For these reasons, the Steelworkers urge this government to pass this legislation and help more of Ontario's workers enjoy the benefits and rights of collective bargaining.
I have attached to the back of the presentation an article from the Toronto Star regarding the unionized employees being a bit more productive.
The Chair: Thank you, sir, and congratulations on a submission that is concise and permits adequate time for discussion. Ms Witmer, Ms Cunningham, seven minutes, please.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much, Mr McIntosh. You make reference on page 3 to the fact that "This is the only way to ensure that employees are making a free choice to organize based on their knowledge and the information supplied by either side." What exactly do you mean by that statement? I'm not quite sure.
Mr McIntosh: During an organizing campaign -- I don't know if you've ever been involved in one --
Mrs Witmer: I've certainly heard from individuals who have been involved.
Mr McIntosh: Okay. I work as a a volunteer organizer for the Steelworkers. During a campaign, the first thing that generally happens as soon as the employer becomes aware of the drive is that he has a little gathering of the employees, just to have an informal chat, where he lays out that he doesn't like unions. Oftentimes we have, I guess, indirect threats about how a union would make the company less competitive, possibly forcing it to lay people off or even shut down -- we do have examples of that; one was mentioned earlier today regarding an oil refinery -- generally a very anti-union stance. He is prohibited by law from having what is called a captive audience where he pays them to be there, but generally that law is not enforced very well and we have found many, many cases where at coffee break all of a sudden the employees get together and they're fed information from the employer.
When we get involved -- and this is a general thing we're encouraged to do with the Steelworkers -- in organizing campaigns, we have to provide that individual with all the information that is available to us. We don't hold anything back. We give it all to them. The people are usually at meetings, either in a hall or -- sometimes you'll have 10 people, sometimes you'll have more. Odd times there's just one or two people, maybe even alone, depending on the individual's preference. We pass along that information and we answer the questions, and there are usually many questions.
We have had cases, and a couple come to mind, where employees were fired because they made a pro-union statement in the workplace. In one case, they fired the wrong guy. He wasn't a union supporter until after we got his job back. People have been disciplined, have been given the dirty jobs, the jobs that normally no one wants to do in a workplace. I'm sure you understand there are many areas where it's a little dirtier and not quite as nice to work.
Mrs Witmer: But how is this law going to help people make a free choice?
Mr McIntosh: You're going to do away with the fear of being fired. There's going to be more protection under this act. We would actually like to see the total prohibition of discipline and discharge while the drive is going on. That's not provided for in the act, and we feel it's one of the failings of the proposed amendments. I don't think they go far enough in that direction.
1840
Mrs Witmer: You talk about allowing people to make a free choice to organize, and I certainly don't disagree with you. In fact, I have to tell you, some of the concern I have about this legislation is that I feel it does infringe on individual rights and freedoms. I feel there are some freedoms that are taken away from individuals.
I know many people have indicated they would feel much more comfortable with this legislation if individuals truly were given a choice. That choice would be based on a union presenting all the information, the employer presenting the information and then having all the employees cast a secret ballot. If we talk about democracy and freedom of choice, the only way you can have that is a ballot. Why would you not support that happening?
Mr McIntosh: In my experience with ballots -- we do go through a large number of secret ballots on a certification -- usually the balloting place or the voting place is a lunchroom in the workplace or some other appropriate office or room. There's generally a hall leading up to it, and it's been my experience that we have management personnel standing in the hall on either side of the door encouraging the people as they go in to vote against the union in favour of the company's position.
Mrs Witmer: But obviously if you're having a secret ballot, the person has the choice anyway to do whatever he wants.
Mr McIntosh: He certainly has, but there's a heck of a lot of intimidation sitting out there when you walk past the boss and you know you're going to be voting against what he wants. I've even had a foreman come in to the polling clerk and tell him, "I've got two people out here who voted the wrong way and they now want to change their ballot."
There's really nothing secret about a ballot on a certification vote. There's far too much intimidation. There's a genuine fear out there which, if you've never been in the position of being in a certification vote, possibly you wouldn't really understand. When you have an employer who's got the money and the power in this hand and he's got your job in this hand, you tell him what he wants to hear.
Mrs Witmer: However, we've also heard about people who have been approached by unions and who have felt very intimidated, have had their personal property destroyed and harassing phone calls made as well.
Mr McIntosh: During an organizing drive?
Mrs Witmer: Yes. I can give you an example in Cambridge of that happening. In order to make sure there's no harassment, there's no coercion, I think what we need, and what I know people would feel comfortable with, is to have a secret ballot vote supervised by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, if you will.
Mr McIntosh: They usually are supervised by the Ministry of Labour.
Mrs Witmer: Let's make sure that people really do have freedom of choice in a secret ballot vote. That's the way we're elected, and obviously there's some merit there. John Crispo suggested to us that unions are afraid because they're afraid they would lose. I don't know what your response would be to that.
Mr McIntosh: I'm afraid I don't worry too much about that. Usually, when we finish up a drive, we feel we've done a sufficient job. It's up to the individual. A secret ballot vote cannot take place while you have the intimidation and fear in the workplace that we have today, and that fear is losing your job, particularly in today's work environment. Unless you've been involved in that, I realize it's very hard to understand the amount of fear out there.
Mrs Cunningham: Thank you, Mr McIntosh. I looked with interest at the Carnegie-Mellon University study. If that's correct, I hope you're more successful, because if those results are correct -- is it recent?
Mr McIntosh: I believe it was 1989 or 1990.
Mrs Cunningham: Perhaps you could give us the reference for that if you have it, because I'm not aware of it. I'm sure whoever put the brief together would know where we can find that.
Mr McIntosh: Actually, I took this one out because it's very readily available. It was in the Toronto Star.
Mrs Cunningham: Okay. I was going to ask you if you were aware of the Ernst and Young study. You say there are fears of people in the workplace losing their jobs if in fact they want to unionize, because of the managers and owners of a company. I'm wondering what your impression would be with regard to workers being concerned about losing their jobs or companies not investing in Ontario. That's an Ernst and Young study that estimated some 295,000 jobs and $8.8 billion in investment would be lost if in fact this law went through. Of course, in my position I have to look at every side of this study.
Mr McIntosh: I don't know who commissioned that study and I don't know whom they asked the questions of. I understand that very early on in these proceedings there was a study that came out and it was 465,000 jobs, so we've had an improvement so far.
Mrs Cunningham: So I'm supposed to believe this stuff.
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): Mr McIntosh, before I ask a couple of questions of you I think I'd like to request of legislative research that we obtain copies of the Carnegie-Mellon University study that showed that unionized workplaces are more productive by up to 31%; and not to correct Ms Witmer, but the testimony we heard from a participant in these hearings of violence took place during a first-contract strike, in which employees were crossing the picket line. It wasn't during an organizing drive of card signing; it was an actual first-contract strike at the Cambridge Reporter, from my recollection. I may be wrong in that.
Mr McIntosh, I would like to thank you for your presentation. I think it has clear insight for this committee and develops our understanding of the benefits of Bill 40, as well as some concerns that in fact Bill 40 doesn't go far enough.
We all recognize that the workplace and the workforce changed dramatically since the 1970s, which is in essence why Bill 40 was presented, because the existing act clearly does not meet the needs of the people of Ontario in today's environment.
You have had some experience in organizing drives on behalf of your union, the Steelworkers, I believe. We've heard some statements today by a group of presenters that more or less inferred that organizing drives have occurred, in their experience, by trade union representatives simply showing up at the door of a specific company and suddenly conducting an organizing drive.
I would like to know how an organizing drive develops as it pertains to your experience and with the Steelworkers, and some obstacles -- you mentioned them briefly in your presentation -- you have experienced under the existing act that do not allow employees to present their true wishes if they decide to have a trade union represent them. Could you expand on that?
Mr McIntosh: Sure.
Mr Ward: The obstacles, as well as how organizing drives develop.
Mr McIntosh: First off, I'd like to state that if you people could pass a law that would allow me to knock on a company's door and tell them I'm there to organize the place and would they let me in and they do, I'm for ever in your debt.
Mr Hope: You'd be charged with trespassing.
Mr McIntosh: Right. An organizing drive --
Interjections.
Mrs Witmer: Not any more in Bill 40; you can do anything.
Mr McIntosh: No, you can't, unfortunately.
An organizing drive usually starts out when we're approached by dissatisfied employees of a certain company. We don't know who's unhappy with their workplace. If you live in a large city, there's no way in the world you're ever going to find out -- even in a small town. You might hear gossip, but that's it. Normally these people approach the union.
In one recent case -- it was on sexual harassment -- the woman felt she'd been sexually harassed by her boss. She came to the union to find out how to proceed with it, and from that an organizing drive developed.
In other cases, it's people who are dissatisfied with their working conditions, or they want more money. Health and safety is a big issue these days. The biggest issue of all, funnily enough, is being treated with dignity. Wages come in about number four on the list. If an employer treats his people with dignity, with a bit of respect, he's going to have no real problems with them. That is number one on the list.
As far as problems that develop during a drive, we do have the classics, where people are fired or where people are laid off out of position. If there's no union, there's generally no seniority list. Even if there was some sort of informal seniority process before, it's generally ignored. You find that pro-union people tend to go to the door a heck of a lot faster than the ones who are pro-company, so to speak.
In one recent one we looked at, the company actually went out and hired 40 new people prior to the certification vote. Two days later, they laid them all off after the vote. As far as the level playing field goes, it's about as level as a vertical wall.
1850
Ms Murdock: This is sort of a preamble to the question I'm going to ask you. I get the feeling through much of this in the past two and a half weeks that we, as New Democrats, who have a strong belief in the rights of working people to have a choice in terms of organizing or not, actually are employers in that our staffs in both our constituency offices and our legislative offices are unionized under two different unions, one the Office and Professional Employees International Union and the other the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.
As a matter of fact, my colleagues elected me as the caucus personnel chair, so I am the chief negotiator for the management side. I went through that process last year and will have to go through it again next year, I imagine. It's sort of interesting, because I come from this in terms of having been a union member and now from the management perspective, so I get it from both ends. In fact, after Bill 40 we could very well end up organizing the Liberal and Conservative staff.
Mrs Cunningham: My staff's organized. What about yours?
Ms Murdock: Because of that, I think we have a good working relationship with our staffs and we work through the collective agreement. Can you give us a couple of examples of instances where your local has worked with management for the good of the company, and the good of the workers of course?
Mr McIntosh: In my own local? I work in an industrial service company. We go out and we make repairs in larger plants. Lately, things are a little bit tight out there, as they are everywhere else, so we've been going out further afield and getting into different areas: hydro, cogeneration and steam plants, places where we've never actually gone before.
Our contract language is actually a little specific in regard to travelling. We do a lot of travelling around the province, Canada, the United States and into South America in our jobs. Normally, within the Niagara Peninsula we have a specific travel area where we report to a job site. In other words, instead of the people going to the plant, they drive direct to where the job is being done. If they're outside that area, then of course they have to be paid for time and they're supplied with a vehicle to get there, according to our language.
We come into many areas now where, because of the restrictions on various budgets and various plants, there's been that difference between the travelling time allowed and the free travel time, which has meant the difference between getting a job or not getting a job. We have been working with our management people in that area.
We're also looking at what I guess you call multicrafting in a lot of areas. The generic name is multicrafting, where instead of welders, machinists etc --
Ms Murdock: Is that similar to multiskilling?
Mr McIntosh: Yes.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Thank you, Mr McIntosh, for coming. I should preface my remarks by saying that I represent a northern riding where Steelworkers have a large membership. As a matter of fact, it's unfortunately in the last couple of years that we've lost approximately 3,000 steelworker jobs in my riding because of economic conditions. I've had a lot to do with steelworkers over the years trying to figure out what we do now.
Having said that, I come back to saying that we MPPs are generalists. We can't be experts in everything that comes before us. While we try to learn at hearings everything there is to know about everything, often we hear very contradictory messages out there. As a matter of fact, on this bill we're hearing exact opposites, which wouldn't surprise you. I'm wondering how we, as MPPs, generalists that we are, assess some of these facts.
I look at your statement. You want a truly level playing field. From my point of view, I want to understand what a truly level playing field is and what indications in an economy we could use to determine what a truly level playing field is. For example, could we look at the average wage of workers within a jurisdiction? Would that be a way to look at the level playing field? Could we look at the number of days lost through strikes? Could you tell me how I could go to look at solid, hard facts to tell me whether labour relations in a particular jurisdiction are working well?
Mr McIntosh: You're asking me to comment on an economic matter now?
