Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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

ONTARIO SHEET METAL WORKERS' AND ROOFERS' CONFERENCE
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 353

LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 183

CONTENTS

Wednesday 24 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

Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference

Jerry Raso, staff legal counsel

George Ward, business manager

Sheet Metal Workers' International Association

James Moffat, business manager, Local 30, Toronto

Al Budway, business agent, Local 30, Toronto

Tim Fenton, business manager, Local 397, Thunder Bay

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353

Joe Fashion, business manager

Bill Robinson, assistant to business manager

Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 183

Keith Cooper, coordinator, legal affairs

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Chair / Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)

*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay/Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne ND)

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

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

*Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)

Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)

*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)

Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)

Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)

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

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

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

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

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound)

Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis

Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1537 in committee room 1.

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

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

The Acting Chair (Mr Dan Waters): I call the meeting to order. This is the standing committee on resources development and the bill we're discussing is Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

ONTARIO SHEET METAL WORKERS' AND ROOFERS' CONFERENCE
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

The Acting Chair: The first person up is actually, I believe, Mr Jerry Raso. I understand we have booked it as three different groups, but in actuality you're all at the table at this moment.

Mr Jerry Raso: All but two other persons, but we're all here.

The Acting Chair: I've talked with some of the committee members. Do you wish to do separate presentations or do you want to do one presentation where all of the members of your group present at once?

Mr Raso: It will be a mix of both. We intend to basically follow the three separate briefs in terms of questions and answers, but the time may overlap. We don't intend to restrict ourselves in terms of time.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You're an attorney? You're representing all three of these groups?

Mr Raso: I'm in-house legal counsel.

Mr Mahoney: The only reason I ask is that I have to go to a House leaders' meeting at some point, so if we're going in one presentation of all three, I may be here for only part of it and another, so it will be a little inconsistent. That's all right, as long as you understand that.

Mr Raso: Yes.

Mr Mahoney: You're presenting for all three, though.

Mr Raso: I'm not the only person talking, no. There will be five or six of us speaking.

The Acting Chair: But if you're dealing with overlaps and you start eating up each of the groups' time, it creates a problem for us, because what we normally do is ask for a 15-minute presentation and 15 minutes for questions. We would do that with each group.

Mr Mahoney: I could leave and not be here in the middle of a presentation, if you follow me.

The Acting Chair: Could we do it that way then, to save confusion?

Mr Raso: Yes.

The Acting Chair: Could you please introduce your first group to the committee, for the sake of Hansard.

Mr Raso: My name is Jerry Raso. I am in-house legal counsel for the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference. To my left is Mr George Ward. He is the business manager of the provincial conference. The conference is the provincial body of 11 Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' locals in Ontario. Also with me in attendance, to my right, is Mr Jim Moffat. He's the business manager of Local 30, Toronto. To my far right is Mr Al Budway. He's the business agent for Local 30. At the very back wall is Mr Owen Pettipas, Local 537, from Hamilton. To his left is Mr Jack Ouellette, business manager, Local 504, Sudbury. Back there is Mr Tim Fenton, the business manager of Local 397, Thunder Bay.

The Acting Chair: You obviously have a presentation. If you wish to do that at this point in time, please do so. As I said before, try to leave some time at the end for some interaction between the committee and yourself.

Mr Raso: As I stated, the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference is the provincial body of the Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' locals in Ontario. There are 11 locals. We represent sheet metal workers and roofers in the province of Ontario in the construction industry. We have approximately 10,000 members.

In terms of the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, the provincial conference, along with the international, is the employee bargaining agency which conducts collective bargaining for all Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' locals in the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The structure of the conference: It is run by one executive board which consists of the business manager of each local. Its day-to-day activities are conducted through the executive board with each local having one vote, so they're one local, one vote.

When Bill 80 was originally introduced in June 1992, the executive board conducted a vote in terms of whether to support Bill 80 in its original form with five points, and the conference voted to support Bill 80. The vote for the five-point bill was 7 to 4.

We will be addressing, basically, the bill in the intended revised form. One of the points that's being proposed to be deleted is the successorship provision, section 138.6. Since then, with the fifth point gone, support for Bill 80 in our union has gone up from 7 to 4 to 10 locals in support and one local against. The Sheet Metal Workers' Conference therefore strongly supports Bill 80 in its present form.

Before I begin, generally you've heard and you will continue to hear from representatives from the internationals themselves that there is no support for Bill 80. In fact, watching the Hansards or the debates in the House, we've also heard that from the Labour critic for the Liberal Party.

If I may, in the Hansard of October 4, 1993, page 3222, the quote is: "I don't have any letters from proponents of Bill 80. Maybe that should tell you something." He goes on to say: "I would hope that we're going to hear from somebody who supports this bill. I haven't."

The first thing I'd like to say is our union, and I know many other unions, have publicly supported Bill 80 since June 1992. I don't understand when Mr Mahoney states that he hasn't received any letters from proponents of Bill 80, because on August 18, 1992, George Ward, on behalf of the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference, sent a letter to Mr Mahoney indicating its support for Bill 80. In November 1992 Mr Mahoney received a letter from a group called the Committee of Ontario Construction Locals in Support of Bill 80.

