Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

ELIZABETH WITMER

WATERLOO, WELLINGTON, DUFFERIN AND GREY BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRONWORKERS

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS

WALLY MAJESKY

CONTENTS

Wednesday 17 November 1993

Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1993, Bill 80, Mr Mackenzie / Loi de 1993 modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail, projet de loi 80, M. Mackenzie

Elizabeth Witmer, MPP

Waterloo, Wellington, Dufferin and Grey Building and Construction Trades Council

Jerry Wilson, president

International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers

James Phair, general vice-president

James Cole, general treasurer

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Ken J. Woods, Canadian vice-president

Wally Majesky

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

*Chair / Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)

*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)

*Conway, Sean G. (Renfrew North/-Nord L)

Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)

*Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)

Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)

Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)

*Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)

*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND)

*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L) for Mr Offer

Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Turnbull

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Murdoch, Bill (Grey-Owen Sound PC)

Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis

Staff / Personnel:

Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service

Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1535 in committee room 1.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Consideration of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 80, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail.

The Chair (Mr Bob Huget): We call the committee to order. It's 3:35. We will resume hearings on Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. The first scheduled witness this afternoon is Elizabeth Witmer, MPP and third-party Labour critic. You have one halfhour for your opening statement.

ELIZABETH WITMER

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I certainly will not be taking 30 minutes. Much of what I felt necessary to put on the record has already been said in the House, and I don't believe in repeating all of that information again. I've sent copies of the presentation in the House from October 4 to all those people who were interested in those comments.

I have to tell you today that despite the fact that we are sitting in committee, despite the fact that we have now scheduled four weeks of hearings, I am extremely concerned that the government will not really be making any further changes to the legislation than perhaps some of the changes that have been recommended. In fact, I'm concerned that even what's been recommended might not be part of the final draft. There's no guarantee that those changes the minister and the staff spoke to will become part of the amended Bill 80. I wish I could get some assurance that they will be, and I would ask the parliamentary assistant if he can guarantee that those proposals will be part of the amended Bill 80.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): You mean the proposed revisions that were handed out to the critics at second reading debate? Will they definitely be introduced?

Mrs Witmer: Yes. Will you give me your personal assurance that they will form part of the amended Bill 80? Will you be introducing those officially as amendments to the bill?

Mr Cooper: I will officially be introducing amendments. I do not have the package of amendments at present, but it is my understanding that the ministry will proceed with some of the proposed revisions and will also be looking at the revisions that were introduced yesterday by Mr Maloney.

Mrs Witmer: That's what concerns me. I can tell you, many of the groups concerned about Bill 80 now believe that those proposals are going to be part of the amendments for Bill 80, but you've now indicated to me that "some" of them will be. I hope those people who are going to be speaking here in this room and who have an interest in the bill understand fully that the government has not made a commitment to introduce all of those amendments. Those are indeed not part of Bill 80 at present, and they might never see the light of day. I think that's important, because many people were under the assumption that those changes definitely would be made.

I'm still very concerned that the consultation process that has taken place from day one has not responded to the situation in the province. We've had a tremendous amount of peace and tranquility within the construction industry, and I'm still very concerned that this legislation can lead to some future chaos. I don't personally believe it is in the best interests of the industry, and I want to make sure I put that on the record. I think it could contribute, in the long run, to a very unstable construction industry, and I want to express those concerns. I'm concerned that the government is interfering in this process, and I'm concerned about the process that has taken place in the past.

I was concerned about Mr Mackenzie's comments on Monday. He indicates that this is the government's commitment to give workers a greater say in the workplace. I would suggest to you that if you take a look at the representations that are going to be coming in front of us, workers already have a say in the workplace, and there's no indication that this in any way, shape or form is going to contribute to a further say.

1540

He also indicated in his comments the absolute need for this bill. He says here, "As you will no doubt hear from presenters, these problems are acute in the construction industry," yet the minister has not been able to demonstrate or tell us what the problems are and who has had problems. We've never, ever received an answer from him as to the demonstrated need for this legislation. He made a comment that same day about the fact that he's been hearing this for 11 or 12 years. Well, that's fine, but we don't know the truth of that and he's never bothered to make us aware of that other than to say: "There are people out there. They have problems. Trust me; we need to do this." I'm a little suspicious of the genuine need to make changes at this time.

I'll limit my comments. As I've said before, it's absolutely essential that there be consultation. I think it's important that we hear from the individuals who are going to be impacted and I want to allow as much time as possible. I would urge the members of the government sitting on the committee to pay the utmost attention to the presentations that are being met. I sincerely hope you have not predetermined the direction of Bill 80. I hope you haven't even come to the absolute conclusion that the bill is necessary. I would suggest to you that I don't believe there is a demonstrated need for Bill 80 and I would encourage you to keep as open a mind as possible. If you take a look at the numbers, the majority of people who are going to be impacted by this legislation do not support Bill 80, and I hope you will take that into consideration as you listen to the deliberations and as we vote on the need for the bill and, if you decide to go ahead with it, then the amendments to the legislation as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Witmer. We had allocated till 4 o'clock for your opening statement. If you don't wish to use that, we will move to witnesses, if that's agreeable to you.

Mrs Witmer: That's just fine.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Chairman, could I ask for clarification? When we receive letters, as we have here from the Ottawa-Hull Building and Construction Trades Council, which very strongly puts its position forward -- and I see we're getting others -- is there a mechanism whereby we could read into the record the groups that are for and against and their concerns? I'd look to your guidance.

I know that normally it just comes in and is stamped as an exhibit, but I don't know that it has the impact when you've got 80% of the construction industry, the construction workers opposed to government legislation. I think it's important that groups like this, on either side of the issue, be recognized in Hansard. This group, in a letter dated November 11, says that on behalf of their 10,000 affiliated members, they want a rep to put forward their complete dissatisfaction with this bill and even with the revised bill, and they call on the government to remove it. I don't know how you want to handle that or if you have some advice that might be of help.

The Chair: Normally, the written presentations are, as you've correctly stated, marked exhibits. All members receive copies of them, and as members go through the exhibits they will become, obviously, aware of a particular petition. If any member wishes to raise that issue in terms of a specific group, then that can be done. I believe you've already done so, Mr Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you.

WATERLOO, WELLINGTON, DUFFERIN AND GREY BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL

The Chair: Would the Waterloo, Wellington, Dufferin and Grey Building and Construction Trades Council please come forward. Good afternoon and welcome. Please introduce yourself for the purposes of Hansard and then proceed with your presentation. You've been allocated one half-hour and I believe the committee would like a portion of that, perhaps 15 minutes if possible, for questions and answers and dialogue.

Mr Jerry Wilson: Sure. My name is Jerry Wilson. I'm president of the Waterloo, Wellington, Dufferin and Grey Building and Construction Trades Council. We have about 7,000 members with 15 affiliates. You should have received my presentation in writing by now. It's not that long, so I think I can go through it and read it. In my concluding remarks, the position of our council is that we would like to see Bill 80 removed in its entirety, mainly because we're not sure what all is in there now and what is not.

Re Bill 80, November 17, 1993: International construction unions enjoy good rates, benefits and pension because they have evolved and improved over the past century. Naturally, along the way there are some problems and challenges, but there are appeal procedures and problem-solving methods in place. Constitutions are altered and improved upon at conventions. Any situations not resolved in favour of the majority or in the best interests of the majority by using the present structures within international unions are few and far between, and certainly there is no need for legislation or government interference.

Bill 80 was introduced by the Ontario provincial NDP government after hearing from a vocal minority group that complained about international construction unions over some individual situations. This legislation is ill-conceived, because the very organization affected, the Ontario Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council, was not consulted.

Opposition: Also, since its introduction, there has been strong opposition from all sectors of the construction industry right from officers down to rank-and-file members. For example, some building trades councils that strongly oppose Bill 80 are Hamilton, Kitchener, Windsor, Ottawa, London and St Catharines.

To the best of our knowledge, no building trades support Bill 80, with the exception of Toronto, and that was far from unanimous and only supports parts of the original version. We do not know what version is out there now. The Ontario Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council voted against this bill with a vast majority at the 1992 and 1993 annual conventions.

Also, the Canadian building and construction trades national convention voted against Bill 80 in 1992 with a vast majority. The Canadian Federation of Labour voted strongly against this at the national convention in 1992, and the annual convention of the Ontario provincial council of the Canadian Federation of Labour voted strongly against Bill 80 in its entirety. Also, the Ontario allied council representing construction trades on Ontario Hydro sites is opposed.

My research tells me that 13 out of 14 bargaining councils, ie, 13 different trades, have opposed Bill 80. This represents about 85% of the workers. Mr Cooper stated the London building trades are in favour of Bill 80. That indeed was their original position, taken at a meeting without full representation. That council has since reversed its decision, when there were more affiliates in attendance at a meeting. I have letters of confirmation on this if need be. I'm sure Mr Cooper has received them too.

No consultation: There has been this strong opposition because there was no consultation with the affected parties, like building trades councils, prior to introduction. As a result, opponents have to react and did not have the luxury of being proactive. The very fact that this was introduced so secretly and sneakily is proof that the government met only with a vocal minority and has not been consulting or listening to the majority ever since. This is pitting brother and sister members against each other.

Discriminating: Mr Mackenzie states that construction unions have a different setup than industrial unions in terms of control of locals and pension and benefit plans and do not have the same mechanisms. Research has shown there are few differences, but if this unwanted legislation is good, it should apply to all international unions and not single out construction.

Trustee structure: One area where the status quo in construction is superior to some industrial unions is in trustee structure. All benefits and pensions can be joint-trusted if desired, and there are no cases in construction where pension money was scooped, as is often the case with industrial unions. We enjoy labour and management trustees because management trustees have business sense and expertise, and most of these were raised through the apprenticeship system and some still carry union cards. As a result, their input is in the best interests of the members and their employees. This check-balance with trustee structure is designed by the organizations, and the government has no need to interfere.

1550

Jurisdiction: The regulatory power the parent trade union serves is a necessary powerful deterrent to one local union laying claim to the work properly chartered to a sister local. If this administrative power is removed from the international, disputes could increase dramatically. These disputes can cause work to go non-union. That is why constitutions are the way they are.

On October 5, 1993, Mike Cooper quoted from a letter written by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1788. It states the international is removing Local 1788's jurisdiction to work on miscellaneous hydraulic projects. In detail, if this work on a Hydro site is awarded to a contractor, workers will be supplied by the local in the area. If the work is by Ontario Hydro and not a contractor, Local 1788 will supply workers.

Local 1788 was chartered to supply to Ontario Hydro only, and any attempt to expand its bargaining rights at the expense of others should be stopped, and by the constitution, the international has and must keep this power to avoid these disputes. If Bill 80 passes, there will be chaos with no head office to control greedy expansion. It is assumed supporters of Bill 80 have this in mind.