Mr Brown: No. What I'm asking you to do is to tell me, as a generalist who's hearing exactly the opposite point of view from two groups here, how I would know whether our Labour Relations Act needs reform, because there are certain indications in the general economy that are saying that to me. For example, would the average wage of our people, the average benefits our people get or the number of labour disputes that end in strikes be an indication? could you give me a handle on how, objectively, on hard facts, I would decide that?
Mr McIntosh: In the field of labour relations?
Mr Brown: Yes.
Mr McIntosh: It's my belief we probably will never have a level playing field.
Mr Brown: But how can I tell we do?
Mr McIntosh: No matter what happens, the man who signs the paycheque is always going to have that little bit more clout than the guy who does the job. Now, I can't comment on economics; I'm not an economist. How this bill is going to affect the economy is as much my guess as it is yours, and God knows we've had enough guesses flying around the newspapers these past few months. Quite frankly, I personally look at unionism as being a very positive force in our society.
Mr Brown: We'll see these reforms, there's no question about that. The government has decided these reforms are retroactive. These reforms are going to take place within a fixed period of time in terms of the legislative time frame, because they've used closure. They've indicated exactly what can happen in the Legislature. So it's going to happen. There's nothing that's going to change that.
What I want to know is, when I look at labour relations three years from now, will I be able to look back and say, "Yes, these contributed to a more level playing," or "No, maybe we should be doing something different," or "We need further reforms"? How do I know that?
Mr McIntosh: I guess one of the best indicators you could have is to look through the reports of the Ontario Labour Relations Board as regards certification; how the unions and management are getting together, how they handle their problems.
If we do end up with fewer strikes, which I certainly hope we do, that's certainly going to be an indicator; the wage rate going up. Generally, a union shop earns more both in wages and benefits and has better and safer conditions than a non-union shop. I think that's a fairly safe statement to say. As someone who comes from a mining community, you'll probably appreciate that more than most. Other than that, I can't really comment on that. It would only be pure guesswork on my part. But as regards putting this bill into an economic format, I don't know.
Mr Brown: My job as an MPP -- and I presume everybody's job as an MPP -- is to look out for my constituents and hope to make everybody's life a little bit better in the time we serve here. I'm trying to look at how we measure that. There's got to be a way.
Unfortunately, because we can't meet each one of our constituents and find out if his or her life is better this year than it was last, we have to rely on general indicators, and I would think that looking at the number of labour disputes and the wages people make in our economy, whether unionized or non-unionized, would be good indicators.
Mr McIntosh: Possibly you could use that as a comparison. I couldn't really sit here and tell you how you're going to look at it from an economic standpoint, because we're talking apples and oranges. I'm here to comment on a bill regarding labour relations, not on the economy.
The Chair: And you've done that, sir. I want to say to you on behalf of the committee, thank you for your submission, for your interest, for your comments. You've played an important role, and I want to thank you once again for a submission that was brief and to the point and that permitted a healthy amount of time for dialogue, which was incredibly important.
Thank you, sir. Take care. Have a safe trip back home.
1900
LONDON AND DISTRICT SERVICE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 220
The Chair: The next participant is the London and District Service Workers Union, Local 220. Please seat yourselves. Tell us your names and titles, if any.
Ms Lin Whittaker: My name is Lin Whittaker. I'm vice-president of the London and District Service Workers Union, Local 220.
Ms Liza Timmers: My name is Liza Timmers. I'm a member of the local.
Ms Kirstn Bradley: My name is Kirstn Bradley. I'm an organizer with the union.
The Chair: Thank you. We've got your written submission. Go ahead.
Ms Whittaker: Can we just make a couple of comments to give a bit of information to the board? Our local union represents approximately 12,000 health care workers in the homes for the aged, hospitals and nursing homes field. For the board's information, the members we represent predominantly do not have the right to strike. They're covered under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.
In saying that, there are inherent problems in that, and we hope at some point in time the government of the day will put its mind to making changes to the inequities in that. But we come here today to talk about the problems we face or some of the concerns we have with the present legislation, the Labour Relations Act. By way of giving background, we do not have the right to strike.
Ms Timmers: Four and a half years ago I became employed in what was my first unionized job. Not long after my hiring, I became the part-time union rep, a job no one else seemed to want. I considered the job to be a challenge and actively took part in all the committees and functions of the workplace. When I accepted the union position, however, I was not aware that my employer viewed the recent certification as a hostile takeover. In my brief union involvement since 1988, every grievance filed against this employer, and I might add there have been many, has been a long-winded battle, almost always ending in arbitration.
These past four and a half years have been witness to what can only be described as a blatant manipulation of the labour act by my employer. In the beginning, both part-time and full-time employees were unionized. After a time, when full-time had been dwindled down to a very selective six, our full-time union was decertified, leaving approximately 50 part-time unionized employees.
As expected, slowly but surely we were offered full-time, non-union positions guaranteeing no less than 24 hours a week. As part-time workers, only guaranteed "equitable" hours, we became nervous about our future job security as we watched our weekly hours dwindle with our membership numbers. Within a year and a half, the part-time unionized workers were down to 12. In January 1991, my employer, without any notice at all, laid off the remaining part-time staff. At the end of June 1991, my employer decided to abide by the arbitrator's ruling made in May 1991 reinstating the remaining six part-time employees.
During all this, the full-time had their own concerns and seriously started talking union. We didn't like working the part-time hours, often working double shifts, if not short-handed altogether. There was an obvious need for a part-time relief staff. We had also taken pay cuts of $2 an hour. We had a contract we couldn't have a copy of. We had to beg to be paid properly for vacation, sick days, stats and overtime, and what became common practice for one employee was reason for discipline of another.
We finally concluded that the only way we were going to be heard was if we had representation. This became the motivating force for the full-time to attempt recertification. Fearing our employer's history and admitted anti-union animus, we waited until he left for holidays and, in two days, consistently having to reassure staff that they would not be fired, signed up our needed 55% membership cards. At that point I mistakenly thought the battle was over and all that was left to do was post the application and negotiate a contract.
On June 11, 1991, the application was posted. On June 16, 1991, I was fired, and shortly thereafter a petition circulated. That was 14 months ago, and since then I have had ample opportunity to see the present labour act in effect. I can tell you that while there are many benefits to the act, there are many flaws keeping the benefits from surfacing.
Although the act grants me the right to organize and participate in collective bargaining, it has not allowed me the right to an expedient hearing process. Because of this, our hope for certification grows less likely with every month that passes by. Therefore, the right to participate in collective bargaining is nothing more than a dream to me.
This final attempt to keep the union within the workplace not only cost me my job but has caused my fellow workers to also fear for their jobs. When you work in a place that employs mostly women, and that means 99% women, many of them single mothers and visible minorities, you begin to understand their fear. My employer has managed to make it quite clear just who butters the bread. When you need your job, as all of us do, then you say and do things that go against your deepest beliefs in hopes of not rocking the boat. All that matters is to keep the bread on the table and the boat afloat.
My employer is quite well aware of this and thrives on the fear and intimidation he instils with his authority and money. Because he continually seems to get his own way, my fellow employees are quickly losing hope that they will ever have fair wages and decent working conditions, never mind a union that can at least ensure a grievance process.
My employer says he can't afford a union, it would break him, yet he has had adequate funds to keep this union in labour hearings for the past two and a half years. I know his costs have been comparable to those of the union, and in no way would the certification and bargaining process have cost him what he has already spent.
That leads me to believe that the only reason he doesn't want the union is because he wants total control. If we were talking about an employer that was fair and reasonable, there wouldn't be a problem, but this employer is not fair, he's fair from reasonable, and we have some major concerns.
One of the biggest problems of the past year is the way the certification process has been allowed to continue at a snail's pace, with board rulings taking up whole days. The garbage and bull that has been allowed to accumulate during the past year is staggering, to say the least, and the sad part is that my union will never recuperate the funds spent during this painfully drawn-out process.
This is no longer a fight of principle and employees' rights; it is a fight to see whose money will last longer and go farther. Having attended approximately 15 hearings to date, with four more booked and another 16 confirmed, I wonder how my union can expect to spend another $30,000 on this process alone.
What began as a simple certification has been turned into a circus of delays. Every employee who appeared at our first hearing to testify for the union has since been reprimanded in one form or another. Needless to say, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get employees to come forward with the truth, not to mention that the laying of additional unfair labour practice charges has further hindered our hope for a speedy hearing process.
The saddest thing about all of this is that the proposed amendments could have prevented much of it. If our part-time and full-time had been one bargaining unit, we would have had the strength and the membership to avoid decertification in the first place. It is the separate distinction that gave my employer the upper hand, wasting valuable time and money in a bitter confrontation that has left many deep scars.
Having been unemployed for 14 months already, I would like to get on with my life but find myself caught up in a variety of totally frustrating and unending nightmares. I can't get a job because my unblemished work record for the past four and a half years seems to be unfairly under question. Every time an employee comes to me doubtful and afraid, I can only say, "Hang in there, we're trying," and I can only hope that the few who are willing to testify will not be punished for exercising their right to belong.
Before I got this job four and a half years ago I was well aware of the functions of a union, as my husband held various positions within the BMWE for many years, but never had he or I seen or heard of a workplace more in need of a union than the one I come from. I have since learned different. There are many small workplaces like the one I come from that are depending on the acceptance of the proposed reform before us here today. My hope is that these hearings will bring forth enough people such as myself to show this committee just what is going on behind all the closed boardroom and office doors.
With the act written the way it is, unions are being prevented from doing what they do best, which is helping us to achieve fair wages and working conditions as well as helping us to understand our rights as workers and citizens. With so many new issues facing the working people, we need our unions not only to protect our jobs but financially unburdened by lengthy hearings and arbitration costs so that they may continue to educate and inform us of the issues that affect us, our families and, yes, even our employers.
I have learned a great deal about my union this past year and I have found that this is not about money. If it were, we would have been written off long ago. Although I am not ignorant to the fact that my employer is a businessman with the goal of making money, it should not be at the expense and wellbeing of his employees. We are the most valuable asset this employer has, not to mention adults with lives and families outside of the workplace. We only ask that we be treated as people who can and do make valuable contributions to our work and community environments.
I'm very grateful for all the support my union has shown me in the past year. I have found a reliable friend during some very rough times who has always been just a phone call away. Without the unending support system of my family and my union, my employer would surely have gotten the best of me by now. It is through our unions that we have a voice.
In closing, I ask that you support the proposed labour reform and give the working people the ways and the means so that we will not continue to be at the mercy of our unfair employers.
1910
The Chair: Thank you, ma'am, and once again the committee thanks you for a submission that left sufficient time for dialogue, because that's an important part of the process. Mr Hope and Mr Sutherland, in whichever order they wish.
Mr Hope: First of all, I'd like to thank you for your presentation. It was well put, and because of trying to organize in my previous life before becoming an MPP, I can clearly understand the problems you had. You were right when you mentioned about the employer giving up rights, because the only rights an employee has are those under the Labour Relations Act and those under the Employment Standards Act. Those are the rights the employees have. Everything else that is outside the law is the right of the employer, and you're absolutely right, it's not necessarily a matter of wages, it's also a matter of procedure.
You went on to explain your hearing process. The Conservatives have always put forward: "What about a free vote? What about a vote in a plant that will allow workers to go into the workplace? Let's make it accessible for everybody. Let's put it right on the shop floor or wherever the workplace is. Let's put it there and have a democratic vote for every employee." I guess I want to ask you about your opinion, because you've been a victim.
Ms Timmers: When an employee chooses to sign a union card, that is a personal commitment and it's asking for representation. It is not unlike the manner in which we elect our government, and that is not up for revote. That is it. You vote. That's what you want and that's what you decide. As adults, I think when we sign a union card we know what it is we're asking for, plain and simple.
Mr Hope: I know the ongoing battle is still there, along with the support of the union in itself. But looking at all those other families that are still in there -- I call them families. Yes, we're talking about one individual who works for everybody else. He or she may have a family. How do you think those families feel right now?
Ms Timmers: Lucky to be having a job at this point. The thing is that because this has taken so long to resolve -- and it looks like we're looking at another year at the very least -- there are many workers who have given up and left. There are many new workers who really don't understand where we're coming from, and they're hearing one side right now.
It is my belief that I was fired so that I could not educate my employees as to what was going on. I was the strongest union representative in the workplace, and therefore by firing me he has set an example for the rest of the employees by saying, "Okay, if you guys speak up, this is what's going to happen to you." He's scared them and we can't get them to come forward with the truth at these hearings.