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'd just like to know if we're going to deal with the bill or are we going to deal with your analysis of my speech?

Mr Raso: I'm sorry?

Mr Mahoney: I'm happy either way. I wonder if we're going to deal with the bill or your analysis of my speech.

Mr Raso: I am dealing with the bill.

Mr Mahoney: I think, Mr Chairman, he should be directed to the bill. I'm happy either way.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): On that point of order, Mr Chair: The presenters have the option of doing whatever they wish to do in their presentation.

Mr Mahoney: I don't think that's true.

Ms Murdock: If it relates, Mr Mahoney, it doesn't matter how they do it.

The Acting Chair: I would ask that the presenter continue. I don't believe, Mr Mahoney, you have a point.

Mr Raso: In November 1992 Mr Mahoney received a letter and interpretative brief from an organization called the Committee of Ontario Construction Locals in Support of Bill 80. Signing this letter and interpretative brief were 11 persons representing many, many construction locals in Ontario, including George Ward, the business manager of our conference.

Also signing that letter were John Haggis, from the Bricklayers union, Local 5, in London; Mike Quesnel, the International Union of Bricklayers, Local 10, in Kingston; Joe Fashion, IBEW, Local 353, Toronto; Victor Claro, Laborers' International Union, Local 247, Kingston; Mike Cummings, Laborers' International Union, Local 597, Oshawa; Rob Leone, Laborers' International Union, Local 1089, Sarnia; Ron Walsh, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 -- that's an Ontario-wide local; there is only one operating engineers' local in Ontario and it overwhelming supports Bill 80; John Sprackett, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1788 -- that too is a province-wide IBEW local which represents electricians working for Ontario Hydro; Jim MacKinnon, London District Building and Construction Trades Council; and the business manager of the Laborers' union in London, Ontario.

Overwhelmingly, there is a lot of support for Bill 80. All of these persons are elected officials representing locals in Ontario.

Again, Mr Mahoney stated he hasn't heard from anyone who supports the bill. Well, I can understand maybe he could forget that he receives letters. But I personally met with him on May 4, 1993, to discuss why Bill 80 should be supported by the Liberal Party.

Mr Mahoney: I didn't say I hadn't heard from anyone. I said I didn't have any letters when I was making the speech in the Legislature. If you want to persist in taking my comments out of context, sir, I will challenge you. I will challenge you because this is nonsense.

The Acting Chair: Mr Mahoney, I thank you for your clarification. Carry on.

Mr Raso: The statement was: "I would hope we're going to hear from someone who supports this bill. I haven't."

Mr Mahoney: Why don't you do that?

Mr Raso: The other point in terms of support for the bill is that, going over the list of persons speaking, there are basically two groups in terms of support of Bill 80 and opposition to Bill 80.

Opponents of Bill 80 appearing before you are presently international reps, not local unions from Ontario. Monday, November 15: Guy Dumoulin, Canadian building trades department, represents the internationals. International organization of ironworkers, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Canadian Federation of Labour -- international organizations. Basically, you've got maybe three or four local unions speaking out against Bill 80 and that's it: three Electrical Workers unions and one Laborers' International union.

In contrast, you have approximately 13 or 14 local unions, representing rank and file members in Ontario who support Bill 80. They're all elected officials. Most importantly, you have the Toronto building and trades council, which represents the Toronto locals in Ontario. They had a vote on Bill 80. They presented the bill point by point. The fifth point, successorship, was rejected. The first four points were voted in favour by the Toronto council. They represent 55,000 members in Toronto. The majority of construction workers in Ontario are represented by that council. They had a secret ballot vote and four of the five points were accepted. We're here today to speak in favour of those four points.

1550

You're going to hear that the provincial building and trades council voted against Bill 80. I have to remind you and explain the circumstances of those votes. Last year there was a convention and the bill was rejected in its original form, the five points. This year there were more motions about Bill 80. Many people from the floor requested that the bill be presented and voted upon in its present form, in its present intention, which is the four points minus the successorship provision. That was not what was voted on at the building and trades convention. What was voted on was the original bill with all five points. Bill 80, in its original form, was rejected. Many persons tried to get Bill 80 debated point by point; that was not put to the floor.

I urge you to compare that vote with the vote of the Toronto building and trades council, which voted, point by point, on each point in the manner of a secret ballot vote. At the building and trades council there was a request for a secret ballot vote, and it was rejected by the chair. I urge you to accept the resolution and the decision by the Toronto building and trades council.

In terms of the fifth point, when Bill 80 was originally introduced the Sheet Metal Workers, as I stated, supported all five points. We did so in terms of the fifth point because we felt it was just and it was necessary. All it stated was that if local unions in Ontario wanted a vote on whether to disaffiliate, they could do so through the provisions of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and there would be a vote. If there was a majority of all members and a majority of local unions, meaning a double majority, voting in favour of disaffiliation, that union in Ontario could do so with the consent of the international.