There have been cases where a local is not in a financial position to survive, but the international has merged it with a bigger local. This was opposed by proud members, but these decisions prove beneficial to their wellbeing. The international office must retain its leadership ability in the members' best interests.

Interference with a local union: Trade unions are required by law to ensure a fair hearing. There are few examples of trusteeship, and certainly no need for legislation, but if a local happened to have some renegades on staff, there must be a head office to assist the organization remain strong and effective for its members. There are appeal procedures available in the constitution if any member or officer feels wrongly treated. Each member is entitled to have the constitution enforced on his or her behalf, and if the already overburdened OLRB comes between the member and the international, the constitution is worthless, and we suggest the international has the superior expertise.

Concluding comments: There are numerous agreements administered by international building trades unions that account for millions of hours of labour per year. Examples are pipeline, maintenance and hydro. Some of these are national, and to have a different or reduced strength in the constitution in Ontario over the rest is problematic. I should have underlined that.

Internal disputes don't belong in the public courts until all internal dispute mechanisms have been exhausted. Bill 80 would negate this long-standing, logical order of events. The members of international unions enjoy good wages, benefits and protection and can travel across the border to work. The vast majority do not want any change to this and especially do not want government interference.

Reference has been made by others that Bill 80 is contrary to the International Labour Organization Convention 87, and opinions on this are being sought. It also contradicts freedom of association. This government should reassess Bill 80 for these reasons alone.

Problems can be addressed within international unions by using the democratic process available through resolution and voting at regular conventions. Why waste time, money and energy on such ill-conceived legislation to satisfy a small group? The government has designed a cannon to kill a fly. The provincial government should instead be concentrating on projects that will be well received by all, projects that will stimulate business and create jobs.

For example, presently, as president of the local building trades council, we have initiated the production of a promotion video for the proposed Bruce energy park adjacent to the Bruce nuclear power development. The first phase of this nearly $1-billion proposal will see multi plants produce environmentally friendly synthetic energy with no smoke stacks. This five-year project will create thousands of construction jobs and hundreds of permanent production and maintenance jobs, plus tremendous spinoff. This is the leadership and direction the voters and taxpayers are seeking in this province, rather than legislation that will divide unions, anger workers and confuse employers.

On behalf of our membership and the building trades council, it is our wish to see Bill 80 withdrawn in its entirety, and at the very least make the changes suggested by the Canadian building trades office with a consultation process. That's my presentation.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you very much for that presentation. It is I think very succinct and to the point and really outlines the concerns I've been hearing all over the province. You mentioned the Canadian Federation of Labour. I met with Jim McCambly in Ottawa last Friday and we spent some time in his office going through it. You sort of sit there and shake your head and go, "We just don't understand what the agenda here is."

You made reference throughout this to a small group of people. At one point you talked about that group being principally in Toronto. There's an old saying that this is not the province of Toronto, and that if there's a problem and it's somewhere in Toronto, whatever the issue is, perhaps the government should deal with it locally.

I've asked Jim this, and Joe Maloney and Guy Dumoulin and many other people in the labour movement. Can you give me some kind of an understanding of what you think the reason for this is? Is there a hidden agenda that I don't know about yet?

Mr Jerry Wilson: I believe there is, especially with the initial draft of the legislation, where it was so easy to withdraw from the international if you wanted and you could be organized by industrial unions. That looked like a Bob White agenda to us and there was some evidence of that. So the lobbying efforts have paid some dividends so far in that it's been removed, I hear; I have not seen it. So that's the hidden agenda we suspected.

Mr Mahoney: You should maybe just explain that a little more to have it on the record, because I've wondered about that. As I understand it, virtually everybody in the construction trades has an affiliation with the national body in Canada called the Canadian Federation of Labour, and not with the Canadian Labour Congress, which Mr White of course is head of. There was some thought at one point that this was an attempt to raid on the part of the CLC and take membership away from the CFL. I have heard that said on numerous occasions but I can't get a handle on that. Is that what you mean when you say "a Bob White agenda"?

Mr Jerry Wilson: Yes. It's only a suspicion, but most of the building trades did pull out of the Canadian Labour Congress some years ago because of some structural problems we couldn't resolve. So ever since we've been on the bad books with the Bob Whites, and maybe the NDP, which is closer to the CLC than the CFL.

Mr Mahoney: You've got 7,000 members. What would your annual union dues be?

Mr Jerry Wilson: Our union dues? They vary.

Mr Mahoney: What would you guess for 7,000 members?

Mr Jerry Wilson: People can pay anywhere from $500 to $1,000 a year in dues.

Mr Mahoney: Really? So it's a lot of money.

Mr Jerry Wilson: Sure.

Mr Mahoney: I just wonder if that might have anything to do with it.

When you establish your constitutions and you go through an amending process, do you know any other jurisdiction where the government would actually come in and force an amendment on the constitution of a duly elected body? I'm talking about anywhere else in the free world where that kind of thing might happen. Do you have any examples of that?

Mr Jerry Wilson: Absolutely not. I liken it to the government coming to the Knights of Columbus I belong to and telling us we have to make some changes.

Mr Mahoney: Can you just tell me, with your 7,000 members -- because you'll get this thrown in your face on either side of this issue -- it doesn't necessarily mean everybody's opposed. If there's a group representing 7,000 members, what gives you the right to say all 7,000 are opposed? Can you give me some idea of what you implemented to try to educate your membership on the issue?

I was at the council in St Catharines and know that the vote was overwhelmingly against and that most of the people there were opposed, but of course there weren't 7,000 people there. We have the Ottawa-Hull trades council, which has 10,000 people and is claiming they're opposed. What mechanism do you have in the labour movement in your sector to try to consolidate either support for or opposition to a government bill?

1600

Mr Jerry Wilson: We take the position as a building trades council that the majority decides, and the majority of our council is vehemently opposed to Bill 80.

Mr Mahoney: Do you get response from the rank and file? Do they really know what's going on with this?

Mr Jerry Wilson: Yes, the individual trades send out newsletters and request that they lobby their MPP whether they agree with the position of their organization.

Mr Mahoney: The dispute settlement mechanism in the construction industry for some time, going back some 70 years, has been the implementation of the book I've seen, where the international comes in as an independent referee and settles these disputes. Can you explain a little about how that works, either geographically or sectorally or whatever, and how that's worked with in your sector?

Mr Jerry Wilson: Jurisdiction is hammered out over many, many years and agreed upon by head offices, and if there is a dispute onsite that can't be settled by the trades onsite, then it goes to the managers of the union. If they can't settle, it goes to the internationals that originally drew up these agreements. Then it's settled.

Mr Mahoney: And it's been working?

Mr Jerry Wilson: Oh, very effectively. There's another way. If you do fail to settle internally, then you go to the labour board, but that's after you exhaust your internal systems.

Mrs Witmer: Jerry, thank you very much for your presentation, but coming from Kitchener-Waterloo, I knew it would be just excellent. Thank you for the information you've provided. Certainly your presentation is consistent with the ones we are receiving by mail and that are also being personally delivered. There is certainly widespread opposition to Bill 80, and I guess I hear you saying, Jerry, that your number one priority would be that the government would withdraw the legislation.

Mr Jerry Wilson: That's our position.

Mrs Witmer: Have you met with the minister or his staff recently?

Mr Jerry Wilson: No, we've never met with the minister. We met with Derek Fletcher, Mike Farnan. I don't know if Mike Cooper was at the meeting, because I was not; I think Mike Cooper was at the meeting. On more than one occasion my assistant had quite a lengthy discussion with Mike Cooper, after the CFL convention in Kitchener, and I think he was at your office. So we have spent some time with politicians. Many, many letters have gone out.

Mr Mahoney makes reference to: Is this only a Toronto problem or Toronto opposition? When you add up all these building trades councils, the numbers outweigh those in Toronto. The figures don't lie. It's overwhelming opposition.

Mrs Witmer: We've dealt with this before. We see this overwhelming opposition to Bill 80. We see the attempt to eliminate the freedom of association. I ask you one more time: Why is the minister, why is the NDP government, so determined to proceed with Bill 80, in your opinion?

Mr Jerry Wilson: I'd like to know that also, Elizabeth. They consulted with some people and said, "No problem, we'll bring that in." But why, we don't know.

Mrs Witmer: I guess that's it, isn't it? There was consultation prior to the bill coming into the House, but only with a very select group of individuals, and it appears only the minority that favoured the bill. I'm not aware of any widespread consultation with the majority that were opposed.

Mr Jerry Wilson: That's what makes it wrong for our industry, and we're talking about jobs too, the fact that a small group can cause a negative effect on our membership and our employers and, ultimately, jobs.

Mrs Witmer: What do you think is going to be the most severe impact of this bill if it goes through, in whatever form? I think you heard Mr Cooper say there's no guarantee that the changes that were proposed will be incorporated if they do go ahead. What's going to be the most devastating impact?

Mr Jerry Wilson: I'd like to refer to my page 3 on jurisdiction, where now every trade has a head office to keep a lid on people expanding their jurisdiction. If there's nobody to mind the store, we're going to have some chaos. It will cause fighting because people aren't going to let their work go away, and if you have fighting, you lose it to somebody else. So to withdraw Bill 80 is better all the way around. I think that's the biggest thing.

Mrs Witmer: You mentioned that at present your members enjoy good wages, benefits, protection and they can travel across the border to work. Does this happen often, Jerry?

Mr Jerry Wilson: Oh, yes. A tremendous number of Ontario tradespeople in various locals are in the US right now. Just today, about half a dozen of our members indicated they're ready to go to work in the States and where is the work? So I told them, and now they have to decide if they want to go before Christmas. But they can work in Kentucky, Virginia, Colorado and New Jersey, I believe, right now.

Mrs Witmer: Is that because there isn't work for them here?

Mr Jerry Wilson: There isn't work here, but through our unions they're busy down there. All they have to do is have a paid-up receipt and away they go to work.

Mrs Witmer: So they have that option.

Mr Jerry Wilson: Oh, definitely.

Mrs Witmer: How will Bill 80 change that?

Mr Jerry Wilson: I'm not sure how to comment on that because I don't know the final draft, but it certainly is not going to have any positive effect anywhere, even within the nation. If we're on a national maintenance agreement and there are different rules in Ontario, it will have a negative effect.

Mrs Witmer: I would appreciate having the government respond to that particular question of the impact of Bill 80, on that flexibility to seek work where the work is available.

Now, how serious do you think the government interference is going to be? What's going to be so different?