Mr Sutherland: Liza, I want to thank you very much for coming forward. I think it takes a lot of courage to come forward before this committee and to talk about your situation. I don't think there's a great deal to add. I think you've summed up some of the major reasons why there need to be some reforms to the situation. For some reason, it's well over a year -- I guess we're into, what, you said you started June 11, 1991 -- we're well into the 13th or 14th month of getting a decision as to whether you're going to be certified. I think that clearly shows we need a more expedited process. People's lives, their livelihood, in terms of retribution for carrying out what they feel is their right to democratically organize, shouldn't be left in limbo for that long.
Needless to say, I don't think it's in the best interests of an employer to have that going on, because obviously the employees are not going to be as productive because morale is not going to be that great in terms of wondering what's going to happen in the outcome. I think there's a great need. You've clearly demonstrated where there is a need for such reforms as are being proposed.
I also want to say even yesterday I had a woman come into my office to discuss a problem at her workplace. She works in a workplace where they have a team concept of doing work. Her work record is superb, but she's being branded a troublemaker because she wants to assert her rights in a non-unionized environment. From my understanding, she's not at this time trying to organize, she's trying to assert her rights in a non-organized environment and not getting anywhere. She feels that the system is not working for her and she's wondering what rights she really has.
I just want to say I think it's great that you've come forward. I know it probably took a lot of courage to decide to make this presentation, but from my understanding, I think you've summed up clearly why there need to be some real changes to the Labour Relations Act.
Ms Timmers: Thank you.
The Chair: If you want to respond to that, we've got 30 or 45 seconds.
Ms Timmers: I appreciate the right to come forward to say something, because I know I represent quite a few more people than you are ever going to hear before this panel today.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I think it's an extremely important presentation, because it really does bring out a real-life experience. We've had some very good presentations in the past and I expect we will have in the future. This certainly is one of those.
I want you to help me out in this way: I don't believe what you've gone through should be gone through by anybody. I can't help but feel that this presentation, in the most forceful and effective way, has made out the case for all employees to be able to make a choice quickly, secretly and informatively, and if it's the choice to join a union, let it be. It would seem that much of the difficulty started -- and I might be choosing the wrong words -- because of the number of membership cards that had to be signed.
It would seem to me that in order to deal with this matter, maybe we don't need 40% or 45% or 55% of the employees to sign union cards; maybe it should be 20%. Maybe it should be one card, and that should trigger a process that would inform the employees that there is going to be a vote, when it's going to be held, what it means to them and that they're able to vote quickly, informatively and not have to go through what you went through, because what you went through nobody should have to go through. I think you made the case; this is the presentation that makes the rule.
The legislation, as you said, isn't enough. There has to be a change, and that change has to be for a free, secret vote where the rights of employees are protected, free from coercion and intimidation. If they want to have a union in their workplace, that's the way it is. No one should have to go through what you went through. Why shouldn't there be that process in place so that what happened to you never happens to anybody else in this province?
Ms Timmers: I believe that what you're suggesting is open season for employers. I think the way the process is now, collecting the membership cards, is the best way to go about it. We can conduct it without the employer having any notice of what's going on.
The employer I work with, believe me, has been referred to as Nightmare on Elm Street. This place is not a nice place to work. By allowing us to collect our 55% membership, whichever it is, that allows us the freedom, without him having to be aware of what we're doing. Because when we decide to unionize, and if we have the number of members necessary to go through with that process, then that's the way it should be. As far as the vote goes, that gives him an opportunity to intervene; and believe me, he will.
Mr Offer: In your presentation you said that with that 55% you can make the organizing drive and it can be done and there's no problem, because the employer won't know what's going on. My thought is that I don't think that bodes well for the future relationship of the employer and employee. I'm saying it doesn't have to be 40%, you don't have to have 40% of the employees sign union cards. What if the trigger point is 20%? What if the trigger point is one employee who has decided that the workplace should be unionized, and that triggers the mechanism? Would you then support a free, secret, informed, free from coercion -- and there can be rules put in place; the ministry is attempting to do it in Bill 40 --
Ms Timmers: No, I would not.
Mr Offer: Okay. I'd like to thank you, because I believe your presentation was very helpful for me.
1920
Mrs Witmer: Liza, you certainly have raised our awareness again about some of the things that are happening in the workplace. You've mentioned the situation you've been subjected to in your attempts to unionize and the amount of dollars it's cost your union. That's one thing this process is certainly demonstrating to us. Day after day we hear of experiences in the workplace and of areas where obviously the Labour Relations Act could be improved upon. However, many of the things you have mentioned and which others have mentioned go beyond reform of the Labour Relations Act. There are certainly other acts and legislation that need to be considered.
We heard today about someone not unlike yourself who was placed in a situation. It was Mr Turner. He was part owner of a construction company that employed between 13 and 25 people. He was put in the unfortunate position where, when another company went broke and he took over one of the employees of that defunct business, because that business was unionized and this employee was considered to be a key asset, this was considered a sale of the business. Suddenly, he found his business bound by the union's collective agreement. His firm was unionized and his employees, who numbered between 13 and 25 people, even though they didn't want a union and wanted to remain non-union, were placed in a position by the board where they were unionized. We're seeing that throughout this province people have no choice. I think that's an issue we need to deal with. In fact, this man is now in a position where he's considered a saleable asset and can only seek employment with a unionized firm. There's absolutely no freedom of choice.
It's unfortunate that this government didn't give people throughout the province an opportunity to put forward issues that are concerning them at the present time and then look at solutions to the problems, because there are many problems in this province. Unfortunately, the manner the government has used to introduce this legislation isn't going to address all of those concerns.
Everybody needs to come out of this process feeling good. Whether you're an employee, an employer, no matter who you are, it has to be a win-win situation. There has to be compromise. I regret that people such as yourself haven't had that opportunity. Nor did Mr Turner have the opportunity to say: "This is the problem with the Labour Relations Act. Let's determine how we can improve upon it and, through consensus-building, arrive at some solutions."
Thank you for your presentation.
The Chair: Thank you, people, Liza Timmers, Kirstn Bradley, Lin Whittaker.
Ms Bradley: May I say something?
The Chair: You sure can.
Mrs Cunningham: It's not 7:30 yet.
The Chair: I know it's not. One moment, Ms Cunningham. This woman wants to say something, and then Ms Cunningham can ask a question.
Ms Bradley: First of all, I believe in successor rights from one business to another; also if the place is contracted out. We represent some employees -- for example, one part is contracted out to another service. I believe if another contractor crew should come in, the union should have successor rights to those people so they wouldn't --
Interjection.
Ms Bradley: You just spoke about successor rights.
Mrs Witmer: No, it was one employee.
Ms Bradley: Yes, but I'm talking about a group of employees.
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, with due respect, Ms Murdock has asked for that case so we can take a look at it, because I don't think anybody, with the facts we've got today, can decide one way or another.
Mr Chairman, you'll have to allow me a minute here to ask somebody I've worked with over the years --
The Chair: That implies you really mean two, but you've got two.
Mrs Cunningham: No, I'll just ask the one.
The Chair: Two minutes.
Mrs Cunningham: I'm going to ask Lin Whittaker a question. We have worked over the years in environments where we haven't always been on the same side, but I think we've had some pretty good experiences. We have seen improvements in the workplace and we've seen almost every example of good employer-good employee. I wondered if you could give us an opinion. On page 3 of the brief today -- Liza, while Lin is looking at that, I want you to know I feel the same as everyone else before the committee that you're very brave to come here. It's a terrible thing to have to go through what you've gone through.
Ms Timmers: It's not a matter of bravery; it's a matter of pride.
Mrs Cunningham: I admire you. I just want you to know that.
With regard to the snail's pace: I'm not just talking about the rulings and certification but other things you've been involved in and I've been involved in which have been so frustrating. Can you give the committee some more ideas over and above what we already see in this legislation?
Ms Whittaker: Specific to what?
Mrs Cunningham: The slowness of the hearings: why things last so long and it's so expensive on either side.
I'll tell you what my concern is. With this new legislation, we've unfortunately come down to one side versus the other, which is not something I like to live with at all. It seems people come before the committee and say those things, which upsets me, because I think my colleagues and I, with due respect to the position we've all been put in with regard to this law, are looking for solutions.
When it comes down to this timely process -- and you know the kinds of things that go before these labour boards -- we've been told that there now will be more arbitrators and they will have more responsibilities and more power and we're just bogging the whole process down more. I wondered about your opinion on that in a very broad sense.
Ms Whittaker: We're talking about specific to the Labour Relations Act or the other government legislation?
Mrs Cunningham: The new amendments, but you don't have to speak to the new amendments. You can speak to your experience now. What would you recommend to speed things up? You're down there all the time. Is it the people?
Ms Whittaker: It's a process that can be manipulated. There are so many variables that I'm not sure. The structure's problematic. The bottom line for me, Dianne -- and we've sort of talked about this before -- is that to the extent that people choose to organize, they've signified that. The legislation chooses to doubt their word as though they didn't really mean that. It's very patronizing. I think it's specific to a union. The idea of sharing power is so abhorrent to so many people.
I can't imagine any other process where once the decisions are made -- when I chose to vote in the provincial government or the federal government my vote somehow said: "Wait a minute. We'd better question that." Why is it not good enough for us? Why is it so hard for the powers that be to accept that when people have signified their intent, that's what they really mean? If they don't want a union, there's a process through the act to decertify; let the members make the choice to join, but let nobody else interfere with that.
That's specific to the act. There are apparent problems with the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act; we'll save that for another hearing.
One of the frustrations for us is that we went before the labour board with this person and I serviced this place.
Mrs Cunningham: I can't imagine this being one of yours.
Ms Whittaker: It is; it's mine. We're dealing with a person in a collective agreement who clearly -- and I don't believe this is confrontational. I think a lot of the employers we choose to deal with have a sophistication. We've learned that we have a symbiotic relationship: "You need us, we need you, and sometimes we can help you." There's a lot of employers here today who would say, "Yes, London and District Service Workers have helped us in terms of creating a more stable workforce." We don't shoot kneecaps any more, okay? We're a viable --
Mr Ward: Not that you ever did.
Ms Whittaker: Not that we did, but the view that somehow --
Mrs Cunningham: Watch out for Brad. He remembers those kinds of things.
Ms Whittaker: I think that's a phobia of people who don't understand about unions and don't want to understand, and sometimes find it so abhorrent that we exist.
This is an employer which, under the same legislation -- I've gone through labour board hearings; I'll probably retire still going through this one. This is how bad it is. The collective agreement says, "Work schedules will be posted." That's pretty scary, huh, that the union should demand that schedules should be posted.
These employees, under the Nursing Homes Act, which sets out care, are governed by legislation. It's so bad that the employer won't even post the work schedule because he says, "No union is going to tell me how to post work schedules." So our members have their work schedules posted in his office. That's the sort of power. Everywhere we turn, we're fighting. The assumption is that unions -- that's all we do, we fight. It's not true. We react the best way we know how.
1930
Mrs Cunningham: How do you change it?
Ms Whittaker: I think the legislation has allowed that to happen. I think there have to be sanctions placed on something that totally frustrates the system, that uses my tax dollars to sort of --
Mrs Cunningham: Do you think those sanctions are in these amendments? I don't. I personally don't think they're there.
Ms Whittaker: I have faith in the NDP to protect the working people of this province, yes.
Mrs Cunningham: But I don't think they're there.
The Chair: And having said that --
Mrs Cunningham: Stop while she's ahead, Mr Kormos.
The Chair: I may be the wrong person to have interrupted you, but as you said that, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for your presentation. Ms Timmers, Ms Bradley and Ms Whittaker, you spoke effectively on behalf of the London and District Service Workers, Local 220. We thank you for coming here. There's been a healthy and lively dialogue made possible by your eagerness to participate in it and by the fact that your submissions were sufficiently brief to permit that. Thank you kindly.
CANADIAN CHEMICAL PRODUCERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair: The next participant is the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association. If those presenters would have a seat and tell us their names and titles, if any, we've got your written submission, 15 pages. That is filed with the committee and forms an exhibit. All committee members will read those. Please try to save the last half of this half-hour for exchanges. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Gordon Catterson: I will introduce the two gentlemen with me. One is Doug Cook, who is the Ontario regional manager for the CCPA. and the other is David Goffin, who is vice-president in charge of business development for that same organization. I'm identified with Dow Chemical. In fact I am employed by Dow Chemical, but I am here on behalf of the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association.
What I intend to do is to read some of the highlights from this submission and then I'd like to make some editorial comments as I go through.
The Canadian Chemical Producers' Association has a membership of 67 companies producing a broad range of petrochemicals, inorganic chemicals and other organic and specialty chemicals. It is the third largest manufacturing sector in Ontario with 1991 shipments totalling $12.2 billion.