We see absolutely nothing wrong with the fifth point. It simply provides for freedom of choice by rank-and-file members in Ontario. It doesn't even allow for automatic disaffiliation; it simply allows for a vote. Our union supported that. However, in terms of the realistic situation in Ontario, the majority, a large number of local unions and rank and file, did not support the fifth point; our union does. We recognize that and we are willing to live with the four points; we can accept that.

In fact, we urge you to consider that this is the compromise that most people can accept in Ontario. If you speak to people privately, even opponents, they have no real objection to the four points. If you go through the letters you've received against Bill 80, most of them, or virtually all of them, deal with the fifth point. They talk about chaos and instability resulting. They were talking about the fifth point and not the first four.

If the intention is to continue with the four points, we urge you to accept those four points and to pass them as they are and not weaken them. Especially with the fifth point being gone now, we need those four points. All the four points do is provide a minimum standard for international unions in their relationship with their local unions. They simply provide that they cannot act in penalizing or doing anything against the local unions without just cause. I don't think anyone can speak out against requiring just cause for any action or decision of the international.

It also provides, for collective agreements which are negotiated in Ontario and which affect the rank-and-file members in Ontario, that those local unions have shared bargaining rights. What you have now are collective agreements negotiated by the internationals with no input whatsoever by the local unions -- no voting, no ratification by the rank and file. You simply have people coming in, negotiating collective agreements and changes without any input whatsoever from people in Ontario. Bill 80 will simply require that the local unions have shared bargaining rights.

The other point in Bill 80, the fourth point, is that for pension plans and health and welfare plans that affect members in Ontario the trustees will be selected by those people in Ontario -- again, a basic democratic right.

One question you'll be hearing, one argument, is that this should not apply only to the construction industry. Why just construction? This is being done for a very good reason. If you look at the Labour Relations Act, you will find there is a special section that applies strictly to construction unions, construction collective bargaining in Ontario. That's sections 119 to 155. It's the only industry that has its own unique provisions in the Labour Relations Act, and this is for a special, good reason.

The construction industry is unlike any other industry in Ontario. The first main distinction between construction and other industries is the predominance of craft unionism. Construction unions are organized along craft lines; you have Sheet Metal Workers, Electrical Workers, Boilermakers. Industrial unions are not organized along that line; they're organized by company: all employees who work for GM in the plant or all employees who work for Stelco or whatever.

The difference between craft unionism and industrial unionism is so strong that up until the 1950s there were two separate organizations in Canada and the United States, one for construction and one for everyone else. That changed in the 1950s when national bodies were linked together.

The second point that distinguishes construction from the other industries is the very nature of construction work. In industrial unionism people work in plants, they work for one employer and they work there indefinitely. When a union certifies a plant, it represents those workers in that one plant.

Construction is not like that at all. Construction work is characterized by short-term, temporary work which is dispersed geographically. Our members don't work for one company. They don't work on one site. They work for many companies in the province of Ontario, throughout the entire province; they go from company to company, job site to job site. When the job ends, they're laid off. They go to the union hall, which sends them out to another employer. Our members do not have ties to employers, generally. Many do, but generally they do not. Their ties are to the union; their ties are to the hiring hall. That's why our locals are organized on a city-wide basis, not on a plant-wide basis. Local 30 represents all sheet metal workers and roofers in the city of Toronto and just outside Toronto. That's because our members are tied to the union; they're not tied to the employer.

An important distinction is the fact that our members depend on the union for work. Sheet Metal Workers represents employers. Our collective agreements say that when you have sheet metal work done, you have to employ members of our union. If you're not a member of the Sheet Metal Workers' union, you cannot do work on any site that's being done by a company that has a collective agreement with the Sheet Metal Workers.

You have the distinction in terms of craft unionism and the fact that our members are tied to local unions, they're not tied to employers. They move from company to company and are dependent on the unions for work. That's why we have sections 119 to 155 of the Labour Relations Act.

First, in terms of craft unionism, the act encourages this and has codified craft unionism. You'll find that at subsection 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act, which basically mandates that construction bargaining units are organized along craft lines. Second, to reflect the nature of short-term, temporary work, you have an extremely highly regulated, comprehensive code which basically dictates how collective bargaining is run in the construction industry in Ontario.

You'll hear that the internationals do not want interference in construction collective bargaining -- "We don't want regulation." The fact is that construction collective bargaining is extremely regulated already. In the ICI sector, the Labour Relations Act mandates that there will be one bargaining agency for unions, for the craft, and one bargaining agency for the employers. These people get together and have to negotiate one collective agreement for all sheet metal workers in Ontario. That's mandated by the Labour Relations Act.

The act mandates that if there's a strike, it has to be a province-wide strike. The entire Sheet Metal Workers' union goes on strike or no one in the sheet metal industry goes on strike. The act dictates that. The act tells us that our collective agreements run for three years. All construction agreements in ICI, by law, start on May 1 and, by law, end three years later on April 30.