Mr Jerry Wilson: Just the fact that a member or an officer can't go to the constitution now and rule by the constitution because the labour board comes in between. That's unheard of. I have reference in here to freedom of association, the whole thing, where it says the state won't interfere:

"Workers' and employees' associations shall have the right to draw up their constitution and rules to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programs. The public authority shall refrain from any interference which could restrict their right or impede the lawful exercise thereof."

I think the government is going to have a problem when this is challenged, if it passes.

Mrs Witmer: I agree with you. If you take a look at section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it does contain the freedom of association. It indicates that individuals have the right to associate. Workers in the building and construction industry have freely associated with their unions now for almost a century.

If you look at Bill 80, it goes far beyond regulating the internal affairs of your union or any other. What it really does is replace the rights of Ontario's building and construction trades unions and the right of the members to freely associate in their unions with the will of this government. It's all going to be enforced by the power of the labour relations board. I agree with you, Jerry, that definitely we are going to see Bill 80 tested in the courts in terms of the constitutionality.

Mr Jerry Wilson: And then we'd all be embarrassed.

Mrs Witmer: That's right.

1610

Mr Cooper: Mr Wilson, thank you for your presentation. First of all, Bill 80 didn't just come out of thin air; it's an extension of Bill 40. There were two pieces separated; Bill 80 was separated because there were obvious problems there. That's why we've brought forward some proposed revisions, because after we had put it together we determined there were problems that certain individuals couldn't live with. There were flaws in the legislation as it was originally drafted. That's why the proposed revisions were brought out and given to the critics at second reading time, to hopefully speed the process through committee. The Agricultural Labour Relations Act was also separated because this was another section from Bill 40 that they thought might be controversial. There was separation and that's where the bill came from. It didn't just appear.

As to the revisions, as all the committee members know, the amendments aren't usually submitted until after the public hearings, because while we've talked to people since the introduction of Bill 80 and found there are certain problems and there are certain things we would like to commit to right now, we can't do the whole thing until after we've had the public hearings and we've had people come forward either pro or con on the issue. We're waiting for that to determine what we want to bring forward as proposed amendments.

Mr Mahoney asked yesterday whether or not we were going to introduce Mr Maloney's proposed revisions. As a matter of fact, Mr Mahoney himself could introduce those amendments, on the off chance we don't do it, and then they will be discussed by committee and voted on appropriately.

Mrs Witmer: Voted down.

Mr Cooper: Whatever.

Mr Mahoney: When have you ever supported an opposition amendment?

Mr Cooper: It has happened in committee before. Anyway, the question I want to ask right now is, have you seen the proposed revisions we've put forward?

Mr Jerry Wilson: No.

Mr Cooper: Have you seen the proposed revisions that were put forward yesterday by the Canadian building trades department?

Mr Jerry Wilson: Yes, I've seen them.

Mr Cooper: You've seen those. They were in response to ours. Right at the end of your brief it says, "At the very least make the changes suggested by the Canadian building trades office with a consultation process." What we're doing right now is the consultation process, and as I said earlier, we will be looking at the proposals that were put forward yesterday.

Mr Jerry Wilson: By consultation process, I mean committee hearings around the province.

Mr Cooper: What we're looking at right now is that just about everybody affected by this is aware of Bill 80 and what's going on. They had called ahead before we even got to committee, trying to get on to come here and discuss these matters. I think everybody's aware of it, so the need to travel around the province --

Mr Jerry Wilson: I'd like to speak to Bill 40 and Bill 80. They really are entirely separate. Bill 40 is on organizing and strikebreaking etc. There was lots of consulting with unions prior to Bill 40, but absolutely none with the building trades prior to Bill 80. There's quite a difference in --

Mr Cooper: At the time of the consultations for Bill 40 is where the problem came forward in the construction trades, as stated by certain individuals, whether they be a minority or whatever, and that's why they were brought in. Basically, Bill 40 was dealing with greater fairness for workers in the province of Ontario, and what we're feeling is that Bill 80 is also working towards greater fairness and balance for the workers in the province of Ontario.

Mr Jerry Wilson: But indeed it's making it very unfair for us to abide by our constitution.

Mr Cooper: That's one thing we want to discuss also, that obviously Bill 80 has caused some internal conflict within the construction trades. Do you feel that by expediting the process it would help, that if we got Bill 80 through in some form it would help and you can get on in the construction industry with doing your job and avoid the internal conflict, or would you rather see this dragged out?

Mr Jerry Wilson: I'd rather see it removed completely. We were doing fine before Bill 80. We were doing very fine.

Mr Cooper: But there were certain individuals, obviously, who did have a problem.

Mr Mahoney: Who?

Mr Jerry Wilson: And now there's going to be 85% having a problem with Bill 80. Do you think that's right? Not at all.

Mr Cooper: That's why we're doing the public hearings to find out how we can solve the problem.

Mr Jerry Wilson: I see. We have done a lot of research into industrial unions -- you're going to hear more on that from other presenters -- and there's very little difference, yet this doesn't apply to industrial unions.

Mr Cooper: With the constitutions there's little difference, but with the actual makeup of the construction industry, obviously that's why they have a different section in the Ontario Labour Relations Act. They are different, because they control things like hiring halls, where the industrial unions don't have that makeup, and your pension plans and benefits are handled differently in construction. That's why they have a separate section in the act.

Mr Jerry Wilson: We don't have any problems with our trustee structure. There's no need for you to even introduce anything there, for sure.

The Chair: Mr Waters, you have about one minute.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): Then I'll just ask the first part of what I wanted to ask. You said earlier on that people in the local area end up getting the jobs. I can tell you in Muskoka right now we're doing five sewer and water projects, we're building a number of schools, and I have nothing but a solid stream of local people who belong to the construction industry, who are part of the union, complaining that the jobs are going to the people from outside of the Muskoka-Georgian Bay riding.

You said, sir, that the local people get hired on to those jobs, and in fact that's not the case. The case is that people from southern Ontario are taking those jobs at those job sites and are getting preferential hiring over the people of Muskoka.

Mr Jerry Wilson: I don't think I would make that statement, because in our hiring halls you can only bring in the foreman; the rest have to be hired locally. I didn't make that statement.

Mr Waters: Somewhere in here it says that the local people get the jobs at the local sites.

Mr Jerry Wilson: That's not part of my presentation.

Mr Waters: That's the problem, though. The problem is, where's the fairness?

Mr Jerry Wilson: What does Bill 80 have to do with who gets hired on a job?

Mr Waters: It has to do with how the unions, the locals, work.

Mr Jerry Wilson: Are you referring to "Local 1788, miscellaneous projects"?

Mr Waters: I can't remember what page it was. I was looking at something else. You had talked about it in your presentation.

Mr Jerry Wilson: That's what you're referring to. It's page 4. That issue makes no difference in who goes to work geographically. A particular case in point was Adam Beck in St Catharines. Be it Local 1788's people who live in the area or Local 303's who live in the area, it's an IBEW dispute. It's nothing to do with where the people live geographically.

The Chair: I'd like to thank the Waterloo, Wellington, Dufferin and Grey Building and Construction Trades Council and you, sir, for your presentation and appearance here this afternoon. I trust you'll stay in touch with this committee as we continue on hearing Bill 80. I encourage you to do that through the committee clerk or any sitting member of the committee. Thank you very much for taking the time to present here this afternoon.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRONWORKERS

The Chair: The next witness is the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers. Good afternoon, gentlemen, and welcome. You've been allocated one half-hour for your presentation and I know the committee would like approximately half of that, if possible, for questions and answers. You can begin at your leisure. Please introduce yourself into the microphones for the purposes of Hansard.

Mr James Phair: My name is James Phair. I'm with the Ironworkers International. This is our general treasurer, James Cole.

My presentation is very short. It deals primarily with what I perceive, or we perceive, many of us perceive, will happen in the construction industry vis-à-vis how designations could be interrupted if Bill 80 is enacted.

I thank you for allowing me to appear before you to explain in detail my opposition to Bill 80. You'll have to excuse me; I've got a terrible cold and 19 frogs in my throat. That's living in Sarnia. Bob, you know that.

However, prior to getting into the merits of the bill, allow me to give you a brief background on myself. I'm a fourth-generation Canadian, and since 1958 I've made my living in the construction industry, starting out as a member of the Boilermakers international. In 1965 I became a member of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers and worked all the facets of the trade. As a journeyman ironworker I had the privilege to work not only anywhere in Canada where work was available, but also in the United States of America as well.

Because of mobility, I have had to depend on unemployment insurance only once in my working lifetime.

In 1976 I became assistant business agent of union Local 700 Windsor, in 1979 I was appointed general organizer for eastern Canada and then in April 1992 I was appointed by our general president as general vice-president and executive director over the Canadian operations.

I have touched briefly on the mobility within the construction industry. However, my main theme today will centre around the stability in the construction industry that we have enjoyed since 1978. I am sure others who will appear before you will in fact go into greater detail regarding mobility.

As I'm sure you are all aware, prior to 1978 the construction industry was in complete chaos. Contractors and locals alike across the province, or some, were trying to build empires. As such, you could have a collective agreement consummated in one part of the province and only a few miles down the road there could very well be a legal strike in progress. This actually happened in my home Local 700, which encompasses five counties: In 1967 we had a five-month bitter strike that took place in Windsor and Sarnia. However, 60 short miles away in the city of St Thomas, Ontario, our people, as well as building trades people, were busy building the new Ford plant.

1620

Somewhere along 1976 the Conservative government charged the construction industry advisory board with the responsibility of looking for a better way to stabilize the industry and in 1978 the Conservative government legislated into law accreditation and designation. Prior to 1978, the local unions across Ontario did in fact hold bargaining rights for the contractors that were signatory to their collective agreements. But, as I had mentioned, in 1978 the law changed and it was, in our case, the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers and the Ironworkers District Council of Ontario that were designated as the employee bargaining agency. With the designation came responsibility and accountability.

I'd just like to stop there, if I may, for a moment. I was a business agent for the local at that time. The international was not at all thrilled to become part of the designation. They didn't want to be charged with the responsibility, so to speak, for a bargaining agent, because you do have responsibility with it.

The local unions that had collective agreements with various contractors lost that bargaining right, if you will. However, they were compensated to the degree that with provincial bargaining came province-wide certification, so we didn't have to chase a contractor all over the country. He was certified. If he was certified in Windsor, he was certified in Thunder Bay.

To pick up where I left off, with the designation came the responsibility and accountability. In other words, if one of our local unions went on an illegal strike or a slowdown, it is the international and the Ironworkers District Council of Ontario that are responsible and accountable to see that an illegal strike does not occur.

Mr Chairman and members of the committee, I draw your attention to 138.5 of the revised copy of Bill 80. It reads:

"(1) The parent trade union or a council of trade unions shall not, without just cause, assume supervision or control of or otherwise interfere with a local trade union directly or indirectly in such a way that the autonomy of the local trade union is affected.