In 1990 the industry ranked third in total research and development dollars spent annually and second in terms of spending as a percentage of shipments. It is the seventh-largest employer in the Ontario manufacturing sector, employing 57,000 people. Average salaries and wages at Ontario member companies were $48,000 in 1991, well above the manufacturing sector level.
The point we'd like to make here is that our opposition to these changes has nothing to do with wages or benefits. We actually are a very high paying industry. We have a very high level of benefits. So there's nothing in here that is being opposed to try to lower wages or anything of that kind.
The chemical and chemical products industry is a leader among industrial sectors in terms of productivity. During the period from 1985 to 1990, member companies had a real annual increase in value added per employee of 4.6%. International trade has become an increasingly important factor in the success of CCPA member companies, with exports as a percentage of sales increasing from 19% in 1969 to 40% in 1991.
Last February, when we responded to the Ontario government's paper titled Proposed Reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, we listed the four following fundamental concerns:
First, the reform package as a whole is perceived very negatively by the international investment community. I was present in Detroit when the deputy minister made a presentation to some American business leaders, and I can assure you I heard at first hand of their distaste for these changes.
Second, the government has provided no sound rationale for proceeding with the radical and extensive reform of labour relations legislation at this time.
Third, specific reform proposals could seriously hinder the chemical industry by endangering its reputation as a stable and reliable supplier in global markets.
Fourth, the current consultation process for assessing the proposed reforms cannot be meaningful when the entire reform agenda was developed without business input.
We continue to have virtually the same concerns about the amendments as proposed in Bill 40.
At each stage of the process, we have been assured by the government that the proposals was simple labour's wish list and that ultimately a more balanced package of reforms would be proposed. That has not occurred. Now business is confronted with proposed legislation that is no better than the earlier package of proposals produced over the past year or more.
Talking about the proposed purpose clause: Since the proposed wording would outline the fundamental purposes of the act with the intention of helping the board to interpret the legislation, and since the amendments would give the board sweeping new powers, the purpose clause would have the potential to affect the interpretation of every other section of the act.
Since the government appears to be determined to include a purpose statement, we would suggest that it should be based upon a series of tightly drafted principles. The right to organize should be guaranteed; the fundamental democratic right of the individual to freely choose whether or not to join a union should be enshrined; the free collective bargaining process should be unencumbered by the legislation; harmonious labour relations should be promoted, and an effective and fair mechanism for dispute resolution should be provided.
One of the concerns we have in this legislation is the removal of the individual's right to express opposition to a union. We are very concerned about people being swept into a union against their wishes. The elimination of the petitions does this. This and the ability to amalgamate bargaining units, really without regard to the wishes of those people in the bargaining units, are issues that we think are concerns.
We would recommend redrafting the purpose clause in Bill 40 based on those principles.
Restrictions on the use of replacement workers: These are the proposed amendments that cause the greatest concern to the CCPA. The changes the government has made to the discussion paper proposals are insufficient.
The ability to continue to supply customers during a work stoppage is a competitive tool of paramount importance for CCPA member companies as they compete in global markets. The chemical industry, as a continuous process industry, has companies that can and do operate efficiently and safely during work stoppages. This is not done as an anti-union strategy or to force settlement of the contentious issues that caused the work stoppage. It occurs because for many chemical companies, the ability to operate and to ship product during a strike is absolutely essential in order to protect global markets.
In today's global marketplace, both domestic and foreign customers can source from many locations, and they will do so if faced with an interruption of supply due to a work stoppage or for any other reason. Once lost, these customers, and the jobs dependent upon them, often do not return to the Canadian supplier for a long period of time. Sometimes they never return. There is no doubt that the restrictions on the use of replacement workers would be viewed negatively by investors when they assess whether to build new chemical plants in Ontario.
Our recommendation is that the proposed amendments dealing with replacement workers should be deleted from Bill 40 in their entirety.
I'd like to make another comment here, and it has to do with the phenomenon which is currently occurring in the chemical industry. It has happened with some companies. Some of you may remember a company called CIL. You won't find CIL any more. They're now ICI. They operate on a North American basis. CIL was the major chemical company in Canada. They are now part of ICI. If you go looking for their earning statements, their profits, you will find them buried in North America. B. F. Goodrich is another company that is following a North Americanization strategy. The company I work for, Dow Chemical, is doing the same thing.
Just to clarify that, normally companies such as Dow operate in geographic areas: in our case, Europe, the Pacific, Latin America, the US and Canada. We have five geographic areas. We will be moving or certainly looking at moving to four geographic areas, with the United States and Canada operating as a single geographic area. We've always operated as a global company, but now investment decisions will be made on the basis of: Do we place this, not in the United States or Canada, but do we place it in North America?
The competition for investment dollars is not just going to be between different provinces in Canada; it's really going to be between, in the petrochemical industry, largely Ontario, Quebec or Alberta, and Michigan, California and the Gulf coast. Louisiana and Texas are the major locations down there, and that has a good deal of significance. It's an important point and one that we've been consistently trying to get across.
There was a comment made by a gentleman, a labour representative, and I think it might have been in Thunder Bay. The comment he made was: "Gee, they've got this kind of legislation in Europe, all over the place. What's the problem? They seem to get along fine." The point is that if every jurisdiction in North America had this legislation, we wouldn't have a problem. The difficulty is that Ontario is distancing itself with this legislation, and it's a barrier to investment.
1940
We have difficulty understanding why, at a time when Ontario is looking for investment, looking for jobs, it would put a barrier in place here. I don't think anybody, any fairminded person, would disagree that these labour relations changes are heavily favoured towards unions and against business. Why would we put any kind of barrier in place for business making investment decisions in Ontario?
The next point we would like to make is the need to safeguard employees' rights to make informed choices. These are sections 8 and 10 of Bill 40. The Bill 40 amendments dealing with the certification process are intended to safeguard employees from possible employer interference or intimidation during organizing drives. The bill does nothing, however, to offer the same protection from similar actions on the part of union organizers.
This is a serious gap because, for every story that is told about employer indiscretions, the same number abound concerning union intimidation of employees or misrepresentations made to them. I've been involved in organizing campaigns and I've talked to people who were told: "Don't worry. Sign the card. You'll get a vote." Of course, as we all know, that just has not been true in Ontario.
The elimination of employee petitions following a union application for certification would make it even less likely that the true wishes of employees would be heard. I have attended certification hearings where the petition was a very valid issue. It's really the only mechanism, once the cards are signed, for employees to voice their opposition to a union. That is now gone.
In our view, there's no question that the best way to ascertain the true wishes of employees would be to mandate a board-supervised secret ballot vote for all union certification applications. We would recommend that that be done.
One of the things that is of interest is that we did make this comment in our submission to the minister here in London back in February, I was present where other people have made that same comment and I've read editorials in the newspaper that have commented on it. To this day, as far as I know, Minister Mackenzie is still saying: "Gee, that's an interesting idea. It's the first I've heard of it." In fact I know we made that position.
The next section gets to be a little technical and I'll go through it quickly, but there is a point here. This has to do with enhancing the powers of the arbitrator, section 23 of Bill 40. This section proposes expanding the powers of the arbitrator to allow for the interpretation of other employment-related legislation such as it pertains to the administration, interpretation, application or alleged violation of a collective agreement.
Bill 40 would also empower arbitrators to establish the real substance of matters in dispute by allowing them to determine questions of fact and law. Bill 40 would give arbitrators power to override the terms of a collective agreement to extent time limits and to issue production orders. In addition, Bill 40 also allows arbitrators to reach out to any employment-related legislation to aid them in their decisions.
It is CCPA's opinion that in matters pertaining to an existing collective agreement, the arbitrator should remain within the confines of the terms of the agreement and limit the scope of the arbitrations to the interpretation of the agreement itself.
To sum up, CCPA opposes the amendments in Bill 40 that would extend the jurisdiction and powers of arbitrators and recommends that they be deleted.
I just want to touch very quickly on the fairness doctrine, because that was something that was in the original proposal from the labour side. The labour report of the Burkett commission suggested that the leaked cabinet submission talked about it and it was dropped at the discussion paper stage.
I was glad to see it go because, frankly, the fairness doctrine is a US concept that really doesn't have any place in Canadian jurisprudence. It's really a quid pro quo to the relative difficulty of certification and needs of decertification in the US.
These things I've just covered are the fairness doctrine in another guise. The principle of residual rights, management rights in Canada, is one that has been upheld by arbitrators. The fairness doctrine, which some arbitrators tried to introduce back about 15 or 20 years ago, was pretty soundly rejected by Ontario arbitrators.
This, in effect, will allow an arbitrator to go on a fishing expedition. If he can't find it in a collective agreement he will find it somewhere, whether it be in the Pay Equity Act or whether it be in the Ontario Human Rights Code, the upcoming Employment Equity Act. Wherever the arbitrator has to find support for his decision he'll find it, and it's not a position we're very comfortable with.
Finally, just to comment quickly on the duty to bargain for an adjustment plan, we would point out that the amendments do not address how closure of bargaining would occur if there's a failure to agree on an adjustment plan. Many collective agreements already have provisions for severance pay and those sorts of things in case of a closure.
There is a question here of what happens if a plant does close and the union doesn't like what's in the collective agreement or if a collective agreement has no language which talks about closure and the two sides can't agree. How do you go about doing it? Does the union then go to the labour relations board and say, "Well, you'd better impose something on this company"?
We're concerned about those questions of either reopening a valid agreement or the board forcing some kind of closure agreement which the company really can't afford or maybe even forcing the company to continue to operate. We would prefer to see greater reliance placed on the proposed non-mandatory code which would lay out a number of principles to guide employers and employees in facing major adjustments in the workplace.
In conclusion, we would comment that in last November's discussion paper we recommended that the government not proceed any further with the reform process but rather initiate a meaningful consultation process in which all parties -- business, both unionized and non-unionized, labour and government -- meet to evaluate and reach consensus on the need for reform. CCPA is still convinced this is the only course of action that would lead to recommendations to reform that would be acceptable to all parties, and it would help Ontario respond to the growing challenges of global competition.
We would urge the committee to take these comments into account during your deliberations on Bill 40.
The Chair: Mr Brown, three and a half minutes, please.
Mr Brown: Quickly then. Thank you for your presentation. I am somewhat familiar with the petrochemical industry, being a Sarnia boy. One of the things I was wondering about is the effect of replacement workers in that particular industry. Over the period of these hearings we've heard from industries saying they have specific problems with replacement workers in that they don't think this one-size-fits-all legislation really works.
In the petrochemical industry you have a situation where, if a plant closes or during a strike, in many cases, it can conceivably affect many more operations, because the feedstock from that particular operation goes to another operation and there is no other supplier. There's no way to have another supplier. Is that a problem?
Mr Catterson: Yes, it is. An example will be the company I work for. We produce vinyl chloride monomer that is sold to Esso chemical, which has a polyvinyl plant. We're their sole supplier; it's done via pipeline. If that plant shuts down, the Esso plant shuts down as well.
Just further on that, there have been four strikes in the Sarnia area over the last 20 years: two at my company, one at Cabot Canada carbon division and one at Ethyl. All of those companies are still there, still operating, still providing jobs. Whether that would be true if they were forced to shut down is anybody's guess.
Mr Offer: If I could just carry on with that, I was wondering, during the strikes which you have alluded to, how did the companies operate then?
Mr Catterson: I have personal experience in both Dow strikes. I worked during the 1973 strike as an operator, and in the strike in 1988 I was at our corporate headquarters. We can operate the plants fairly easily from a operation standpoint. The plants are highly automated. The chemical industry is a highly capital-intensive industry. For literally hundreds of millions of dollars in investment, you have relatively few people running it. So it's not that difficult to run.
The difficulty comes first in maintenance areas and the other in providing security. We have to bring in people from other Canadian locations to supplement the people in the plant. The supervisory people in the plant can operate the units without a great deal of difficulty. They do need help in providing security and maintenance.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your interesting presentation. I appreciate the recommendations you've made to the committee as well. You mentioned you were present at the meeting in Detroit which the deputy minister participated in. I guess one of the concerns we've been hearing is that this labour law has created some fear and uncertainty as far as future investment in Ontario. Obviously, if we don't have investment, we're not going to have new job creation.
I'd like you to just share with the committee the feelings of the US business community in regard to the proposals we have before us.