It is extremely and highly regulated. You've already got that, and no one opposes that. This happened in 1977, when provincial bargaining came into effect, and it was done because of instability and to promote stability in the construction industry. Trade unions and employers like it. They've learned to live with it. It provides stability and it's highly regulated.

1600

One effect of this high regulation is to give a virtual monopoly on construction unionism to the international trade unions in the construction industry that are based in the United States. Craft unionism is basically international construction unions. The whole concept of provincial bargaining ties workers to their union. It's extremely difficult to leave your union presently. With province-wide bargaining, with the collective agreement beginning and ending at the same time for all employers, if you wanted to decertify as a group, you would have to do it at approximately the same time and decertify probably close to 1,000 or more employers in the sheet metal trade alone. I can tell you, the labour relations board could not handle that.

The other point is, if our members had a vote tomorrow to leave the Sheet Metal Workers' union and they left, they would lose their right to work on construction sites in Ontario. If they left, they would leave their right to work on sites that are organized by the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, because only members of that union can work on those job sites. Practically speaking, we cannot leave. It's very, very impractical for the sheet metal workers, if they want to leave the international, to do so. With the successorship provision gone and with the practicalities of the construction industry, our members have to stay in the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association.

That's why we urge you to accept the four points. If we have to stay in, there must be basic rules, basic minimum legislation to make sure the internationals conduct their affairs along lines following principles of fairness and democracy. That's all Bill 80 states. You hear, "This is so intrusive." From our position, and I think you'll agree, that's all it is: minimum standards legislation. Basically, it says that if you're going to do something, you'd better have a good reason to do it. If members in Ontario are under a collective agreement, they have a right to have a say in that collective agreement. If members in Ontario have a pension plan, they have a right to name those trustees who are going to run that pension plan. That's all Bill 80 says.

If you compare it with legislation in the United States, the Landrum-Griffin Act, that is an incredibly highly intrusive piece of legislation. It is a comprehensive code for internal union affairs in the United States. It sets out substantive and procedural rights for union members. It requires votes by secret ballot in terms of elections. It mandates that all candidates have to be treated equally by the international union. They have to have access to lists of members. They have to have the right to have observers during balloting and counting of ballots. It's extremely intrusive. I've included a copy of that at tab 4 of our brief.

The international unions are based in the United States and they have their own highly intrusive act, far more intrusive than ours, and yet we don't hear them screaming about that. If you compare them, ours is much milder. We approve of that. We don't want an intrusive act. What we do want is minimum standards legislation.

In terms of the specific provisions of the bill, I'll just address two main ones: first of all, work jurisdiction, altering jurisdiction. The act presently states that internationals cannot alter jurisdiction in terms of geography, sector or work. What you're going to be hearing, and I think you've heard from the Canadian council, is to delete the word "work" from the prohibition on altering jurisdiction. We think that has to stay.

Our international union, our general president, has the absolute right to unilaterally alter jurisdiction in Ontario without any input whatsoever from the local unions. Our constitution says the general president has the full authority to specify, designate or change the specific territory, project or projects and classes of work over which each local union or district council shall exercise jurisdiction. The general president has absolute authority to change anything he or she wants in Ontario. That's why we need that jurisdiction clause the way it exists.

In terms of another important provision, trusteeship, the international cannot assume supervision or control over a local union or interfere directly or indirectly without just cause. That is an extremely important provision and it has to stay the way it is. Our general president has incredible powers to do literally anything he wants, and it's based on very vague language in our constitution, such as that he has general supervision of the association. He can act in any way which is in the best interests of this international association. He has direction and supervision of all local unions. He has authority to take such action as he deems necessary to protect the interests and welfare of this association.

If trusteeship is imposed, he has the authority to suspend from office for the duration of trusteeship, with or without cause, local union or council officers. Those are provisions in our constitution that are very offensive, and that is why we need Bill 80. There's no requirement that he act with just cause when he assumes trusteeship. That's why Bill 80 has to state that he cannot act without just cause -- a basic democratic right.

There are other provisions of our constitution which are extremely offensive: Violations of our constitution such as condoning internal strife which is detrimental to the best interests of the international. What does that mean? I think that means if you support Bill 80, you're violating the constitution.

Insubordination is a violation of our collective agreement. What does insubordination mean? These are elected officials, and yet if we are insubordinate to them, we're violating our constitution.

Treasonable conduct is a violation of our constitution. What does treasonable conduct mean? Supporting Bill 80 is probably treasonable conduct.

Our constitution gives incredibly wide powers to the general president -- vague language. He can do anything he wants. He has incredible powers as well. He has the power to impose trusteeship, revoke the charter of a local union, the power to modify, revise, defer, suspend or reverse any decision of any local union. He has the general power to take other appropriate disciplinary measures.

The power that the general president has in our constitution is incredible, and that's why we need Bill 80. The main reason why we need it is because there are no checks and balances anywhere to protect individual members, officers or local unions from abuse by its international. The appeal procedure in our constitution is basically to the general president. He's the prosecutor, the judge and the jury.