"(2) The parent trade union or a council of trade unions shall not, without just cause, remove from office, change the duties of or impose a penalty on an elected or appointed official of a local trade union.

"(3) In an application relating to this section, the board must first consider but is not bound by any provision of a trade union constitution when determining what constitutes just cause."

If Bill 80 becomes law in its present form, you will virtually render the internationals ineffective if in fact an illegal strike were to occur.

I say that if an illegal strike occurs today, the international would immediately direct that local union to cease and desist and immediately return its members to work, as is demanded by the union constitution. If it doesn't comply, it faces disciplinary action via the union constitution, which prohibits illegal strikes.

Based on the language contained in Bill 80, the business agent of the local union could conceivably disregard the international's directive, claiming it is interfering with its local autonomy. We could end up in front of the Ontario Labour Relations Board or in a court of law, arguing as to whether or not the international has the authority to put an end to an illegal strike. At the same time, the illegal strike could very well continue until either the Ontario Labour Relations Board or the court renders a decision.

The international would be rendered ineffective and powerless because of Bill 80. At the same time, because of the designation order the international would be accountable for any and all damages resulting from an illegal strike.

The international and the district council are very concerned about the potential liability resulting from Bill 80. We are bound by our constitution to follow a course of action that is in the best interests of all our members, in Ontario and across North America. The unconstitutional action of a local union could lead to liability for all our members, yet Bill 80 would prevent the international from stepping in to protect the members' best interests, as our constitution demands. In the best interests of our members, this may force us to seriously reconsider our continuing participation in the existing bargaining structures.

Without stable bargaining structures, the construction industry as we know it today, the stability we know today, will be set back 20 years. The industry will once again be put in utter chaos. The resulting instability will not help produce one union job for our members. It will, however, produce an opening for the so-called merit shop.

I implore you to look at this legislation very, very carefully, because the labour legislation in its present form is in fact the envy of the other provinces in Canada, as well as of the United States of America.

If we are going to have Bill 80 jammed down our throat, then have it complaint-driven; I mean, if we're going to have one. I don't see the need of one. If you look at the various collective agreements in the province of Ontario, speaking for my trade, it has about a $33-anhour total package. I don't think anybody was jamming anything down anybody's throat.

As far as the trustees on pension plans are concerned, I will leave that to others to discuss. We don't have that problem. We're mandated by our general president that we're prohibited as international representatives from sitting on local union pension plans across Canada in the individual provinces. I will leave that to others to discuss; we don't have that problem.

I thank you for the time you've given me to present my views in opposition to Bill 80. If there are any questions, I would be only too happy to try to answer them.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Thank you very much for your presentation. In the past the NDP, the government of the day, has normally been labour-driven, or we supposed it was, anyway. In your estimation, why would they bring this bill in then? Any idea?

Mr Phair: I have my suspicions. Whether it's a political payback for somebody, I don't know. I know this much: If the government of the day was either Liberal or Conservative and brought in Bill 80, interfering in the constitution of an autonomous international union, the NDP would be outraged. They would be outraged, as they should be.

Mr Murdoch: The reason I ask that is I'm trying to understand the bill, why it would be brought in by an NDP government. On the Conservative side, I'm trying to understand the bill and see if there are merits to it. Maybe I should support it. Maybe there aren't merits to it. What I'm hearing, especially from international unions, is that mainly you're all against it. It just doesn't seem to jibe. Then why did this government bring it in?

Mr Phair: I've heard that there are some who are disgruntled with their internationals, or that their internationals have used heavy-handed tactics on them. Now, if that's the case, let's get it out in the open. Who are they? I don't know.

I know in our organization we don't seem to have any problem with our local unions; we work harmoniously together. We don't interfere in their local bargaining, notwithstanding that we are the parent body and the parent on the designation. They elect their own bargaining chairmen. We'll sit in on the negotiations to assist if we can. Other than that, they do their own thing.

I keep hearing that somebody is being threatened by their international. I'd like to know who and I'd like to know what happened and when it happened. If that's the case, the Labour Relations Act, in its present form, has an avenue to deal with that, a mechanism to deal with that situation.

Mr Murdoch: That was my next question.

Mr Phair: You just don't unilaterally walk in and place a local union in the province of Ontario, or any province for that matter, under trusteeship or remove an agent because you don't like the colour of his hair. You'd better have a good reason.

1630

Mr Murdoch: So if my area local union had problems with its international, then there is a way. They would go to the labour board and they would have a chance to bring the international in and talk this all out.

Mr Phair: That's right. Under the appropriate section of the act, it says you will not coerce or intimidate anyone to join or not to join. I don't agree with any international coming in and just snatching somebody because they don't like the colour of their clothes or they don't like the person as an individual. I disagree with that. Our local unions are autonomous, I can appreciate that, but the act in its present form protects those local unions, I can assure you of that.

Mr Murdoch: We have commissions in Ontario, not in our unions, but commissions that come in, and if they don't like the colour of your barn or something like that, they make you tear it down. We do have the Niagara Escarpment Commission which probably has caused a bit of this trouble, because if you're under that jurisdiction you certainly wouldn't like that. That's another thing, but they do that.

Mr Phair: It's strange. There have been MPPs who have been kicked out of cabinet because they didn't support the government of the day's policy. We don't do that.

Mr Mahoney: Or suspended.

Mr Phair: Or suspended.

The Chair: Mr Murdoch, did you wish to leave time for Mr Jordan?

Mr Murdoch: Yes.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Mr Phair, I would like to draw your attention to the last paragraph on the first page and ask if you could just explain that a little more for me, where it says, "In other words, if one of our local unions went on an illegal strike or a slowdown it is the international and the Ironworkers District Council of Ontario that are responsible and accountable to see that an illegal strike does not occur."

Mr Phair: That's right. If one of our locals walked off a job, it's incumbent upon the international and the president of the district council to get those people back to work and get them back immediately, because if not, then we're subject to the damages. We are subject to damages, so it's incumbent that we get them back to work.

However, if Bill 80 comes in in its present form, like I said later on in the report, you could have an agent who might say: "Wait a minute, you're interfering. Yes, you may think I'm on an illegal strike. I don't, and you're interfering with my local union autonomy." All the while the job's tied up, the contractor's losing a fortune, and you know what the client's going to do: perhaps kick the contractor off the job and could conceivably go non-union. There's an opening for the merit shop division to come in.

Mr James Cole: Can I say something on that?

The Chair: Certainly, sir.

Mr Cole: I'm Jim Cole, general treasurer of the Ironworkers international. A collective agreement is between the international and the district council. They are signatories to the agreement, so consequently for any violations under the agreement, any illegal actions, we're liable to suit and liable to damages; in other words, a suit could be brought against us.

There was a suit years ago down in the state of Illinois, where for three days the damages were over $1 million. It was a nuclear powerhouse. The damages were not only for the men being off the job for the three days, but they also had damages computed with respect to if that plant had started three days earlier; on the other end, you also owed damages for that. So it's a very serious situation.

Mr Phair: Just as a comment also, we had a local union in this province that for approximately a year and a half had a terrible time with in-fighting. There were criminal charges laid, just a numerous amount of complaints went on. Our general president called me and said: "What do you think, Jimmy? Should we go in and take a look at this situation, because I'm getting letters sent here from people requesting that we put the local under trusteeship because of criminal charges."

My position to the general president was, "In this country a man's innocent until proven guilty, and until that time, until they're proven guilty, we're going to stay with those agents and the executive board of that local union and we're going to support them." We did not put them under trusteeship. Lo and behold, the agents and the executive board were cleared of all criminal charges and just won an election. But we did not put them under trusteeship.

Mr Cole: Let just add to that also. With respect to placing a local union under financial supervision, the clearest and cleanest-cut reason is when the local union is indebted to the international, seriously indebted in money. In that particular situation, besides everything else that Brother Phair just referred to, that local union was seriously indebted and remains seriously indebted, and we are still working with the local union rather than coming in with a heavy hand and taking over the local union.

The last thing in the world we as an international union want to do is to place a local union under supervision. We want them to be autonomous. We want them to run their own affairs. We do everything possible to work with them before we get into that.

Mr Cooper: Mr Phair and Mr Cole, thank you for your presentation. My first question is, have you seen the government's proposed revisions?

Mr Phair: Yes, we have.

Mr Cooper: All right. You alluded in your brief to the mobility issue, and with the dropping of the successorship, section 138.6, that should take care of the mobility problem. Agreed?

Mr Phair: I'm sorry. I don't have the revised copy in front of me. But you were saying if we dropped the --

Mr Cooper: The minister has assured people that he would drop the successorship section of Bill 80.

Mr Phair: Successorship?

Mr Cooper: And that should cure the problem of the mobility, the problem of people working between provinces or in the United States.

Mr Phair: No, and I'll tell you why. Even without that section in it, Bill 80 has the potential of causing chaos in the industry, and when it comes to mobility, we have to depend on our contractors. We have to depend on our clients to build, develop, put money into the province. Nobody is going to come in here and develop anything if there is the potential of labour unrest. The act, in its present form, keeps stability within the industry. We're just coming through a tremendous recession. Some will tell you it's over; I don't believe them, but they say it's over. I've got a bunch of members that'll agree with me too that it's not over.

I think the other thing we have to look at is that whether or not you agree or disagree with the free trade agreement, whether or not you agree or disagree with NAFTA, it looks like we're going to have one. It looks like Mr Bush is going to get his way, or Mr Clinton is going to get his way. I don't think now is the time to dismantle a structure that has worked very well, especially since 1978. International unions have been around -- in our case, in 1996 our international will be 100 years of age, and probably 70 of those years I would say have been spent in Canada, parts of Canada. So our structure has worked well as an international.

We had turmoil prior to 1978 in the province of Ontario. That was corrected by way of accreditation, designation, province-wide certification. I don't want to lose that; I don't want to see us lose that. I know in our case, with the Ironworkers, we have not had a strike in the province of Ontario since -- I believe 1970 was the last one we had, or 1971.

Mr Cooper: Have you seen the revisions put forward by the Canadian building trades department?

Mr Phair: I have. I was a part of the Canadian building trades department.

Mr Cooper: If they were implemented the way they're written, would that avoid chaos?

Mr Phair: I'm not sure that it would avoid chaos. It may weaken the bill to the extent that people may still want to develop -- economic development in Ontario. I'm very concerned with the bill in general. Any time you try to fix something that is not broken, I have grave concerns.

Mr Cooper: One of the problems is that some people have suggested it is broken.

Mr Phair: I understand that, but with all due respect, I said earlier that if that was the case, please come forward and let's deal with it. Let's find out who they are.

Mr Cooper: Hopefully, they will come forward during the presentations. Thank you very much.