1950
Mr Catterson: It was very negative. There were representatives of several large US corporations. Some of the people there who had worked in Canada were very familiar with the Canadian situation. There was not one kind word said in about two and a half hours of the meeting. They were very negative on it and the deputy minister did not go away very encouraged, I'm afraid. They saw it as a negative and basically said, "Why would we invest in Ontario with that kind of legislation?"
Mrs Witmer: What particular sections of this bill were they most concerned about that would lead them to take their investment dollars elsewhere?
Mr Catterson: The replacement worker one particularly. These were people from Detroit, so a number of people from not just from the automotive industry but the automotive parts industry. While it may seem, "Why would the automotive industry care; they shut down during strikes anyway," in fact there is a lot of stuff goes on, a lot of shipping. A lot of parts manufacturers operate with just-in-time inventories. During a strike they will ship forming dyes, forming tools, out to other companies to make the parts and ship inventories. They will stockpile inventories and ship them during a strike, and of course they wouldn't be able to do that during a strike.
Mr David Goffin: If I could just add to that, I would say that with many companies in the United States the discussion paper itself created quite a shock and a negative perception. The fact that the government has not moved forward with everything that was in the discussion paper is probably not recognized. Once people took that negative perception of the direction we were headed here, I don't think many people in the United States have carefully studied what the bill says now and seen what changes have been made.
Perhaps a mark of the concern with our association is that we don't usually intervene on labour relations issues. When the proposals for amendments first came forward, we assumed that that's what we would do; we would leave it to other organizations to carry the ball on this one. But it was our board of directors, which is made up of the CEOs of 17 major chemical companies, that said, "No, on this one we want you to go forward and put forward our concerns as a chemical industry, because we do view this very seriously."
The Chair: Ms Cunningham has time for a question without a preamble.
Mrs Cunningham: It'd probably take longer thinking about it than if you'd let me say it.
The Chair: I hope you leave these people time to answer.
Mrs Cunningham: There are a couple of examples of companies that are wanting to invest in Ontario, according to our colleagues over here. I'm not quite certain which one. Bob, you mentioned one earlier. Was it Shell?
Mr Huget: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: Of course we've heard the thing about Ford, but specifically Shell, I'm not aware of that one. It was new to me tonight, so I haven't heard you say it before. Perhaps you could respond in regard to that particular company. It must be one that you know a lot about.
Mr Catterson: Yes, I was here earlier this afternoon and Bob did make this comment to Gerry McCarthy, who is the chamber manager.
In fact there are a couple of things. One is, keep in mind Shell is talking about expanding its polypropylene plant. This is a plant that is in place. They have an infrastructure, they have trained operators. The site is already organized. Bob is very familiar with it since he had worked in the past on that site. There were a whole host of things that caused them to make that decision. It's quite a different matter to bring $300 million of new investment in. They already have the markets. As I say, they've got the operators, they've got the infrastructure, they're already organized, plus the changes the government made in the capital cost allowance and in the provincial income tax were very helpful to them.
The other thing I would say is, Bob, I think you're probably going to get a call -- and I have been authorized to say this, I understand -- from the vice-president of Shell to tell you, "Don't start counting your chickens just yet."
Mr Huget: Thank you for your presentation. There's a lot in this presentation and there are a number of things you raise in the written document you don't raise in the verbal part. I think particularly the responsible care initiatives and things like that are worth reading about in terms of how you're handling your business.
Your industry obviously is important in and of itself to the economy of Ontario, but I think it's got a very interrelated role to play with other manufacturing industries.
I want to get to the investment perspective. You raise, and I agree with you 100%, that your industry is by and large very capital-intensive and not necessarily labour-intensive. When we look at investment, for example, from Ford Motor Co of some $2 billion, which is a very much more labour-intensive industry than yours -- and I believe that the products your industry manufactures in this province and elsewhere play quite a significant role in the manufacture of automobiles as well.
I guess my point is, a company like Ford, which is a labour-intensive business, commits to $2 billion worth of investment. I guess I would wonder why an industry like yours, for example, which is not nearly as labour-intensive, would be concerned about a negative impact on investment. I guess you could just help me understand why your approach would be somewhat different than Ford or General Electric or Glaxo or 3M or any number of others.
Mr Catterson: The crux of our position is that we can't operate during a strike, and that's vital to our industry, to be able to continue to supply, because our plant in Sarnia supplies around the world. A lot of our customers are in Canada and the United States, but we in fact ship every year to something like 50 to 60 different countries all around the world. We ship to the Pacific area, we ship to Europe. So that's sort of the crux of the issue. Our ability to operate during a strike is very, very important to us and to our customers.
Mr Goffin: It's the thing in the association that I probably hear most quickly when we are unable to supply product offshore, whether it's because of a strike or other reasons in the port of Vancouver or whatever. As Gord said, although the United States market is very important to us, in the plastic resins area, for example, about 30% of our exports go to southeast Asia, and those are markets that we are desperately clinging to. If we cannot supply those markets and the customer goes elsewhere, it is very difficult to retain those customers. There's huge new capacity coming on in that area over the next 10 years, and we need every advantage we can get to hang on to what we have there and hopefully expand it a little bit more.
Mr Sutherland: On page 9 of your submission you say, about the use of replacement workers, that these proposed amendments cause the greatest concern for your association. We know that 95% of all labour negotiations are settled without a strike. Of the remaining 5%, we know that replacement workers are used in very few of them.
Have you surveyed your members to see whether your percentages are the same in terms of 95% of them resolving without a strike? Also, how many of your members have used replacement workers in the past during work stoppages?
Mr Catterson: Certainly a very high percentage would operate in the event of a strike. Strikes just don't happen all that often. As I said, in the last 20 years, Sarnia, which is the major centre for petrochemicals in Canada, has had four strikes. A very large percentage of them would operate during a strike. The point is not just the strike, though. I'm responsible for labour relations, and I routinely get contacted by customers during negotiations. They say, "How are negotiations going?" "They're going fine." "Okay, you got a deal yet?" "No, no deal." "Keep us in mind and let us know when you get a deal." What they do is they outsource during those periods of time when we're in labour negotiations, because they're never just quite sure and they don't want to suddenly be surprised, so they will start looking at other suppliers.
So it's not just in the event of a strike; it's the whole labour relations climate and "Are you going to supply now?" Dow has an excellent record and it's pretty comfortable with us because it knows that in the past we have operated during a strike and that we have been consistent and reliable suppliers. That's generally been true of the petrochemical industry. But if we get into this legislation, it could have a pretty devastating impact on us.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association for their interest in the legislation and, of course, for their eagerness and willingness to come here this evening and participate in this hearing process. You've made a valuable contribution. Thank you, gentlemen.
2000
OXFORD REGIONAL LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair: The next participant is the Oxford Regional Labour Council, if those people would please come forward, have a seat, and tell us your names and titles, if any. We have your written submission of some 15 to 20 pages. Please, tell us what you will, but try to leave enough time, at least the second half of this half-hour, for exchanges and dialogue.
Mr Broderick Carey: My name is Broderick Carey. I'm president of the Oxford Regional Labour Council. With me is James Davidson. He's a member of the executive board of the Oxford Regional Labour Council. It should take us about 17 minutes to go through the brief and then we'll be ready to work on answering questions for you.
The Chair: You can either read it verbatim or you can highlight it.
Mr Carey: Most of it will be verbatim and we'll take it from there.
On behalf of the Oxford Regional Labour Council, I'd like to thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to come before you and talk about our concerns. We represent over 8,000 members in the county of Oxford, in such diverse industries as retail, auto, textile, agriculture, open-pit mining and federal and provincial civil servants.
We are here today to respond to Bill 40, the government's proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act. This act and the proposed amendments are most important to our members and to the labour council. Our daily experience in representing and defending working people provides us with a particular insight as to the merits of the key proposals Bill 40 speaks to.
The Oxford Regional Labour Council will try to give the members of the committee as balanced a view as possible as to what we support in the amendments, why we support it, and where, in our opinion, the proposals are either incomplete or as yet inadequate. Our submission will not touch on all the amendments, but we support the thrust of the amendments even though we do not speak to them.
The purpose clause: The Oxford Regional Labour Council supports the amendments in section 5 which will upgrade the current act's preamble, whereby adjudicators will be required to advance such purposes in their rulings, making decisions consistent with the act's new purpose section. Although the Ontario Labour Relations Board or courts have considered the preamble when conducting a judicial review of the board's decisions, in most cases little emphasis is placed on the preamble.
However, the objectives set out are not as clear and as strong as they could be. We believe it should be the objective of the act to recognize that effective trade union representation is necessary to advance equality between employers and employees. Although the proposed purpose clause represents an improvement over the current act's preamble, there is considerable room for improvement.
The right to organize: The right to organize has been extended to a number of groups currently excluded. The Oxford Regional Labour Council can only view this as a positive development. Significantly, the proposed amendments will remove the exclusions of domestic, agricultural, horticultural and silvicultural workers, hunters, trappers and professionals.
There are, however, some weaknesses pertaining to some of these groups that are not addressed in the amendments, eg, mechanisms for bargaining for domestics and procedural changes for organizing for hunters and trappers.
Organizing and certification: This section represents the government's response to the substantial hurdles faced by employees when they attempt to obtain trade union representation.
Protection for employees from unfair labour practices during organizing campaigns: We wish to go on record as recommending that the act be amended such that when an employer has knowledge of an organizing campaign, he or she must obtain leave of the board before disciplining, discharging or removing any employees from the prospective bargaining unit.
The union should also be able to go to the board for the purpose of applying for interim orders of reinstatement. Such orders could be made within 48 hours of the union providing evidence of an organizing campaign and establishing that the griever is an employee.
Our thinking in this matter was influenced by our hard experiences. In our view, similar to the employers, who already have an expedited process for resolving complaints of illegal strikes, employees need an expedited process for the resolution of complaints that the employers are interfering with the ability of the employee to achieve collective bargaining rights. Speed is an essential element of the decision by workers to put themselves at risk to an employer's reprisals through the decision to unionize.
Where a union requests to expedite hearings under the section of the proposed amendments stemming from a complaint under section 91, the hearing must convene within 15 days. This amendment varies significantly from the trade union recommendations and the Ministry of Labour's own discussion paper of November 1991 which suggested a seven-day waiting period. This significance rests with the ability to deter employers from committing unfair labour practice. We hope it will be successful.
Access to third-party property: We support the amendments that provide employees and the union representatives the right to be, for the purpose of organizing, on the premises "to which the public normally has access and from which a person occupying the premises would have the right to remove individuals." This means that union organizing activities can now take place on private property to which the public has regular access, such as shopping malls and industrial parks.
Membership fee eliminated: The main effect of the elimination of the $1 membership fee will be to make it easier to establish union membership before the board. We support this proposal, as it eliminates objections that the employer uses to delay and frustrate a certification application.
Support required for certification: The amendments propose that the amount of membership support a union must have before it is entitled to automatic certification will remain at 55%. The amount required to have a representation vote on application for certification is lowered to 40%. We are disappointed that the amendment did not move to the lower percentages needed in both instances to those similar in other Canadian jurisdictions.
Access to lists: The government's failure to provide amendments in this area is a significant omission. Opportunity is there to legislate union organization. The union's access to the employee list upon application for certification would go far in this important area. We ask that the government look again at this issue.
Petitions: Under subsections 8(4) to 8(6) of the amendments, limits are placed on evidence a board may consider in certification applications; namely, it cannot consider evidence filed after the date of certification application. This is a welcome step in the right direction. However, because of the frustration to employees caused by delays and expense of litigation, it is our view that the petition should be explicitly eliminated from the process.
Unfair labour practice certification: One of the two prerequisites for unfair labour practice certification is being eliminated. It will no longer be necessary for a union to establish that it has achieved "membership support adequate for the purposes of collective bargaining" before being certified. The purpose of this change is to deter an employer who acts early enough in the process to avoid current unfair labour practice provisions. This will go a long way in restricting blatant anti-union acts by an employer during an organizing campaign.
The board now only needs to be satisfied that the true wishes of the employees are not likely to be ascertained, given the employer's unfair labour practice, such as: discharge of a union organizer or a member; the suspension, surveillance or interrogation of employees for union activities; threats of layoffs or contracting out of work to avoid certification.
In this area the council has an example of one particular drive that has created so much bitterness that employees actually feared for their safety. The company used every tactic of harassment, intimidation, petitions and charges that have been documented in organizing history. There is proof of management counselling employees on how to write petitions, having employees spy and report weekly on other employees' activities, paying employees to hand out petitions on company time and property. There is proof of payoffs and questionable activities on the part of lawyers representing the petitioning employees.