If you're charged and you're found guilty of a violation -- treasonable conduct, insubordination, encouraging succession -- you appeal to the general president himself. If you don't like that, you go to the general executive council, of which the general president is the chair. If you don't like that, the final appeal is to the quadrennial general convention, which is the convention of the entire union, but you don't go to the rank and file, you don't go to the delegates. You make your appeal to the grievance and appeals committee, which is appointed directly by the general president.

You make your appeal to that committee. Then they make a recommendation to the floor on what should happen to your appeal -- no debate. You don't address; they simply say, "We accept the recommendation of the general president," or, "We reject it," the rank and file, the delegates, vote on that. The general president is involved from beginning to end.

The other point is the courts and the labour board presently do not get involved in internal union affairs. You have to exhaust all your internal remedies, your internal appeal procedure. That is this procedure, and it can take literally years. The final appeal is to the quadrennial convention. It can take years for an appeal.

1610

There's no justice inside the international union. There's no body of international unions or construction unions that you can go to either. That's it.

We've heard from Mr Mahoney that in terms of trusteeship there's a system: They have to make application to apply a trusteeship. They have to be subject to review every 12 months to allow the trusteeship to stay in place. They can't just arbitrarily ride into town on horseback with their guns out and say, "Get out of here; I'm taking over the union."

That's in fact what they can do. They can do that. Our constitution allows that. If the general president feels that local is not acting in the best interests of the union, you're under trusteeship. If it's guilty of insubordination, it's under trusteeship. They do ride into town. The Labour Relations Act presently, section 84, simply requires that you notify the labour board of the trusteeship -- no questions asked. Afterwards, after the trusteeship has been in place for one year, you have to notify them again, and it can continue with the consent of the board. But the board takes a very strict view of getting involved in or interfering with internal union affairs.

There's no recourse presently. Bill 80 is the only recourse we have.

The reason we ask you to pass all four points that are left and not weaken them is because they're all necessary. They're all avenues that an international can take. If you weaken one and leave three strong, the three strong ones aren't necessary because they now have an avenue. I look at it as a house with four doors. If you lock three doors and you leave one wide open, who cares that the other three doors are locked? As long as one door is open, they can do something.

That's why we need the trusteeship with a just-cause provision, that's why we need no altering jurisdiction without just cause, that's why we need the local unions to decide who will represent them on health and welfare plans and that's why we need local unions to have shared bargaining rights in terms of all collective agreements.

I'll just summarize: It's minimum standards legislation. That's all it is. It is not extremely intrusive. It protects local unions from abuse. If internationals conduct themselves well and in terms of fairness and democracy, they've got nothing to worry about.

The Acting Chair: Is that the end of your statements? Okay, I'll open the floor to questions.

Mr Mahoney: Where are we going? How much time are we going to have?

The Acting Chair: You ate up approximately 35 minutes out of your total hour and a half.

Mr Raso: I apologize.

Mr Mahoney: Not at all. I just want to know, are there other presenters?

Mr Raso: Yes.

The Acting Chair: On the same topic, from your group? Can we hear from them as well first, I guess, at this point?

Mr George Ward: I'd like to thank the committee for the privilege to come and speak to you today. You have in your possession a letter that I had written to the Minister of Labour on September 3, and it basically talks about some of the wrongdoings that have gone on in our international.

Amazingly enough, back in 1985 I was charged by the international for saying a few things about a document called Insuring Our Future, which was a recessionary document that had been put together by international reps in Ontario. I was acting as the chair of the resolutions committee at the Ontario building trades, and my comments were that all they cared about is the per capita tax that keeps them in their fat-ass jobs. It was for that I was charged. I was threatened with removal from office if I didn't apologize, so I did of course apologize.

But I didn't say anything. I just simply condemned the document, that it was not in the best interests of the membership in the province of Ontario, and that's true. All they care about is their per capita tax which keeps them in their jobs.

From there on, I continually -- I guess I've always been slightly at odds with the international because I'm kind of fiercely Canadian. By the same token, I think there is room for association with the international. But we have to pay a per capita tax of $24.50 for every member to the Americans, for what service we get I have no idea.

Also in Mr Maloney's comments, he said the international has a great useful purpose of resolving jurisdictional disputes. I think the last jurisdictional dispute our international ever settled for us was way back in 1978, at Jackson Square in Hamilton on a metal pan ceiling, with the Carpenters. It was at Christmastime. The Carpenters worked over the Christmas holidays and put the ceiling in, in any event.

There was that one and there was also the taxation building in Sudbury when it was built in 1978-79, on a computer floor. The international made us turn the computer floor -- we won the computer floor, but the computer floor was done by the Carpenters again.

Those were the last ones ever done by the international settling jurisdictional disputes in the province of Ontario for the Sheet Metal Workers.