1640

Mr Mahoney: I heard the parliamentary assistant say earlier that this came about as a result of input received from the labour movement over Bill 40 that showed there were problems that needed to be resolved and here it is in Bill 80. Yet I heard the minister say yesterday that this came about as a result of things he heard in his many years as Labour critic, when he did the job I'm currently doing.

There's a little contradiction there that I don't quite understand. Could you, Jimmy, tell me how many supervisions, trusteeships or suspensions you have been involved with with your group in the last five years?

Mr Phair: None, absolutely none.

Mr Mahoney: In the last 10 years?

Mr Phair: In 1981, I was involved in investigating a local union in Calgary, Alberta. We had an unscrupulous business agent who absconded with $1.5 million. We damned sure put it under supervision real quick, and got the money back too.

Mr Mahoney: I suspect the members of that union were happy you did it.

Mr Phair: Extremely happy.

Mr Mahoney: And you got the money back, so you solved the problem.

Mr Phair: That's right.

Mr Mahoney: How do you see that working now? Let's say we have, God forbid, an unscrupulous business agent somewhere in a union here in Ontario who is accused of going off with money. If Bill 80 passes, how is it going to work?

Mr Phair: I believe it still says in the revised copy: "The parent trade union or a council of trade unions shall not, without just cause, change the duties of or impose a penalty on an elected or appointed official of a local trade union." Again, you could get into a long, drawn-out labour board situation.

Mr Mahoney: Trying to prove what, just cause?

Mr Phair: Just cause, and the labour board will say: "Well, wait a minute. We'd better see what the court's going to do if in fact criminal charges are laid." Here you've got a local union that's being run by nobody.

Mr Mahoney: Do you know of any jurisdiction anywhere where a government has come in and arbitrarily interfered in the constitution of a duly elected democratic union?

Mr Phair: No, sir.

Mr Mahoney: Anywhere?

Mr Phair: No, sir, not in Canada. Maybe in some of the countries that are under dictatorship, but not in Canada.

Mr Mahoney: So we've come to the conclusion here, and there are a lot of people in the room who have told me this too, "We don't have a problem with trusteeships." I heard a figure in the whole construction industry that might have been something like seven in the last seven years; not full trusteeships, but some kind of disciplinary action that was taken, all of which were resolved to the satisfaction of everybody concerned.

There's a system in place that allows for self-discipline within the trade labour movement, within the construction trade labour movement, that has been working well. We don't have supervisions, we don't have trusteeships, we don't have suspensions and we apparently don't have business agents running off with the money or whatever.

Mr Phair: No.

Mr Mahoney: Yet we hear people say, as you said earlier, that this is a payback to somebody. Could you tell me who? Can you really put a handle on that?

Mr Phair: In my personal opinion, there is a payback to Bob White.

Mr Mahoney: Let's just explore that. He wants to do what, expand the membership of the CLC?

Mr Phair: He has. He has a construction division that he is setting up, or that is set up, within the CLC.

Mr Mahoney: And the Canadian Federation of Labour, to which you are all affiliated --

Mr Phair: No, we are not affiliated.

Mr Mahoney: You are not, but most people in the construction trades labour movement are affiliated with the CFL. It started out, I guess, as a breakaway group many years ago in dispute over -- as a matter of fact, I think it was during the time when a guy named Bill Mahoney was vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress, interestingly enough. They broke away because they were unhappy with the way things were being done in the CLC. We've had a sort of a family dispute internally in the national representation at that level, is that accurate?

Mr Phair: That's correct, and it started over our brothers in Quebec. We were being raided as building tradesmen and the CLC either could not or would not -- was powerless to do anything about it and all of the international unions got together and said: "We're certainly not going to finance a body that is in fact raiding us. We're not going to pay somebody to raid us."

The Acting Chair (Mr Paul Klopp): One minute, Mr Mahoney.

Mr Phair: What have we left out?

Mr Mahoney: Just explain to me, and for Hansard purposes, what you mean by the so-called merit shop.

Mr Phair: A non-union shop.

Mr Mahoney: Okay. So you think this would drive contractors and employers, because it would be almost a civil war, in some cases, going on in the construction industry, to the non-union sector.

Mr Phair: I sit on the Construction Industry Advisory Board, and other speakers who will appear before your committee today also sit on the Construction Industry Advisory Board. I have suggested to some of the contractors and associations of which it is made up, on an individual basis, that perhaps they should get involved in Bill 80. The response I got was, "We're sitting back, waiting."

Mr Mahoney: For what?

Mr Phair: At the first sign of crumbling we see, we're going to challenge the designations and we're going to go on our merry way. We're going to do what we want. We're going to break the province-wide certification, and we're going to break the designated contracts.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, sir; time is up. The committee appreciates your points of view. You can follow along the discussions over the next number of weeks. I'm sure you're going to stay involved.

Mr Phair: Thank you.

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS

The Acting Chair: The next presenter is the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Would you please come forward and introduce yourselves; it looks like you have a number of people here. You have about half an hour. You've watched the proceedings and how they go. You can take up the full time -- it's your time -- but we try to leave some room at the end for questions from the three parties. Thank you very much.

Mr Ken J. Woods: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Ken Woods. I'm the Canadian vice-president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

I've distributed briefs to all of the committee members. Don't let that material frighten you. There's a considerable amount of it, but there's a good reason for that. It's to illustrate to this committee that an international union doesn't decide at 1 o'clock on a Friday afternoon that it's going to put one of its locals under supervision or remove an officer. It's done only after very much heartbreaking and painstaking research before that action's taken. The excerpts in the material presented to you with that book merely outline some of the steps that have to be taken.

I'm not going to read our entire brief, but it is a pleasure, and on behalf of the 13,000 IBEW construction workers in this province I thank you for the opportunity to appear and to express our total opposition to Bill 80.

The IBEW is a diversified union. We represent members in all facets of industry: utility workers, public works, clericals, electrical manufacturing, paper mills, government, health care workers; all of these in addition to the 13,000 construction workers in the province of Ontario. We also represent another 10,000 industrial workers in this province and 67,300 workers across the Dominion of Canada.

Therein lies a big problem for us. Bill 80 perplexes our entire membership. Bill 80 divides the IBEW membership, because it takes our constitution, as it relates to our construction workers, and says it cannot be applied. What happens to our industrial workers? We're perplexed, and we wonder why.

It's been asked here, why Bill 80? I'm not going to be shy about it. I think Bill 80 is a direct result of it being payback time to Bob White and the CLC. I'll sit before this committee and say, yes, it's payback time, because we're outside of the Canadian Labour Congress.

It's become glaringly obvious in the sparse debate which has been held on Bill 80 to date that this bill has been brought about by a few dissidents in the building trade unions who have caught the minister's ear. We don't know who they are, and quite frankly we don't care. We run a democratic organization, an autonomous organization. But I suggest to this committee that there's no question about it: If passed into law, Bill 80 would override the building trades' constitutions, remove all stability from the construction industry in this province and place the burden of sorting out the resultant chaos in the hands of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

1650

Now, I ask you, does the Ontario Labour Relations Board want that added burden? Are they better equipped than the experience gained over hundreds of years in representing the construction industry by the Canadian leaders of the building trades unions?

Let's be specific. Before dealing with the encumbrance of Bill 80, which if enacted into law would place upon the operation of the building trades unions, all of them, particularly in the matters of jurisdiction -- you have to be aware of some very key points.

The international union issues a charter to its local or lodge. The local or lodge has agreed, in accepting that charter, that it will be bound by the rules established in the constitution of the parent trade union. The local union charter sets out the type of work which can be performed under that charter and the geographic area in which that local or lodge may perform the work defined.

Further, the local union charter belongs to the international union. The local union exists because of the international, not the reverse. Consequently, the responsibility for the administration of our constitution has to remain with us. Somebody has to be in charge. Somebody has to be able to make a decision on behalf of its members. If that didn't happen, we'd have chaos.

I see that Minister Mackenzie in his opening remarks suggests that one of the reasons for the bill is that the local unions will not have the autonomy to do certain things if they are opposed to the international's constitution or policies. Well, we've got to remember that the international constitution was formed by the members of each organization at convention.

I ask again: What happened to majority rule? We've got a few people who are upset with the system, can't change it from within, and say, "Hey, labour relations board, you look after this for us." I say you're going to bring chaos into the construction industry.

Let's look at some of the material you have, and I'll briefly gloss over this. There's a construction site on the west side of Toronto called the Greenbelt compressor station. There are letters behind tabs 1, 2 and 3 in your binders. That station was being built to pump natural gas into the system in southern Ontario. I was sent a copy of a letter that the owner-client, Union Gas, sent to Nicholls Radtke, and I quote from its letter, that the Nicholls Radtke company had been instructed to recheck every aspect of the electrical installation to confirm that the installation is safe to operate and remained in an as-commissioned state, as previously had been determined.

That tells you one thing: That station had been run in, tested and ready to start pumping gas and the owner-client had reason to believe it was no longer in that state. All of this was brought to my attention as the Canadian director, and I caused an investigation. The investigation proved that this job was three months behind schedule, plagued by late starts, early quits, extended coffee breaks, refusals to work overtime, incompetent and shoddy workmanship, and alleged drinking on the job.

It is interesting, though distressing, to note from the report and the investigation, which comes from the excerpts of the superintendent's diary, that the business agent in charge of that job saw nothing wrong with the men taking an hour for lunch, which in the construction industry is half an hour normally, and said that the drug problem was nation-wide. It was only after I got all this information that I had to report all of this to my superior to get permission to put that job under supervision.

If Bill 80 had been law, what would have been the scenario? I suggest that with Bill 80 as it's presented, and I still don't know which version we're working with, we would have had utter chaos. While I would have been going through the bureaucratic hoops before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, someone could have been hurt or killed or we could have lost the job to the non-union, because Union Gas had indeed threatened Nicholls Radtke that if that job wasn't shaped up, they were going to ship out and the union jobs along with them. That's the facts of life.

We just point this out to say we just don't go around the province as Canadian directors saying, "Today we're going to take this local or we're going to take that job." That's bull. We have better things to do, more productive things to do than to put local unions under supervision or remove officers.

It's been asked in here, how many have had their jurisdictions altered in the last five, 10, 20 years? We've asked the minister to provide us the statistics on that. He can't or he won't. What wrongs is Bill 80 attempting to right? We would like to know. Where is there any proof that would induce the Minister of Labour in the province of Ontario to bring forward the most ill-conceived, pro-non-union legislation ever dreamed up in the western world? We need answers and we would like to have them.