In the end the union won the drive after the company agreed to drop its charges if the union promised to keep proof of the latter actions out of the hearings. Because of the mistrust and bitterness created by the drive, which is just now starting to dissipate after two years, the council felt it was best not to mention the name of the company. This drive started in February but, because of the tactics used, it took until December before the employees were able to obtain their first agreement.
In organizing drives at Johnson Controls in Tillsonburg, the use of petitions, questionable reverses of membership fees and unfair labour practices helped to stop the first application and were used again in the second and successful drive.
In the first drive the union signed 59% of its workers to membership cards. At this point the company had a petition sent out and brought the percentage down to 53, causing a vote to be taken. The union lost by two percentage points. In the second application the union applied for certification with 60% of workers. Once again a petition surfaced, but it only brought down the percentage to 58. The following day two employees came forward to say they had not paid their $1 fee, creating a series of hearings that delayed the certification and contract negotiations for months.
During the drive, the employees were threatened, especially if they showed any outward support for the union, such as wearing CAW T-shirts or hats. The company had letters printed in their local newspaper and handed out leaflets to the employees with innuendoes of plant closures and loss of benefits if the employees chose to join the union. Supervisors refused to talk to employees. Julie Herron, an employee involved in the drive, was called in for harassing employees, but after she refused to be intimidated, the company backed down.
All of these tactics contributed to many months of delay and years of mistrust and bitterness that is just now beginning to diminish. The following is a statement by an employee in one of our area plants that was recently organized, whose comments should be included in this section:
2010
"I, Dale Hammond, had taken what I thought was my right under the law to sign a union card at my plant. At that point, and for the next several months during the drive, I was harassed and intimidated to the point I actually feared for my safety. Only after the harassment started did I decide to help in the organizing drive. During the drive, I had to appear numerous times before OLRB on phoney charges that were always unfounded. I find it very difficult now to forgive the company for the actions it took against me just because I chose to join a union.
"I always believed that in a democratic society, a citizen should be free to exercise his rights under the law. Obviously, there must be something wrong with the law if this kind of intimidation is allowed. For these reasons, I strongly support the changes to the Labour Relations Act and urge the committee to pass these amendments so that in the future, other employees will not have to live through these kinds of actions."
Structure and configuration of bargaining units: The Oxford Regional Labour Council strongly supports these amendments.
On the use of scabs -- what we'll do is head right into the conclusion. Let's see how the time's going.
Conclusion: The government of Ontario is to be commended both for initiating a full consultation process enabling all views to be heard and for proposing significant amendments on the labour law reform. Bill 40 represents a far-reaching and progressive package of provisions which will help working people in Ontario maintain and advance their standard of living and quality of life.
The labour council could not truly emphasize the importance of these reforms without commenting on the statements and the ludicrous campaign being staged against workers in this province.
The chambers of commerce and big business groups in this province believe they have the exclusive right to make decisions about labour relations and the economy. Considering the loss of jobs and the economic turmoil created by free trade, the GST, high interest rates and the high Canadian dollar, all of which are policies initiated and supported by business, our faith in business making sound decisions for Ontario's employees is, at the least, sceptical.
This campaign is creating an atmosphere of bitterness and disgust among employees throughout the province like we have never experienced. Their claims that these reforms are only to increase the power of unions and their leaders could not be further from the truth. They should remember that Bob White, Gord Wilson or any other national or international president is not the union; the union is its members, and those leaders are responsible to carry out the wishes and direction of its members.
Business makes statements like, "The act will prevent companies from operating during a strike, while striking workers are free to get other jobs or tax-deductible strike pay."
First, with unemployment running at close to 12%, where do these striking employees find other jobs? Second, strike pay is not tax-deductible. As a matter of fact, most unions do not have strike pay, and the ones that do range from $25 to $50 per week. How many of these so-called righteous business people would jump at the chance to earn those kinds of wages?
They have an ad that asks Ontario employees to imagine going to work one day and finding a sign that says: "Closed. Gone to the US." Well, let me enlighten them on something that has passed them by for the last 10 years: Employees of Ontario work under the fear and threat of plants closing and downsizing every day of their lives. These reforms, even if dropped completely, would not change that fact. What these reforms will do is help employees live with that a little easier and give them better representation if they choose, if or when their plant closes.
The Ontario Labour Relations Act is not about investment but about protecting employees' rights and creating just and equitable workplaces. Any employees in Ontario should have the right to choose, without interference or intimidation, whether or not they want to join a union. If business people treated their employees with respect and provided them with a reasonable living and a safe and healthy workplace, they would not have to fear being organized.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for taking the time to hear our views. We trust that the concerns will receive serious consideration in the final writing of this legislation, which is so very important to our members and to the people of Ontario as a whole.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Witmer, four minutes.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you for your presentation and for putting your position on paper for us. Unfortunately, the labour relations reforms, as you know, have created a lot of concern, not only within the boundaries of the province of Ontario but throughout the world. We heard from the last presenters that when a meeting was held in Detroit and American investors were present, they were very fearful of this legislation and obviously weren't going to do their investing in this province but would look elsewhere. We also heard that now we're looking at different patterns, that people are looking not at establishing a plant in the US and Canada but establishing a plant in only one place.
How can we alleviate the concerns of people who are considering investment in this province? The number one priority for people at the present time is jobs. How can we bring those people back to Ontario?
Mr James Davidson: I happen to work for a company which has its head office based in Detroit; I work for General Motors. Quebec has anti-scab legislation; they have, in my view anyway, much more progressive labour legislation in that province than we have in Ontario. General Motors, when it comes to investment, has chosen to invest heavily in the St Thérèse operation, while at the same time turning to Scarborough, which was a profitable business, and deciding to close it. They took the foundry in St Catharines, which was also a profitable venture, and chose to close that operation. Comparing those two provinces, I don't really feel the economic investment these companies are looking at really is impacted as greatly by the labour relations policies in the particular areas as people might want us to believe.
Mrs Witmer: Well, these people did indicate their concern. Don't forget, we're talking about new dollar investment in the province. What you've talked about is plants that are already operating. How do you encourage people to invest here? Maybe that's something you want to think about. I think Mrs Cunningham has a question too.
Mrs Cunningham: Just on that same point, with the analysis you've just given us, all you have to do is visit Quebec and see what's happening with the exodus of business from that province right now. Actually, the only other province in all of Canada that has that anti-scab legislation is Quebec.
I'd like to also make a point, and I'd like you to remark on this: The new CAW chief was interviewed in Automotive News in July, 1992, and this was his statement: "Hargrove makes it clear that he prefers an adversarial relationship with management, working outside the corporate system." If that's the essence of an interview with somebody in the automotive industry and you read something like that, plus you take a look at the concerns right now --
Mr Hayes: Read the whole thing.
Mrs Cunningham: I haven't got time to read the whole thing, but I'd be happy to put it on the record, Mr Chairman, because that is the essence of the article, with due respect.
The Chair: If you provide a copy of that, it will form an exhibit, because we don't have time to put it on the record now.
Mrs Cunningham: No problem. That's the essence of the whole thing. A statement like that: I'd like you to respond because that's why you're here.
The Chair: Hurry up and respond because --
Mr Davidson: I have no difficulty with responding. In regard to Mr Hargrove, I happen to know the individual personally.
Mrs Cunningham: Well, I don't, but I read, and I thought, "Who wants to come to Ontario?"
Mr Davidson: In the dealings I've had with him, I have not found the individual, in his dealings with General Motors, Ford, Chrysler or whoever, to be confrontational. He's been very open in his negotiations with these particular parties, and I believe those comments were taken out of context.
The Chair: Thank you. We've got to move on to Mr Sutherland.
Mrs Cunningham: "We reject the philosophy that workers' wages somehow have to be tied to the success of the corporation." You might want to read it.
The Chair: Perhaps Ms Cunningham is suggesting that the research officer write to Mr Hargrove asking him to clarify those --
Mrs Cunningham: No, I'm not. I just want you to read what I read. I can write my own letters, thanks, if I have to.
Mr Sutherland: I want to thank you for coming forward. I do think the one point that needs to be made, just in response to Ms Cunningham's comments about Mr Hargrove --
Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, can we get this clear?
Mr Sutherland: Ms Cunningham, you've had your opportunity.
Mrs Cunningham: Can we get this clear? I was quoting from a magazine, because I had just read the article, so forget it.
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Sutherland.
Mr Sutherland: Thank you. What I was about to say is that the comments that have been read into the record --
Mrs Cunningham: You're very sensitive, I might add.
Mr Sutherland: In response to those comments, I think it's important to point out that I know Mr Carey here. He works at the Kelsey-Hayes plant in Woodstock, which has received Chrysler's quality award seven years in a row. One of only 14 plants in the entire world that has received --
Interjection.
The Chair: One moment, Mr Sutherland. I've said it before: I'm indifferent about how many people talk at the same time, but the poor people from Hansard have to somehow decipher that when it comes time to transcribe it. I'm not concerned about myself, but have some regard for the Hansard people.
Mr Sutherland: You've pointed out in your presentation how there are certainly problems out there in terms of organizing drives, some of the labour relations. We've heard a lot that Bill 40 is going to hurt labour relations in the province. I'd like to know from your experience whether you feel that in those plants where good labour relations already exist, Bill 40 is going to have any real impact on labour relations?
2020
Mr Carey: Absolutely not. It's going to work towards building better relationships in the plant. It's not going to do any harm. We've had a number of industries around for a long time and a number of unions that have worked in those industries for a long time, and the working relationship that was built was very positive. They were more productive. The people felt secure; they knew they were going to get treated fairly, that they had representation if they got into a problem or difference with the foreman or management. So I think we're on the right track here with these reforms.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, briefly, please.
Mr Hayes: I found that remark about Mr Hargrove rather interesting. On my previous job, when the plant was down in Oakville one night, that same individual called me up and told me to get my butt down there and get those people back to work.
But my question is really dealing with decertification. There seems to be a myth here that employees are having a very hard time getting decertified from a union if they're not pleased with the representation. I'm wondering if either one of you could elaborate a little on how the process works if employees decide they want to decertify. I believe it's taken care of in a matter of a few months prior to the expiration of a collective agreement.
Mr Carey: I'm no expert at that; I haven't been involved in that many drives. But my understanding is that two months before the expiration of the collective agreement, there's an opportunity for the people in that plant to go around and decertify the union and apply to have the union taken out as their representative.
Mr Hayes: I could be corrected, but I think it's just a simple majority.
Mr Carey: Yes, a simple majority: 50% plus one.
The Chair: Mr Hope, 30 seconds, no more.
Mr Hope: When you talked about the labour adjustment clause, I wanted to put on thing forward; I don't know if it was an oversight. You made reference to the jobs going to the United States, and I'm wondering if you would be in favour of plant closure justification language in the Employment Standards Act.
Mr Carey: We certainly would. It's long overdue. It's only fair that the employees have justification of why their plant's closing and why the community's going to suffer, because the tax dollars and everything are lost. It's long overdue.
Mr Brown: I appreciate your coming. I'm looking at the Johnson Controls example you presented in your brief. I would like some elaboration, because I'm not sure I really understand your point. You say that in the first drive, 59% of the people in the plant signed the card.
Mr Carey: That's correct.
Mr Brown: And after petitions and what not, you ended up with a vote. The vote, I presume, ended up with 49% of the membership voting in favour of the union and 51% opposing it. There's a 10% difference in the vote for the union between the card and the actual secret ballot. I'm wondering if you could help me understand why there's the 10% difference.
Mr Carey: Usually what happens in those cases is that there's a lot of time for the corporation to work on the employees, to intimidate them, to spread innuendoes around the plant that it may close, that they're going to lose their benefits: "If you're not careful, you're going to lose your jobs." It's just a constant fear the employees work under, and when they work under that type of scenario, they aren't free to make a decision. Their economics are clearly threatened with those types of things, and there's so much economic power the corporation has to do that, that it runs them scared. That's why you see a 10% drop.
Mr Davidson: If I could elaborate a little further on that, you'll notice that in the second drive there was a 2% decrease from what they signed to what they actually got on the successful drive, which was the second drive. From individuals I talked to, basically they got information after the first drive which dispelled a lot of the misinformation the company had published. That's probably why, although you see a 10% decrease through the first drive, there's only a 2% decrease under the second.
Mr Brown: There was no vote, though. I'm just trying to compare the numbers. There was no vote, so we're only comparing the sign-up rate. An explanation could be, at least for some people, that they changed their mind from the time they signed the card.
Mr Carey: They changed their mind because of fear and intimidation.
Mr Brown: It's a secret ballot, so nobody would know who voted which way, would they? Or am I wrong?