I've spent a lot of time working as a business manager in Local 537 in Hamilton and I've spent a lot of time, 10 years now, for the provincial council, the conference, and I've spent almost a lifetime at the labour board fighting jurisdictional disputes. Again, I would like to commend the government when it put in Bill 40. The fast-tracking of jurisdictional disputes has resolved a lot of jurisdictional disputes very quickly and very expeditiously, and that's a credit to this government. I know I've spent a lot of 60- and 70-day hearings on jurisdictional disputes, with legal bills.

I remember one with Ontario Hydro. Our legal cost for that was over $200,000 in that jurisdictional dispute. If anybody says the international comes in and settles jurisdictional disputes, that's baloney. If you've got the work, you keep it until somebody takes you to the labour board and takes it off you. That's the rules of the game; that's the truth.

Also, if you read the letter that I had written to the Minister of Labour on September 3, you'll find out that -- I'm getting ahead of myself.

In 1990 I went to a convention in Las Vegas. I arrived on the Sunday evening and there was a hospitality cocktail party. I guess I'd been in town with my wife about 15 or 20 minutes when we went into the hospitality room and they asked me if I would look after the door on the convention. I said, "No, I think I deserve a little more notice than that. You can tell the general president thanks, but no thanks. I'm simply here to talk about any increase in per capita tax and maybe do a little gambling and see what other things we can do about fixing our constitution to make it a little bit more palatable to Canadians," and I declined.

They sent one of their goons to see me, in front of my wife and some of the other members with their children there, and I was called a Canadian communist bastard. It's not right. Some people turn around and they say that the international is fair. Our international's not fair. That's garbage.

If you go further into my letter, you'll see that not only are they not fair and not only do they threaten people; they steal money. If you go through the piece, you'll find that in the national pension we, fortunately enough, held on. We took the pressure, because they tried to make us put our pension money in with their money in the States. It says in the letter that it was fully funded in 1987. That's a mistake; it was fully funded in 1989, 110%, and it had assets of $1.8 billion. Now they cook the books and they say the accrual rate should be 8.5%; actually, the accrual rate today should probably be 5% or 6%. It's underfunded by $800 million they stole -- $800 million.

Then, to go on, he treated the international as his own personal asset. They had a jet. They flew wherever they wanted. He flew up New Year's Eve with a few of his friends and his girlfriend, a lady by the name of Maria DeQuatro. They ran up a tab on the international credit card of $7,200 New Year's Eve. Nice blast, eh? All out of our $24.50.

Out of the per capita tax that they collected last year -- $27 million they collected last year -- they spent all but $200,000 of it. If they hadn't been doing dope -- I mean, they give a new meaning to the word "jetliner," because that's exactly what they were doing: They were doing lines on a jet. The jet got impounded in Spain; the jet again got impounded in Japan. Doing drugs on our $24.50. It cost them a lot of money to get somebody out there. He was arrested in Japan, and then that same guy has the right, as you read here in this constitution, over what all sheet metal workers and roofers do.

1620

Also, his girlfriend used to work in the office. She hurt her back. She went on a disability of $8,000 a month, while at the same time she was working for a consultant and did consulting work for them. She made over $1 million in five years; nice money. They're the same people who hold everything over us, and we're asking for a few simple minimum standards.

Somebody turns around and says, "Why do you want to leave the international?" I've got 800 million reasons why I want to leave the international. I have no idea what's happened to our business agent pension money. I know it's here in Toronto. We've got a law firm trying to find out what happened if they did get any of our money.

We've got one trustee on there; all the rest of them are Americans. We've got one trustee, and he happens to be a good friend of the general president. He is on Vancouver Island, out in BC. We've got one trustee; all the rest are American. It's a separate plan, and they should all be Canadian trustees on that plan. We have no idea where the money is. We don't think they've touched the money, but so far we haven't been able to find out. They've stolen millions and millions of dollars from the international. It's a lot of money.

The Acting Chair: If I might interject at this time, because I know that you have more presenters in your group. We somehow, because of the first presentation, have gone to a different format. You are now pushing well into the hour of it. If you can wrap your statements up so that some of your other members can get in and so we have some time for interaction.

Mr George Ward: Yes, if I could just shorten it up. Some people turn around and they say that there's not much support. Well, in a very short campaign and with the internationals watching us at every step and the membership being afraid, we had cards signed. There's over 2,500 cards there, and we have a petition with 1,488 signatures on it that supported the original bill with its five points. These guys, when they sign their name on there and their local union, they're breathing in the face of the devil, because if Bill 80 doesn't go through and there isn't protection or trusteeship, we're in a lot of trouble.

Just one other point before I leave. The Ontario sheet metal workers and roofers reaffiliated with their proper house of labour, the CLC and the OFL, because the internationals took us out some 12 years ago. We were threatened. I was threatened again with charges; if you read in our constitution, dual unionism. They said: "Ward, we support the CFL. You're into dual unionism when you put the people back in the CLC." I simply told them to take their best handhold, because at that time Bill 80 was starting to come out of the ground, and I knew that they wouldn't do anything to me as long as Bill 80 was around. If this Bill 80 fails, I guess you're going to see the last of George Ward.