You've got other appendices; they're alpha-numbered A through S. This is just to plainly point out to you that we've got an ongoing problem at the IBEW, the 14 construction locals in the province of Ontario, over jurisdiction and that problem has been ongoing since 1988. This is hardly a case that at five minutes to 5 o'clock I'm going to say, "By 10 after 5, a local's going to be under our jurisdiction." We have tried internally to sort this out and we have not been able to do it. It came about as a result of one local, and it's been referred to earlier. Local 1788, and they're here this evening, had been granted a charter to represent members employed directly by Ontario Hydro. Over the years and through negotiations, it was changed to encroach upon the jurisdiction of the other 13 IBEW locals in the province of Ontario. Since 1988, there have been several meetings to try to mediate that dispute and get it back on the rails so we could get some agreement of parties, but to no avail.

The international's position since 1988 has been consistently that when the work is being done by employees directly hired by Ontario Hydro, it is a jurisdiction of Local 1788. When contracted out to the private sector, it is a work of the local union whose territorial jurisdiction is where it's being performed. With the downturn of the economy, this problem has become more and more visible. Jobs are becoming more and more scarce. It is a problem that is out there and it's real.

The remaining tabs on that alpha series of appendices are merely letters from local unions involved in this dispute either demanding that I do something about this -- and speakers who come behind me are going to say, "Woods asked for those letters," and yes, Woods did ask for those letters, because Bill 80 was on the paper and I wasn't going to throw fuel to the fire of the NDP government to say, "Well, there we go again." The majority of locals have responded and said, "Yes, straighten the mess out."

This just illustrates that jurisdiction is a very, very complex matter. Contrary to what the minister has been told, international unions are not running around this province willy-nilly placing local unions under supervision. Again we have to ask, is the OLRB better equipped than 100 years of experience gained by the leaders of the building trades unions in this province? Does the board want that responsibility?

Finally, other than the legal community, if Bill 80 is passed, who's going to win? It's been suggested that Bill 80 is a direct contravention of ILO Convention 87, and it is. The International Labour Organization Convention 87 gives the right to people to organize, to formulate rules, to make their constitutions, and it says that the public authority has no right interfering or restricting the lawful exercise of those rights. That's an ILO convention ratified by Canada.

1700

Part of our constitutional rules clearly gives the right to discipline members, to discipline officers. Do not the Elks, the Kiwanis, the Knights of Columbus and political parties have rules to govern their affairs and discipline their members if they get out of line? We've asked the minister for proof where we've abused our locals. We've been offered no proof. We suggest he has none.

He's been asked by members of this committee tonight, "How many supervisions have you had in the IBEW in the last 21 years?" In the last 21 years, in all of Canada, four supervisions. Two of them were requested by the local union, and it was the same local twice, because they couldn't handle their financial affairs. So in 21 years, the time I've been involved with this international union, we've had two supervisions imposed by an international. The last trusteeship in Ontario was 15 years ago. I suggest to you that this is hardly an orgy of unbridled interference in the affairs of local unions.

You've got behind tab 5 a sample letter which is necessary in my organization for me to be able to put a local union under supervision, and contrary to what the minister has been told, this local was not put under supervision because they had a kids' party. If you note behind tab 5, that letter says there were eight multifaceted charges against the local union for whatever was going on that was contrary to the constitution, laws or bylaws of that particular local union.

Trusteeships are put on only when absolutely required. In our organization, the international president, at the recommendation of the Canadian director, which is myself, imposes the trusteeship. That trusteeship is reviewed by a different body every six months, our international executive council.

Every organization has to have rules, someone has to administer those rules and someone has to be in charge, and our members and the members of every other building trades union have every legal and moral right and reason to expect that our rules will be adhered to in all respects and by all members, or the defending who put his hand in the air or her hand in the air and agreed to abide by the rules and the constitution is subject to the discipline set out in those constitutions. What disciplinary rules does the NDP have when its members step off the line? We wonder. Just think about it.

We're being singled out on this, and yet you're going to hear presentations from other organizations that will suggest to you that there are other industrial unions, unions that belong to the Canadian Labour Congress. They've got constitutions, they have laws. This legislation doesn't dump all over them. Why not? Give us a break.

The courts in this country have been loath to meddle in the affairs of international constitutions. In your binders behind tab 6, there's an Ontario Supreme Court decision rendered by Mr Justice Reid taken against an application by some members in the province of Ontario for an injunction to stay a decision of the Canadian vice-president. Mr Justice Reid -- I think it's very important -- on page 2 of that decision said:

"Courts as a rule refrain from interfering in the affairs of unions or, for that matter, of other organizations where an appeal or equivalent alternative remedy exists."

Further, at page 6, Mr Justice Reid said:

"I think that it is by now accepted by courts, particularly those called upon to exercise a supervisory role, that in general, the internal problems of unions should be settled internally. If the courts were too ready to intervene in the internal affairs of unions, they would, in my opinion, demonstrate an inappropriate disrespect for the union movement and all that it has achieved."

I ask you, Mr Chairman and members of this committee, if the courts are so very reluctant to interfere in our internal affairs, why is this government? What is going on here?

I won't deal with the last section. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure which bill we're dealing with here, to tell you the truth. The last section on trustees over health and welfare and pension plans -- our union, the IBEW, is involved in that and, again, it depends on which version of the bill we're dealing with, but it either suggests that a majority of the trustees come from the local unions in Ontario or the majority of the unions.

If you could tell me, depending on what set of rules -- because we have members in Ontario paying into an IBEW pension plan -- because we've got 6% of the contributors in Ontario that should generate a majority of the trustees, whether even we should have 6% of the trustees. If you've got 6% of the trustees, how does the minister intend to regulate 6% of the trustees? We don't know.

We thank you for your time. We'd be glad to try and answer any of your questions.

Mr Cooper: Thank you, Mr Woods, for your presentation. As for that last statement, what they're discussing now within the ministry is a proportionate number. If it's 6% represented in the province of Ontario, then they would carry something like 6% on the benefit plan, when you're talking Canada-wide or an international benefit plan, rather than the majority. That's the one thing they're discussing, so that Ontario wouldn't carry a majority if they don't have the majority in the benefit plan.

Mr Woods: But even at that --

Mr Cooper: They're talking proportionate.

Mr Woods: -- how do you get 6% of the trustees on pension?

Mr Cooper: I realize that's something that will have to be worked out. My first question is, have you seen the proposed revisions?

Mr Woods: Yes.

Mr Cooper: And if you have, is your brief towards the proposed revisions or towards the original Bill 80?

Mr Woods: We don't know. As I said, I'm not too awfully sure just what version we are addressing. I've heard it both ways and, believe me, I wish I knew.

Mr Cooper: The first thing I'd like to state is I can't see where you see that Bill 80 is an accusation. Obviously you've stated that there haven't been many jurisdiction disputes and there haven't been many trusteeships. I don't see where this is going to create chaos by giving more fairness to the workers in the province of Ontario. I don't see where the chaos is going to come just because there's more fairness.

Mr Woods: The fairness is there in the beginning. This is exactly our point. Our members set our constitutions at convention. They've agreed that, "By God, I'm a member of this organization; I'll live by the rules." Why should we go outside of our own constitution? It's worked well to date; very, very well.

Mr Cooper: Thank you.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Woods, sorry I was not here for the beginning but let me, first of all, compliment you. This is a very, very thorough analysis and a very helpful brief for many of us.

Bill 80 has been hard for a lot of people around here to understand because we haven't been able to get a handle on why. Whether you agreed or disagreed with Bill 40, at least you could understand why it was being done and where it was coming from.

Could you answer the question that if this is so good for the construction sector, why would they not apply this to the international unions in the industrial sector, ie, steel and others?

Mr Woods: I'm flabbergasted, to tell you the truth. Mr Cooper earlier on said that Bill 80 seemed to be part of Bill 40. I don't ever recall that, but I'll just advance this: Bill 40 was good for the trade union movement generally. Bill 80 is bad for just one sector. I made it in my remarks. I have no illusions why Bill 80 is directed at the international building trades unions: It's payback time to the CLC. Let's not kid ourselves.

1710

Mr Mahoney: But if the government can simply pass legislation that allows it to arbitrarily and unilaterally interfere with a duly passed constitution in a democratic union within the construction industry, what is there, in your view, that might stop it from expanding that either to the industrial unions or even to the CLC itself? I don't want to be overly dramatic, but isn't this a little bit like Big Brother sticking its hand in somewhere where it need not go?

Mr Woods: Absolutely.

Mr Mahoney: How do you think Leo Gerard would feel about this if we brought it into steel?

Mr Woods: I imagine he'd be at this committee or he'd apply for time at this committee.

Mr Mahoney: Why is he not here now?

Mr Woods: I have no idea.

Mr Mahoney: What do you think?

Mr Woods: I think he isn't here because he doesn't want to be here. He'd like to see us get it stuck to us because we're not members of the CLC.

Mr Mahoney: What do you think the main role of the OLRB is or should be in our society today?

Mr Woods: To deal with matters on applications of certification, unfair labour practices when such are made in certification proceedings and, as it's constituted, the OLRB's role in determining jurisdictional disputes which are done within the guidelines established by the agreements of record by the international building trades unions in any event.

Mr Mahoney: They're going to have a lot more to do with this, aren't they?

Mr Woods: Are they ever.

Mr Mahoney: Thanks very much.

Mr Woods: I wouldn't want the job, sir.

Mr Murdoch: You're going to wonder where I'm coming from, because I don't understand this bill yet either and I haven't decided which way to vote on it even. That's why I'm here, to listen to you people. It seems funny, ironically, that the NDP government would support stable funding, which is creating a lobby group or a fatherhood or a motherhood group at the top for the farmers, and then they come around with this bill and it looks like they're trying to rid of the top group and give it back down to the locals. So I don't know where they're coming from and I hope some day somebody will explain it.

But to get it on the record, and I think you have a copy of a letter that was sent to me from your local, and you mentioned it, 1788, and they do complain. We've sat here and we've listened to other organizations like yourselves say, "We don't know where the problem's coming from." I guess this is one group that does have a problem with your organization, and I think it should be on the record that they do and they sent me a letter that their 503 members voted in support of Bill 80. So I guess there are some people out there upset. Now, they're just saying that you interfere and things like that, but you did mention in your presentation there was a problem there and you may want to say a few things. But I think it should be on the record that they did complain and they sent a letter to me about it. So they have a right to do that.

Mr Woods: Absolutely, they have the right to do that and I'll uphold their right to do that, but in the meantime there is a genuine problem in the real world and it has to be dealt with in the real world. The only way that it can be dealt with in the real world is per our constitutions and, as I said before, the buck has to stop somewhere.

Mr Murdoch: They may come and make a presentation.

Mr Woods: And I hope it's not going to be at the OLRB, because they scare me.