Mr Carey: There's a secret ballot vote, but when you're put under the pressure these individuals are put under, then you have a tendency to change your mind because your economic livelihood's threatened, and that's why.
I think it's only right that the cards you sign initially should be the deciding factor. Don't allow the corporation to get in there and sway your decision one way or another. The decision the employee should make should be made without fear.
Mr Brown: I take it that an employee should be bound by what he promised to do: He signed the card, so he wanted to be a member.
Mr Carey: That's correct.
Mr Brown: Following that, a government that's elected should do Sunday shopping and government auto insurance.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I certainly did like that last comment.
On the amendments with respect to the part-time, full-time situation, you say, "These amendments are an equity issue because they support the rights of part-time employees, many of which are women and visible minorities." I want to talk about that, because I don't believe they do support the right. That's my opinion: The legislation does not support the rights of part-time workers. I have a very deep concern about this, and let me tell you why.
I want you to assume two units, one part-time and one full-time unit. In the full-time unit there are 55 workers. In the part-time unit there are 45 workers. Under the legislation, if there is an application to combine the part-time with the full-time, and every one of the full-time workers says yes and every one of the part-time says no -- every one -- they are merged. The legislation says they shall form one unit, even though every part-time worker said no.
That's where my concern is, and that's a reading of the legislation which has been verified.
Interjection.
Mr Offer: If you have a question, Mr Sutherland, I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you any time, any place, but I want to get the response from these gentlemen who have come forward in these hearings, because I think their experience is very important.
I would like to hear from you whether you would support an amendment which I believe would support the right of part-time workers, that if there is a combination drive, it requires the majority of each of the units before it's combined, as opposed to the way it is now.
Mr Carey: To be honest, I'm no expert in that area; I come from a union that deals more with full-time employees. But I think it's only fair that they should be merged and become one bargaining unit if they're both dealing with the same corporation.
The Chair: I want to thank both of you for appearing here this evening on behalf of the Oxford Regional Labour Council. Your views were well presented and form a valuable part of this record. We appreciate your coming here and wish you a safe trip back home. Take care.
2030
JACK COUPS
The Chair: The next participant is Jack Coups. While he's coming forward and seating himself, I want to indicate on the record that we've received a written submission from Gord Drimmie of London. I've read the submission. He makes it as a private citizen and he's taken the time to express his views of this legislation. I've instructed the clerk to file it as an exhibit so that it forms a permanent part of this record, and to make copies of it for all the members of the committee so that they can read it, and I'm confident that they will.
I apologize to Mr Drimmie, because he had believed, inaccurately, that he would be able to come here and present his brief. Were the schedule not so tight we would have been pleased to accommodate him. But, as it is, the bookings for these hearings have been so intense that we're unable to do that. We do, however, thank him and we welcome his attendance here throughout the day, and as well, he's welcome to attend tomorrow. We thank him sincerely for his insights and for his contribution to the process.
Thank you, sir, I appreciate it very much, Mr Drimmie, and the committee will be reading it. You're welcome to get in touch with the clerk of the resources development committee with any other views or with any of the individual members of this committee or the Legislature, of course. Thank you, sir, and thanks to Ms Cunningham for facilitating the delivery of his brief.
Mr Coups, we've got your written submissions. Please tell us about yourself and proceed with your submission.
Mr Jack Coups: Mr Kormos, ladies and gentlemen, I'm a little bit overwhelmed by this process. I see some of my colleagues are in the back row here.
I want to make it clear that even though I am employed by University Hospital as VP of human resources I'm here as a private citizen. I do not represent University Hospital in these deliberations. I don't represent anybody other than myself, somebody who's worked in labour-management relations for some 30 years. I'm not a politician, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a consultant and I don't have an axe to grind. I must say I don't plan on going through the whole details of this very brief presentation. I know you've had a long, trying day.
I am concerned about the economic viability of this province, and I realize that amendments to the Labour Relations Act, if it's been in place for some 20 years, are overdue. I'm not opposed to reasonable amendments to the Labour Relations Act, but when you take a look at all the regulations and legislative requirements that have been placed upon employers in this province and in this country in the last few years, I am concerned about the future of our country, and particularly Ontario with its highly industrialized tax base.
We are experiencing a worldwide recession and we are experiencing worldwide competition for our goods and services. When we make amendments like this and proposals like this, how far can we go? Is there not a limit to costs and government regulations that investors will accept before locating and establishing business in other jurisdictions? The answer is yes, and I think the time is now.
Associates in my profession have told me that their companies are looking very seriously at future expansion and development in this province. We've had an exodus of businesses to the south of the border, and when we take all these legislative changes in context and together, this exodus will continue.
I'm not saying that we not change or amend the Labour Relations Act, but I must say, please use common sense, be responsible and look at areas that must be changed and have to be changed. I do not deny the right, for example, of farm workers to want to organize. If they want to organize, let them organize. I'm concerned about professionals having the right to organize, because we did go through a doctors' strike not too long ago.
The purpose clause: I have dealt with unions for some 30 years, as I said earlier, and in my opinion that is a business relationship.
There are a couple of representatives here tonight of the union I presently deal with. I'm very pleased that they're here, although I'm a little concerned in the sense that they're watching me; they're sitting behind me. I do have their hat here and it's time, but it's time for what? In my opinion, and my opinion alone -- I'll let them speak for themselves -- it's been a very proper business relationship.
Any changes in legislation are going to create expectations upon the employees and upon the members of the union. I'm very concerned that this will lead into disruption and confrontation. We're not the losers; the public will be the loser.
The right to organize: In 30 years I have never experienced a situation where a group of employees that wanted to organize has not organized under the present legislation. That's their democratic right. As you know, employers are very limited under the present legislation in preventing such an organization.
I'm very concerned with the proposal that organizational activity will take place on third-party premises. I'm just concerned with the social disruption this will create with the public. We do not need more disruption in our lives.
As far as I'm concerned, the Ontario Labour Relations Board has lots of power. Why give it more?
If a company wants to operate during a strike, let it operate. I don't think we have to look at the postal service, that mess, with its labour-management relations. Let's not get ourselves into that situation.
Employees have every right to strike at the present time. Companies should have the right to continue business.
Labour relations is a very sensitive relationship. It's developed over many years of working together. It has to be cooperative. It's something that is not changed with written legislation. I feel in total the changes contained in this proposal will affect the day-to-day working relationship, resulting in labour disputes and confrontation. It has to; it's a political process.
My basic concern, gentlemen and ladies, is that foreign investors, particularly those south of the border and in the Far East, will be alarmed with these proposals, considering that Ontario is a major manufacturing province, plus the other legislation. Why shouldn't they look at the US and perhaps even Mexico?
Last but not least, the grievance arbitration process: We have at the present time a very knowledgeable group of arbitrators. We don't always agree with their decisions, but overall I think their decisions are fair and responsible. With these changes the case law will be reviewed and will be challenged, and I'm afraid that it's going to add additional costs and concerns within the industry.
I'm not opposed to some reform. I am concerned with the potential harm these proposals, coupled with other costs in recent legislative changes, will have upon the economic liability of this province.
That was short and brief.
Mr Ferguson: Thank you for taking the opportunity to appear tonight. I appreciate your short, concise and pointed presentation.
Ms Murdock: Pithy.
Mr Ferguson: Pithy. I have a couple of questions. In February of this year Statistics Canada released the investment report for the nation, and what it indicated pretty clearly was that out of the $45 billion in investment in Canada in 1991, $20 billion of that was in Ontario. And not only that, but they're also indicating that they expect 3% growth this year.
2040
We've heard all these claims that investment is going to dry up, the province of Ontario is going to come to a grinding halt. Nobody mentions the GST, the trade agreement, the value of the Canadian dollar or, until recently, the high interest rate policy. Nobody mentions that, but they say, "By God, if you change a couple of labour laws, everything's going to come to a grinding halt." Quite frankly, how can you say investment isn't happening when Ontario is the beneficiary of almost 40% of the total investment of the country?
Mr Coups: I'm not a politician, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an expert. I'm giving you my impression and concerns as somebody who has worked in labour-management relations for 30 years. I am concerned. You can amend the legislation, but for God's sake, be careful. Take consideration of everything else.
I've made reference to the 2% health tax. That's the feds. I'm not saying it's the province, it's the federal government, it's the municipal government. Hey, we're governed to death. Please be careful; that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying don't amend the act, but please be careful, and let's hope that 3% continues to grow.
Mr Ferguson: We've had many business groups appearing before us, as well as trade unionists and individuals, who have said that in the consultation process, despite the 20-plus changes that have taken place from the original document to where we are now -- all in favour of business, I might add -- we aren't listening. We've been accused of not listening and not hearing them.
I would like to ask you if you would equate the listening and hearing with agreeing. I listen to my two-and-a-half-year-old at home all the time and I hear everything she says, but I can't always agree with what she puts forth.
Interjections.
Mr Ferguson: Well, unions are politically driven.
Mrs Cunningham: Is that the analogy?
Mr Coups: You're just asking for confrontation, and if you want confrontation, then you're going to get it.
Mr Ferguson: We've heard from a number of groups that it doesn't matter. One group in particular, one of the chambers of commerce, says: "Look, whether it's good or bad" -- this is what the representative said to the TV news that interviewed him -- "doesn't matter any more. It's the perception, and the perception out there is that it won't be healthy for Ontario if we proceed with these changes."
That's their perception. It doesn't matter if it's good, it doesn't matter if it's bad, it doesn't matter what the changes are. The perception is that we're reforming the law and the perception is that it's not healthy.
Now, of course, this government didn't put forth that perception. That is a perception that has been put forth by some, but not all, individuals in the business community, however irresponsible and misleading some of the suggestions might be. Could you tell me whether you feel that those in the business community, if they think there is a perception problem, whether it's true or not, should have a responsibility to clear up the misconception that some people might have about this legislation?
Mr Coups: I think it's a combination of all the legislative changes, of all the costs that have been put on companies, on potential investors. That's what I am concerned about.
I want to make it very clear that I am not opposed to some of the changes you are proposing -- it has to be looked at -- but I am opposed to the cumulative effect that this will have with everything else: pay equity, employment equity, changes in the Employment Standards Act, the workplace hazardous materials information system. It goes on and on. It's an additional cost for the employer, that's all. You guys can do what you want, and you will do what you want.
Mr Ferguson: I guess I have some difficulty with this because we had Joe Colasanti up here yesterday. It was an effective presentation. He is a small business owner who has about 85 employees: 50 full-time, 35 part-time. I talked to him after the meeting and what he honestly believed is that the day this legislation passes, his workplace automatically becomes unionized. His employees don't have a choice and he doesn't have a choice. That's the kind of myth and propaganda that has been dropped, irresponsibly, on the Ontario public by some in sections of the business community; not all, but there are some irresponsible individuals out there. I guess it bothers me that they drop that misinformation out there and people start eating it up and it raises fear and concerns.
Mr Coups: I can't speak for everybody.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, did you have a 30-second matter?
Mr Hayes: Yes. Very quickly. I notice, Mr Coups, in your presentation you say you don't disagree with making the changes.
Mr Coups: Some changes.
Mr Hayes: However, you are concerned about the changes at this time because of the serious economic situation this province is in. Well, I can tell you that in 1985, when we drew up the accord with the Liberal government, at that time we indicated we'd like to have some of this legislation. I guess it was the wrong time then. I think those were fairly good times, and the previous government didn't do it before. When would you suggest would be a good time to give the workers some of these needed rights in this province?
Mr Coups: I don't know your name, sir.
Mr Hayes: My name is Pat Hayes. I'm the MPP for Essex county.
Mr Coups: Okay. I have to state I'm still not totally opposed to changes. I think that after 20 years the legislation has to be and should be looked at. I'm just concerned about the cumulative effect of these changes with everything else. Give us a break. Gosh, does everything have to be done today? I don't think it has to. The cumulative effect is all I'm concerned about, Pat. It doesn't affect me personally, because I think I have the relationship.
Mr Hayes: I don't know of anywhere in this legislation where there's going to be any financial burden put on any business.
Mr Coups: You don't think strikes are a financial burden on the participants and the public?
Mr Hayes: Well, you don't have to go on strike if people start working together and start looking at one another's concerns.
Mr Coups: Yes, there are two sides. Right, Pat.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I must say that as I was listening I said: "My goodness, this is a very reasoned, thoughtful presentation on some areas where you have some concern. I don't know that it should foment such an incredible onslaught from the government members."
Mr Coups: Of attack.
Mr Offer: My goodness, gracious. It was just --
Mr Ferguson: We saw you sleeping over there and wanted to wake you up.