The Acting Chair: Thank you. I'm going to make an arbitrary ruling here that because of the length of time of the presentations, if we could do them all and then we'll finish afterwards. So whoever else you have.

Mr James Moffat: First of all, I'd like to thank everyone down here for having the opportunity as well to come down and express the views on behalf of our membership in support of Bill 80. I'm the business manager and financial secretary of Local 30 of the Sheet Metal Workers. To my right is Al Budway, a business representative with our local. We represent over 3,000 sheet metal workers and roofers in the greater Metro Toronto area. Our geographic area is a large one. It goes to the west to Highway 25, to the east to Highway 115 and 35 and to the north 12 miles north of Parry Sound.

I've been involved in the labour movement since 1974. I've been a sheet metal worker, served a five-year apprenticeship, become a member of the Sheet Metal Workers' International in 1967. I first got elected to my local union executive board in 1972. I served as an executive board member, as the vice-president of our union, as the president, as our first local union organizer, as a business representative and now as business manager. I've been a full-time officer of our union now for the last eight years.

Our local union is affiliated with the Ontario conference of sheet metal workers. We're also affiliated with the Canadian council of sheet metal workers. As well, we're affiliated with the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, which has over 60,000 members. We're also affiliated with provincial building trades. We're affiliated with the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto as well. So our local union is pretty active in the labour movement in the city of Toronto.

Recently, as Brother Ward stated earlier, we have reaffiliated to the OFL and CLC. As a local union -- we did not affiliate as a local union; it was through the good offices of the Ontario conference that we reaffiliated back to the OFL, the house of labour, and the CLC. Without the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference, I don't think we would have achieved our goal to reaffiliate to the OFL.

I have some handouts here.

The Acting Chair: While there's a little break there, if anyone if anyone out there wants a coffee or anything, feel free to grab it. Carry on.

Mr Moffat: On behalf of the 3,000 members that we have in Local Union 30, I'm here in support of Bill 80, in support of Bill 80 in its entirety, including the fifth point.

I believe that this bill is long overdue in the construction industry. Our members and many of the rank-and-file members in the province of Ontario were simply delighted with the proposed changes in the Labour Relations Act.

I believe that the bill will guarantee basic democratic rights for construction workers in the province of Ontario. I think that the bill itself will bring accountability of construction local unions to where it belongs: the dues-paying member.

One of the problems in the building trades unions is that I think the international unions have been around a long time. Our local union has been part of the Sheet Metal Workers' International, in 1994, for 100 years, so we've got a long affiliation with the Sheet Metal Workers' International.

However, over the years I think they've put the shoe on the other foot. I believe that they believe we're working for them, but they're working for us. We're the dues-paying members. We pay the dues. That's why we're members. Our dues pay their salaries; our dues pay their wages.

I think what this bill is going to do, if it does anything, I think it's going to send a message and a signal to the internationals down in Washington that the sheet metal workers and the rank-and-file members and construction workers up here in this province are a little sick and tired of the sheet metal international union with its heavy high-handedness.

In the House on October 4, the Liberal Labour critic, Steve Mahoney, made reference to what he called or referred to as "the other side," those in favour of Bill 80. I'd like to quote, October 4, page 3215:

"Now, the Sheet Metal Workers' International: There are people on the other side of it. Local 30 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association is in support of Bill 80. Let's put all cards on the table. I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if they've actually gone to their rank and file, though. I don't know if they've sat down with the rank and file to understand the impact of Bill 80 and the fallout from Bill 80, whether it's mobility or whether it's amendments and changes to a constitution done so arbitrarily and in a mean-spirited way, the way this minister is doing it, I don't know if they've done that, but I think it should be stated that they've said they're supporting it" -- here's the kicker -- "and yet the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association is against the bill."

1630

Who is the Sheet Metal Workers' International? Who are these people who are against this bill? I'd like to tell you who these people are. These people are the anointed and the appointed international representatives who have been running around this province in opposition to Bill 80. For what reason?

I to this day do not know what authority they had, on my behalf, on behalf of my members, in this province, to run around the province in opposition of Bill 80. They work directly for the general president. As I said earlier, they are appointed by the general president. They did not, as far as I know, go to any local unions to find out what their express wishes were. I don't know why the Sheet Metal Workers' International is opposed to it.

There are a couple of labour leaders in the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association who are opposed to it, but they don't represent the wishes and the feelings of our members in this province. As was stated earlier, 10 out of 11 locals are now in favour of Bill 80 in its present form.

When someone in the House makes a public statement about the Sheet Metal Workers and mentions Local 30 in the House, wondering whether or not we're in favour, whether or not we took it to our membership, I should mention to the members of the committee that I sent a letter -- it's in your possession -- to the Liberal Labour critic, dated December 8, 1992 -- I'm assuming he had that letter in his possession -- explaining the position that Local 30 took on Bill 80. I'd just like to read a couple of excerpts from the letter.