Mr Mahoney: Better them than the minister.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and each of you gentlemen for appearing before the committee this afternoon. Your verbal and written presentations become part of the official record of the committee and we trust that you'll stay in touch with the committee either through the clerk or through any of the sitting members of the committee as we continue the process of hearing Bill 80. Thank you very much for taking the time to appear this afternoon.

Mr Woods: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

WALLY MAJESKY

The Chair: The next scheduled witness is Wally Majesky. Good afternoon, sir, and welcome. You've been allocated one half-hour for your presentation and I know that the committee would appreciate at least half of that for questions and answers.

Mr Wally Majesky: Let me explain who I am. I'm not here speaking on behalf of any organization. I have been a member of the IBEW for 42 years, probably longer than Brother Ken Woods, so my credentials in the IBEW run long and deep.

I guess I was kind of amazed, listening to -- reading Hansards and reading the criticisms by Mahoney, kind of wrapping himself in his father's reputation. Too bad Bill Mahoney wouldn't be living, because I would bet a million dollars to a penny he would probably support these amendments, but we'll never know that.

Mr Mahoney: Don't go betting on that one, Wally. You're out to lunch on that one.

Mr Majesky: There are no free lunches, my friend. I guess the problem I have is, I quite frankly don't see Bill 80 as infringing on anything. I quite frankly think Bill 80 is a question of union democracy. It's a question of no one imposing their will on local unions. I'm going to kind of bring you down to where I was involved, so I can't speak on behalf of the boilermakers or the painters, but I'm going to somehow take you through how Brother Ken Woods very clearly, somehow, didn't talk about the last trusteeship in 15 years.

Fairly obviously, in 1977, Local 353 had a strike around the whole question of work-sharing. At that time, Brother Ken Rose, who was the predecessor to Ken Woods, arbitrarily said -- your local union bylaws clearly say that for ratification of any kind of agreement, you call a general meeting and you vote it up or down. Well, for some reason, the international vice-president didn't think that was quite right. He thought we should have a mail-in ballot. I thought democracy says you respect what the people have in the local union. Well, they had a mail-in ballot, and fairly obviously it caused a lot of friction in the local union. No question where I was on the issue: I was totally opposed.

So that resolved into a situation where the international vice-president came down to the local union to explain his position. I guess he had a rough ride, and I led the charge, quite frankly. I don't like anyone imposing something called the constitution in the best interests when you override the constitution of a local union bylaw.

Well, I guess some people take exception to that, and ultimately the local union was put into trusteeship. Some of the rationale for it was that the international vice-president was abused in kind of a vile manner. Well, it's fairly obvious that in democracy, one has the right to dissent. That's a tradition we have in this country, and if I get up and disagree with you, I don't consider that to be abusive and vile.

I have a kind of anecdotal thing: I guess if the IBEW were to sit in the House at any given point in time and were the Speaker of the House, and seeing the level of discussion in the House, I would imagine they'd put the House into trusteeship for 100 years because of, quite frankly, that kind of discussion and dissent, which is healthy in a democratic society.

But I guess really what I find offensive about that is that when we had a situation in the local which was put into trusteeship -- and Brother Ken Woods is quite right; there are eight pages. But to cite that a local union expends $10,000 for a Christmas party and didn't get the authorization of the international office as a reason for putting into trusteeship, quite frankly, I don't think anyone has the right. The local union expended its moneys, duly supported by the local union, on a Christmas party. That's like motherhood and apple pie.

But it's kind of interesting, the reasoning behind that: "You didn't get the authorization." Well, they never had the authorization for 20 years, and quite frankly I'd make the argument that no organization can come into a local union and somehow say, "If you're going to give to multiple sclerosis or to pensioners or to a Christmas party, you have to have our authorization." It's not their moneys; it's the local union's money.

So it's kind of interesting when one talks about -- and I heard someone saying, "Wouldn't it be awful if the government came in and rewrote your constitution?" Well, there's kind of an anecdotal story to this. Not only was the local put into trusteeship, but lo and behold, during the trusteeship, the international took it upon itself to rewrite the local union constitution and bylaws, to reaffirm the mail-in ballots and, more interestingly, to hold off elections for two years, because when the trusteeship expired in 1979, you couldn't hold elections for the next two years.

1720

It's kind of interesting when one thinks about the dynamics of what happens. I hear Brother Ken Woods talk about democracy. I'm very much interested in democracy, but I'm kind of interested when you can take the whole executive board and lay charges against them, and one of the charges is that you attended a meeting in the province of Ontario where you were opposed to the whole question of provincial bargaining. That is deemed to be unpatriotic and not in the best interests of the international. Quite frankly, I have the right to attend any meeting I want. I have the right to dissent. Ultimately what happens is that not only was the local put into trusteeship, the officers were removed, the president was removed, suspended and banned from office for five years and three other officers were suspended and banned from holding office for five years.

This isn't some pie-in-the-sky kind of a concept, when you say eight pages, but one of the reasons is expenditures for a Christmas party. The second reason is someone attended a meeting because there are a bunch of people out there who are opposed to provincial bargaining. I don't quite frankly think that's democracy. I think that's somehow a threat to democracy and I take very strong exception to that. There's an irony to it. I was there, for some reason they left me alone. I don't know why they didn't suspend me; but I guess I was small fish at that point and they didn't suspend me.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that this has nothing to do with some of the things people are talking about. It doesn't do anything for me, and I read Hansard and Mr Mahoney said that I wouldn't be able to work in the Bay of Quinte. Yes, I think I could. It doesn't do anything for my mobility, quite frankly. I can still travel around if I want to. I don't think it's an infringement on any kind of democratic rights or whatever, but I'll tell you what I take exception to. I don't like anybody coming in and overriding something where I'm a part of an organization and that organization somehow voted to do something, and then, under something called the best interests of the international, imposing a trusteeship. Quite frankly, I hear someone saying, "What's in it for Bob White?" There's not diddly in it for Bob White. This doesn't do anything for the industrial unions, for Leo Gerard and whatever.

I think what drove this whole process is this whole question of union democracy, the respect of people's rights and everything that goes with it.

I find it ironic in one of the presentations that was made that this was one of the reasons the building trades pulled out of the congress and legitimately there's a very serious problem in the province of Quebec. The second reason that the building trades pulled out of the congress is that they didn't like the representation issue. They didn't like one local having one vote and being overwhelmed by CUPE, and they wanted proportional representation. It's funny how democracy works. Ken Woods, ironically, is elected on that same principle. Every five years now he will go there, if someone should run against him, and one local, one vote is the kind of process they have.

So I have some problems when people talk to me about democracy and everything else. I think what's driving this process is just the whole question of democracy, abuse of democracy and the rights of individuals to make those decisions. If you've got your hand in the till, my friend, you should go to jail -- no question about it -- if some local secretary-treasurer takes money. I don't think that's the issue here. I think the whole issue was here eight years ago. I read Hansard eight years ago. I will give you an article that Wilf List wrote in 1977, 1978, 1981 and 1982. This thing has been around for a long time, and for the very first time it was put forward. I'm not saying this is in the majority. I'm not making that case at all. And Ken may be right, there were four trusteeships, but I'll tell you, when I was in that local one trusteeship for me was enough. I don't like being trampled on. I don't like to have my civil rights abused, and I don't like anyone telling a local union what's in their best interests when the local union membership made those decisions.

I understand the constitution. Ken is right. No question about it. You go to an international convention, you argue it out, you have the right to make whatever changes. It's not easy and you can do that, but what I don't like is someone coming in and imposing their will upon me. Those are my presentations and it's open to questions.

Mr Mahoney: Wally, you make a good argument for the people against it, interestingly enough. I'm also quite impressed that you'd take all this time to read Hansard, and if you don't mind, I'll do what I want with my Dad's reputation.

Mr Majesky: You can.

Mr Mahoney: You bet.

Mr Majesky: You quoted him, so I thought it was only --

Mr Mahoney: Let me tell you there were some quotes that were very interesting because in the 1950s and the 1960s this was quite an ongoing debate, the role of the international versus the national, and there were a lot of people in steel at conventions who were arguing that they should break away as Bob White subsequently did with auto, God bless him. Interesting as hell now, though, that the president of steel in Pittsburgh is a wonderful man, a Canadian, wonderful guy.

Mr Majesky: You never met him, but he did something for your mother in the way of a pension.

Mr Mahoney: Yes, he did. That's right.

Mr Majesky: Just shows you I've read Hansard.

Mr Mahoney: That's good. I'm impressed. Of course, Leo is hurrying off and scurrying off down to Pittsburgh as well.

Mr Majesky: The number two guy.

Mr Mahoney: So there's an ongoing relationship with the international. One of the quotes, Wally, that I used that you may or may not have come across was that the real issue here is not who bosses who; the real issue here is success for the members. It's jobs. It's getting on with economic growth. It's building an economy. It's building a union. It's increasing union dues so that the union can better serve the people it serves. It's amalgamating. I was even in Sudbury during the raids. It's even that.

Mr Majesky: I believe there were some Nazis there.

Mr Mahoney: I hear there were Nazis up there, yes.

Mr Majesky: It was in the paper.

Mr Mahoney: I understand that. I might tell you, those were quotes not only from my father but from other labour leaders who understood that the argument was not whether a paycheque came from Pittsburgh; the argument was whether or not they truly had local autonomy.

Let me just ask you. You say that you totally object to someone coming in and telling you what to do in relationship to the business you want to carry on in the local that you're involved in. That's what I hear everybody saying who's opposed to Bill 80. So what's the difference if an international comes in -- and you heard about the record of the IBEW in 21 years.

Mr Majesky: Do you know what the answer is?

Mr Mahoney: I'm going to give you a chance to answer it when I'm finished asking it. You heard about the record in the IBEW. You heard about the record of the deputation before that when Jimmy came forward. You've heard about the number of cases we're dealing with here.

If it's not the CLC issue, and let's say I accept that it's not -- I'd find it funny as to why Bob wouldn't be busy with many other things rather than be involved in this -- what the hell is driving this? Is it Wally Majesky? Have you got your nose in the minister's face, Wally? Are you telling him to do this?

Mr Majesky: Why the hell would Bob listen to me, for Christ's sake? I'm telling you of my personal experience and how I was affected. I'm not talking about whether it's in Bob White's best interests. Quite frankly, Bob White and CUPE can raid IBEW if they want to, without the amendments. That's not driving the process. All I said was, I thought that the actions, when I was involved in my local union, were arbitrary and a contradiction of union democracy. So you can read into it Leo Gerard, you can read it as a payback to Bob White or Buzz or whatever.

My final comment, when you say your dad was a giant in the trade union movement --

Mr Mahoney: I didn't say that.