Mr Offer: I see. Somebody said they just did that to make certain that I was listening. I can assure you that I was listening. I was quite concerned that this was their reaction to this type of presentation.
I would like to indicate, and I listened closely to the questions by Mr Ferguson and Mr Hayes, I think it's important to know that the concerns on the legislation are not just from the so-called business community. We've heard some concerns on aspects of the legislation from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies -- they have a concern with the legislation; schools boards have concerns with the legislation; municipalities have concerns with aspects of the legislation; Hydro has concerns with some aspects of the legislation, and we heard a presentation today from the hospital association and it has some concerns about the legislation. I hope the government and government members listen not only to your concerns but also to these other concerns. I believe they are matters which really must be addressed.
I certainly do appreciate your bringing forward your concern on the purpose clause. I have been bringing up this matter as well as others on this committee as to what this actually means. I have a concern specifically that one of the areas in the purpose clause says not only will it encourage the process of collective bargaining -- I think that a lot of people would agree; you know, you want to do whatever is necessary -- but it talks about the ability of employees to negotiate with their employer for the purposes of improving their terms and conditions of employment.
There have been some very strong concerns that this is taking away some of the purposes of collective bargaining and what that means to the board. I have a question in to the ministry, which I know it is going to be responding to very shortly. I believe that this aspect of the purpose clause, together with the expanded powers of the arbitrator, will permit an argument to be made to the board under this new legislation that the financial statements of the employer must be disclosed. I would like to get your thoughts on some of the concerns.
2050
Mr Coups: That's a possible repercussion, I suppose, Steven. Personally, my experience is that we've tried to be very open and honest with our employees in the negotiating process, but I could see that could present a real potential problem, particularly with new bargaining agents and new relationships.
I am talking from a very mature relationship. I've been fortunate in my years to experience that, and it's been conducted on a very businesslike basis. Things just don't constantly get better and better. Sometimes we have to retract, we have to draw back, like we're doing right now. Who thought a year ago there would be layoffs in hospitals? We've been devastated in hospitals in the last year and it's going to be tough for the next few years. We cannot keep giving and giving. This is a major problem. I can see the potential problems.
Mr Offer: I have a short comment. When you talk about the purpose clause, a lot of comments are made by many about a playing field being level. I've always had this concern that when people use the term, "a level playing field," it doesn't necessarily mean an equal playing field. The thing I'm most concerned about is that a playing field, without doubt, implies teams on it: one, two, three or four. I would hope maybe what we should get away from is this connotation of a playing field, this connotation of conflict, this connotation of one against the other, but rather everyone working together. That's just a comment of mine, and Mr Brown has a question.
Mr Coups: Do you want me to respond to that one?
Mr Offer: It was just something I had to say.
The Chair: Save a little bit of time for Mrs Witmer. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Offer: No, he didn't have to comment.
The Chair: It was a soliloquy, not a question.
Mr Coups: I wish I was a lawyer.
Mr Brown: This is not really a question. You being the last presenter of the day, perhaps we're getting a little punchy.
One of the things that strikes me is that there used to be something -- I guess at some universities there still is -- called the study of political economy, noting that politics and the economy are closely related. I think you make some points here that tell us that what happens in the political field, what laws we make, affect the economy very closely, and governments have the responsibility to judge what effect their legislation has on the general economy.
All I'm really trying to determine here is that I can't get the government to tell us what effect it seems to think this legislation will have on the economy. Just a comment, no question.
Mr Coups: I guess, Mr Chair, I'm just talking from 30 years of experience as a private citizen and expressing my concerns. Be careful, that's all.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much, Mr Coups, for your presentation. I think you are to be commended for coming forward as a private individual and bringing your 30 years of experience in the labour relations field to us this evening.
You mention on the last page that labour relations are a very sensitive relationship developed over years of working together, and any changes obviously affect that relationship. I would agree with you. One of the concerns I have had about the legislation is the process the government has used to arrive at the changes in Bill 40. The process used seems to have created this uncertain economic climate and this polarization, and unfortunately we find ourselves in here sometimes listening to two very different opposing points of view. I guess my concern is that although Bill 40 is intended to bring the partners together and increase cooperation, I'm not sure, because of the process that's been used, that that will indeed happen. I don't think you can force or legislate people to cooperate.
Mr Coups: No legislation will accomplish that. It has to be a day-to-day working relationship. You can have all the words and all the language in the world, but you're not going to get cooperation unless the people are prepared to cooperate.
Mrs Witmer: I think we both agree changes certainly are necessary. How could these changes have been made while still maintaining that cooperative, harmonious relationship?
Mr Coups: Oh, God. That's a very difficult question to answer, Elizabeth. I guess it's just the local people, the people in the local plant and the office and what have you, sitting down and discussing and trying to resolve their problems face to face.
I think we have too much government interference at the present time. If we're going to encourage cooperation, let's do it at the local level, at the grass roots, and through training and education. If you're going to be successful, I think that's where you have to be successful: Educate, train, encourage and support people to get together to discuss their problems.
Mrs Cunningham: On the issue of process, you should know, Mr Coups, and the Chairman can correct me, there were, I think, probably more than 1,200 applications to appear before this committee that we have not been able to hear. There's tremendous concern.
You should also know that the guidelines for the committee were to balance union, somebody else, union, somebody else. We also know, in the work I've done, that most of the people who were not able to attend were not representing unions. Whether we like it or not, those are the facts.
I'd just like to add to what Mr Ferguson said. He was talking about the billions of dollars of investment in Ontario. My concern, on behalf of my constituents, is simply this: In Ontario in the month of July we lost 23,000 more jobs. The jobless rate right now is at 11%. If you talk about spending, and this is what the government was able to spend, we've had the lowest increase in spending, some 4.9%, in the province since 1953. If you take away welfare --
[Laughter]
Mrs Cunningham: I don't know why you're laughing. You think you're doing your best with regard to spending, but it's going to get worse because the Treasurer has just said to the cabinet ministers, "Cut your budgets even more." These are tough times. If you don't talk about public debt, which is increasing significantly because the deficit this year is $9.9 billion with this government, spending is only 1.5%, so we're in deep trouble in Ontario.
The biggest problem I have in my constituency office is people who come to me because they don't have jobs. I have to listen to people who come into my office. I have to tell you I'm glad you're here.
The Chair: Did you want to reply to that, Mr Coups? We've run out of time.
Mrs Cunningham: When you said, "In my opinion, this will continue" -- that is, that companies will no longer invest in Ontario -- I'm glad you came tonight, because that's what I hear from my constituents, whether these people like it or not.
The Chair: Mr Coups, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for your interest in the matter and for appearing here. You've engaged the members of the committee in a lively dialogue. The whole committee is grateful to you.
Mr Coups: It was quite an experience. Thank you.
The Chair: There are a couple of matters to deal with before the committee retires. First, I want to thank the members of the committee for their cooperation with me during the course of today. I want to thank the people who attended these hearings by way of being participants or observers and the people who showed interest in what's taking place and their eagerness to sit here, as they have, in the spectators' area.
2100
I want to thank the staff people, including of course Pat Girouard, who's our Hansard person; Anne Anderson, who's our legislative research officer; Rocco Rampino and Mike Sorbara, who assist Hansard in controlling the electronics and do a very skilful job in view of the fact that people are often inclined to speak simultaneously; and of course the clerk, Todd Decker, who is assisted by David Augustyn, a co-op student from the University of Waterloo who happens to live on Port Robinson West in Thorold and who has done an exemplary job of assisting the clerk. I sincerely want to thank those people on my own behalf and on behalf of the committee. They perform an outstanding job and make this whole process work.
Mr Hope: Mr Kormos, one of the presentations that was put forward today made reference to a news article and a study that was given. I'm trying to reflect back to that study, because I think I remember reading it.
I'm wondering if you're looking for the whole study or if you're looking only for the specific points that were raised in that news article. If you're only going to look for the specifics in that news article, I would ask that legislative research also scan through that report, which also indicates management's lack of knowledge of labour issues and labour relations, because I believe it was also reported in that study. We've seen so many studies. If you're looking for the whole study, then I would like to see the whole thing.
The Chair: Ms Anderson is going to exhaust all the avenues in obtaining as much as she possibly can and delivering it to the members of the committee so they can draw their own inferences.
Mrs Cunningham: I think I already asked, with regard to that American study --
Ms Murdock: The Carnegie?
Mrs Cunningham: Yes, the Carnegie one.
The Chair: Yes.
Mrs Cunningham: Was it referred to there as well?
Ms Murdock: It's the same one.
Mrs Cunningham: Oh, the Carnegie one?
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Hope: I didn't know if you were looking for specifics or if you were getting the whole study.
Mrs Cunningham: I have a specific question with regard to that. If we've actually been told that productivity has increased, I would like to see that also supported in some other way than just one study -- none of us is living with one study -- because Mr Hope certainly doesn't like the studies he hears from the other side of the argument.
I think there must be some in the legislative library. There must be that topic about the increased work that can be accomplished by workers, either in unionized workplaces on in non-unionized. I'd like that question answered as far as possible.
But, Mr Kormos, I think it's irrelevant. It was an American study, and I have to tell you that there's been nothing but decline in the numbers of unionized workers in the last decade, so how --
Interjection.
Mrs Cunningham: They haven't learned anything from it, have they?
The Chair: Ms Anderson is going to find whatever she can and, again, members of the committee will be able to draw their own inferences.
Mr Hope: Mr Kormos, sir.
The Chair: Just one moment. Mr Brown.
Mr Brown: On another matter, I have an inquiry that I would like to make to the ministry.
The Chair: One moment. Was your matter, Mr Hope, further to Ms Cunningham's, or was it something different?
Mr Hope: No, I have something different which I'll relate later, but this one deals directly with Ms Cunningham's comments, as it has no relevance to this part of it.
As a matter of fact, there were companies before us today that made reference to US corporations and boardrooms, so it does display relevance.
Mr Brown: Mr Chair, I have an inquiry of the ministry. I wonder if the ministry could, at some stage in the near future, give us some information regarding the arbitrations. This bill seems to be indicating an increasing number of arbitrations by the labour relations board. I would like to know what the projected costs are for that portion of the bill, what the labour relations board anticipates will be the increased costs for arbitration.
The Chair: Thank you. That's been noted.
Mr Ferguson: I have a question for research. Perhaps they could determine for the committee what consultation process was used for the Canada-US free trade agreement, as well as the North American free trade agreement.
Mr Offer: Good.
Mr Ferguson: How many people were consulted on that in a public, open process?
Mrs Witmer: A very good question.
Mrs Cunningham: Especially the last one.
Mr Ferguson: I would also like research to determine for this --
The Chair: One moment, Mr Ferguson. She's recording that.
Ms Murdock: She's writing. Give her a chance.
The Chair: Give her five seconds, please.
Mr Brown: I could maybe help Mr Ferguson --
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr Ferguson.
Mr Ferguson: I would also like research to determine for this committee what impact studies the federal Conservative government undertook prior to the implementation of the Canada-US free trade agreement or the North American free trade agreement.
Mr Hope: Mr Kormos, through you to the legislative research, in the committees yesterday and today there were a number of references made to plant closures. Is it possible that that information being talked about can be brought forward under plant closures? I would ask legislative research if it would be possible to access a copy of that.
The Chair: If there are reports by the Ministry of Labour, legislative research will attempt to compile those and make those available to you.
Mr Hope: I ask for legislative research to get it because if I asked the Ministry of Labour to get it, they'd think we doctored the notes up. I know if it comes through research it's a non-partisan point of view.
The Chair: The Ministry of Labour will of course assist research in that.
Mr Brown: Just on that point, Mr Chair: There's no suggestion that the Ministry of Labour would ever doctor anything up. These are public reports given to the public. I think all members can probably get copies of these things.
The Chair: We've noted that.
Mr Offer: This might be totally out of order. With respect to Mr Ferguson's request, I think it's extremely important, and I don't know if there could be any priority placed on these requests. I don't want to say that one is more important than the other. I think that's very important information that would be extremely helpful. I would ask, if it's in order, that we could get that type of information.
Mr Hayes: Mr Chair, I notice Mr Offer is very interested in this and I know that you already have a lot of work to do, but I was going to request that there also be a study on deregulation in the transportation industry, which the previous government supported very strongly, and on how many jobs were lost as a result of that particular piece of legislation.
The Chair: Thank you. That's been noted. Are there any other matters?
Ms Murdock: No, none.
The Chair: Thank you. We will be meeting again tomorrow at 10 o'clock. We'll be meeting through till 4:30. Members of the public of course are invited and indeed encouraged to attend.
The committee adjourned at 2108.