Mr Majesky: Well, I'm saying that because I recognized him and Larry Sefton and Lynn Williams. I only wish that the IBEW had the kinds of democracy that your father pioneered, still within the context of the international. The Steelworkers are still within the framework of the international.

Mr Mahoney: That's right.

Mr Majesky: The District 6 director and the national director had all kinds of autonomy to do whatever they wanted, and I quite frankly think it's a good model. I don't just think it exists in a lot of other places.

Mr Mahoney: Wally, I can tell you that within that model, the Larry Seftons and the Lynn Williamses and the Bill Mahoneys would strongly object to any government, notwithstanding an NDP government --

Mr Majesky: I --

Mr Mahoney: -- let me finish -- coming in and -- my dad's not here, but Larry is and Lynn is, and I'd like to hear from those people. I'd like to hear from Leo how he'd feel if this government decided to expand Bill 80 outside the construction industry into the steel industry. I'd be delighted to hear how he felt about that. I don't believe for one minute that any of those democratic people you talk about -- and you're right, they all were giants -- would stand for this government interfering and changing their constitution the way they're doing in Bill 80.

Mr Majesky: Thirty seconds: If Local 1005 or 6500 made a decision of how they wanted to ratify a contract, I'll bet you my life that Lynn Williams or Larry Sefton wouldn't come in and say, "Screw your local union bylaw, but we're going to tell you how you're going to ratify that agreement." I'll tell you that, I'll bet a million dollars to a penny, and if I am wrong, you contradict me whether the Steelworkers would come into Sudbury or Hamilton and tell them how to ratify their agreement.

Mr Mahoney: The fact of the matter is that it hasn't happened.

Mr Majesky: That's right, because they've got the autonomy.

1730

Mr Mahoney: The fact of the matter is that there's a very good working relationship. The national director in steel gets his money, in American money, from Pittsburgh --

Mr Majesky: I know where he gets it from.

Mr Mahoney: -- and has for years and there ain't a problem. The fact that we've sent such good-quality people down to Pittsburgh in steel --

Mr Majesky: Are you taking credit for that or what?

Mr Mahoney: No, I'm not taking credit.

Mr Majesky: Larry Sefton would roll in his grave to hear you take credit for the success of the Steelworkers, for Christ's sake.

Mr Mahoney: I'm not taking credit for that.

Mr Majesky: See you don't suck and blow at the same time.

Mr Mahoney: Hey, Majesky, I'm not taking credit for that, but let me tell you something. When I say "we" I'm talking about Canadians.

Mr Majesky: Okay.

Mr Mahoney: I'm talking about Canadians who can be proud of the record that's there.

Mr Majesky: They should be.

Mr Mahoney: The point is very simply that the industrial unions, never mind rolling over in graves -- there will be war on the front steps of this building if this government tries to go in and arbitrarily change their constitutions, and you know damn well there will be, so don't tell me there won't.

Mr Majesky: If you're going to tell me there's going to be war over Bill 80 and those three Mickey Mouse amendments, then you're smoking something. I don't know what the hell you've got, but there ain't going to be a war around this.

Mr Murdoch: I haven't had a chance to talk to you before, but you really haven't answered Steve's question, though.

Mr Majesky: Which is?

Mr Murdoch: What do you think is driving this bill? We've sat here today and we've heard from different internationals that say they don't have a problem. You did have a problem in your union and that's fine --

Mr Majesky: That's what I think is driving the bill.

Mr Murdoch: Just your problem?

Mr Majesky: No, that problem, that question about some people having to be put into trusteeship.

Mr Murdoch: But we haven't heard of any others, though. That's the problem.

Mr Majesky: There are other locals, but I'm sure they'll show up in the next day or two. I don't want to speak on their behalf. I came down to speak to my own personal experience in my local union.

Mr Murdoch: All right. But you think that's why --

Mr Majesky: I would put it this way. If the trusteeships weren't imposed, I don't think you'd see these amendments.

Mr Murdoch: The argument is, though, that when you sign up as a union member, you sign up to your own local union, and you know what the constitution says, you know what the rules are. If you want to play the game, that's the way you play it. If you break the rules, that's what the international's there for, to come down and keep peace within the market. Sometimes I guess they have to do that. But if we have this bill, they say there's going to be chaos out there. What about that?

Mr Majesky: I don't think there's going to be chaos out there, but I can't disagree with Brother Ken Woods that there is a constitution internationally and that those are the overriding rules. Those are the kinds of principles that -- whatever. If I don't like them, I have on occasion, as Ken knows, gone to the international, got my head kicked in, couldn't change them. I don't have any problems with that.

In the case of the local I'm citing, I took strong exception to how they handled that specific issue. That's all I'm saying. I'm not arguing that he's a bad person or they shouldn't have a set of rules. I honestly believe they should. All I'm saying is -- he's right; seven pages of charges. I wouldn't mind if they said someone was stealing money and took a trip to Puerto Rico, but to cite as one of the examples that you held a Christmas party and didn't get their authorization -- why the hell should I have to get anyone's authorization? It's motherhood and apple pie.

Mr Murdoch: I can agree totally with that, but do you think that's a strong enough issue to have Bill 80? Most of them are saying: "Let's just scrap Bill 80. We don't really need it."

Mr Majesky: The thing that really bothers me philosophically is not that. If you put a local into trusteeship, that's one thing; in 12 months it's over, that should be the end, and the membership will then decide what it wants to do. What I found kind of repugnant is that someone said, "Would you like the Ontario Labour Relations Board to rewrite your own constitution?" What I quite frankly took exception to was someone coming in and saying, "Hey guys, during this time you were in trusteeship or whatever, we rewrote the bylaws." I said, "With whose authority?" "Well, with ours. We have it. It's in the best interests of the international union."

I don't like that. It goes against my grain to say, first of all, "You will not have elections in this local for two more years." The elections proved fruitful and ultimately all these people who got suspended got elected and they rechanged the bylaws and democracy rules again, but I just found those actions totally alien to me.

Mr Murdoch: Would it not be better, though, to try to change that within your union, within your local, when you go to international, rather than have a Bill 80 and have government interference?

Mr Majesky: Look, I'm a great believer that every four years you take a whack and you go down there and say, "Hey, look, why don't we curtail the rights of the international unions to do that?" I've taken a whack at it and quite frankly wasn't overly successful.

Mr Murdoch: But maybe next time.

Mr Majesky: It's a very overpowering process to go down to an international convention and try to change it. I've done it. I abide by the rules and I took a whack at it. As everyone knows, I will argue the whole question of Canadian autonomy, that the IBEW should have a Canadian convention. I believed it then and believe it now. The fact of the matter is that I can't make that political change. I keep arguing, I keep arguing and I keep losing.

Mr Murdoch: The concern I would have is Bill 80. That's government interfering. I don't think you need that. You'd be far better off if you had less government in your lives.

Mr Majesky: If you're asking me a question, if the track record in the trusteeship had been clean, I don't think you'd ever see these amendments. Someone can read into it whatever the hell they want: that this is a payoff to Buzz Hargrove, Bob White, Leo Gerard --

Mr Murdoch: I don't know about that. I'm here just to listen. Thank you.

Mr Cooper: Mr Majesky, do you think your problem would have been solved if Bill 80 had been in effect at the time of the trusteeship?

Mr Majesky: Sure. You would have had to give some justification; you just can't come in and put it into trusteeship. Yes, I think it would have made it a lot tougher to do that.

Mr Cooper: Do you feel Bill 80 unjustifiably interferes with international constitutions?

Mr Majesky: Well, it's fairly obvious that it impinges upon it. It's fairly obvious the international will argue, "We can do everything in our best interests," which is how they define it, and what this then says is, "No, we don't quite think it's in the best interests if you do something to hurt the local."

Yes, I think there's some impingement, but in a society there's got to be protection for someone. I don't think the be-all and end-all is the IBEW; neither do I see the be-all and end-all is the government. But if you see an abuse, there's got to be some resolution, and I think it's a fair compromise. I don't think it's that substantive.

Mr Cooper: We're just lucky we have extra time here to question you. On the trusteeship, that's complaintdriven. On jurisdiction, the way it's written right now, it has to be justified to the OLRB before they can change jurisdiction. Should that be complaint-driven also, as has been suggested by certain people?

Mr Majesky: Quite frankly, I'm not quite sure.

Mr Cooper: But one of the comments that was made was that you'd be taking up, unnecessarily, a lot of time at the OLRB, because all the jurisdictional disputes would have to go to it first, whereas if it was complaint-driven --

Mr Majesky: First of all, the jurisdiction in the construction trades has been a God-damned fiasco per se. That thing's been around since time immemorial. Would this make it worse? I didn't give it that much thought.

The one area that really concerned me about this bill was the whole question of democracy and protection of one's rights, and I really haven't put my mind around whether it would make it worse on the whole question of jurisdiction. I think the modification in the amendments meets some of the concerns.

Mr Cooper: All right. It's been said that once Bill 80 comes into effect it will create chaos in the construction industry. Is this going to mean that everybody's going to be running out fighting trusteeships or fighting jurisdictional battles? Where do you see them saying the chaos would come in?

Mr Majesky: I don't think there's that much chaos out there. Let me tell you, the construction unions have got enough God-damned problems with non-union contractors without the amendments, so I don't think there's chaos out there for "the union movement" per se.

Let me tell you, the jurisdictional disputes that are out there, no one likes to talk about them. Yes, there's a dispute mechanism, but Jesus Christ, there's more stuff goes to the board on jurisdiction in the building trades. I think that is an issue that's never easily resolved anyway, and it's always been there. I'm not coming down on the side of whatever. There's always the whole jurisdictional -- and I don't think this would exacerbate that per se, from my perspective.

Mr Cooper: Not to put words in your mouth, but what you're saying, basically, is that once Bill 80's passed, the construction industry will get back to work and it will stop this internal problem.

Mr Majesky: Listen, quite frankly, the construction industry has a hell of a lot more problems than this. They've got 50%, 60% of their membership out of work. They've got food banks in local unions. I've never seen it in my 42 years as a member. The economy of the country is extremely important. I wouldn't make a big issue that somehow this is chaos. I don't think it is. It's a difference of opinion, no question about it: mine versus the international union, and it's always been there. It's no great secret about my difference of opinion. In this case the IBEW and I disagree. That's fair; I don't have any problems with that. But I do have some problems when disagreement is then taken out of context: "Because you disagree, Wally, we'll think of some way of" whatever, taking some action.

The Chair: There is time remaining for questions. Any further questions from committee members? No?

I'd like to thank you on behalf of the committee, Mr Majesky, for appearing this afternoon, and I trust you'll stay in touch with the clerk of the committee as we continue the proceedings in Bill 80. Thank you very much.

We are adjourned until Monday, November 22, at 3:30 pm.

The committee adjourned at 1740.