"Dear sir:

"Local Union No 30 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, which represents over 3,000 sheet metal workers and roofers of the construction industry in the greater Toronto area, is delighted with the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

"I am writing to ask that you do everything possible to support Bill 80. This piece of legislation will ensure that the democratic rights of building tradesmen in Ontario are respected by our international union. It is long overdue. Look at the points covered by the bill." And I covered all five points.

This letter I sent to the Liberal member, Steve Mahoney, and I closed it by saying, "This may not please those who now hold unlimited power in the US over our union, but believe me, those who live and work here in Ontario are very glad to see Bill 80. It should really be called `A declaration of rights for Ontario construction workers,'" and I asked the Liberal government in this province to support it.

Mr George Ward: Opposition.

Mr Moffat: The opposition.

Ms Murdock: They wish they were.

Mr Moffat: I don't know whether they'll ever achieve it.

Mr Mahoney: Just to make a point, I think I acknowledged in my speech in the Legislature that you did support it.

Mr Moffat: But on page 3222, dated October 4, and I'll just reiterate what Mr Raso said, you made a statement, "I don't have any letters from proponents of Bill 80. Maybe that should tell you something," and I don't think that's true. You spent an hour and a half in the House saying things that I took offence to, my membership took offence to, that weren't true. I think I spoke to you after the building trades convention just recently held over this.

I think Mr Raso explained who was making presentations down here, and let's really examine who is in favour of Bill 80 and who isn't. I looked at the list of presenters down here and I found two or three local unions in the province of Ontario that are opposed to this Bill 80. I find seven or eight international organizations that are making presentations here, and who are they representing? They're representing the international unions. They're not representing the rank-and-file workers in this province when they're making these presentations.

The Canadian building and construction trades, Joe Maloney: He now works for the Canadian building trades department and his name was mentioned many times by the Liberal critic in the House, but if you just look at the background, he's a boilermaker. The Boilermakers' International is down here opposing Bill 80, the Canadian building trades is opposing Bill 80, and I don't know what the hell the Canadian building trades has to do running around the province of Ontario opposing the bill. We pay our per capita tax like everybody else at the Canadian building trades, and they represent the international unions. The Canadian Federation of Labour, the CFL, James McCambly: I have no idea why he is down here making a presentation in opposition to Bill 80. So there's a select group out there that is misrepresenting itself as if it's representing all of this opposition on Bill 80.

In fact, the Liberal critic stated in a speech that 85% of the construction workers in this province are opposed to Bill 80. I'd like to know where the hell he got that figure from, I really would, because the support for Bill 80 in this province is a lot greater than the people you're listening to. That's why we're down here to make our presentation, just to set the record straight.

The Acting Chair: Once again I just want to caution you: If you want any interaction -- and I know that at least when you first started out, you had two more people who wanted to present -- you're now down to about half an hour left of your total time.

Mr Moffat: I'll wrap it up here soon. I've got a few more comments to make with regard to some of the interference from our Sheet Metal Workers' International, and I'd just like to say as well that I noticed two of the presenters on the list who are scheduled to make presentations on behalf of the Sheet Metal Workers. There's our Canadian director, Robert Belleville, and our international representative, Larry O'Neill. I would really like to know who they're representing. I guess I'll have to come down and find out exactly who they are representing, because I can assure you they are not representing Local 30 in opposition to Bill 80. In fact, 10 out of the 11 locals are now in favour of it.

In 1984, the sheet metal workers were on strike. It was a long strike and our Canadian director at the time came in to see if he could help settle the strike. As you know, in 1984 we were in province-wide bargaining. I guess when we're on strike and we're collecting strike pay from the international, they definitely have an interest. That's generally the reason why they show up. Anyway, we had a ratification meeting, a vote, and our Canadian director showed up at the meeting. There were something like 18,000 members to discuss an offer that we had had to see if we could end the strike.

I was president of the union at the time, and in a democratic manner I asked the members if they would like to hear from our Canadian director with respect to the strike. Someone moved a motion: "No, you'll not be allowed to speak. This is our affair. This is our business." Someone then moved a motion which, as president of our union, I had to take -- that's the democratic process of the trade union movement -- to have them leave the hall. That was in 1984.

1640

In 1986, at the quadrennial convention in Chicago, they amended the constitution to allow all international reps, people from the international, to be in attendance at any meeting -- executive board meeting, regular meeting -- without invite. Just arbitrarily, if they want to walk into their union hall, even though their members may not want them there, they could be part of your union meeting. They refer to it as the Moffat rule. I don't know why.

Just to briefly indicate exactly what happens at a quadrennial convention, if you can imagine, there are 150,000 sheet metal workers in North America who are members of the Sheet Metal Workers' International, and there are maybe 15,000 to 18,000 in Canada. We go down to the convention with 50 Canadian delegates. You can imagine, with 400 American delegates there, what chance in hell do we have with regard to fighting a per capita tax increase or making any amended changes to our international constitution? You just don't stand any chance whatsoever.

Not only that, but I guess a lot of the Americans in the internationals feel that north of border, we in the Canadian movement are a little bit more radical than the Americans. So it's very difficult to amend our constitution to reflect any sort of Canadian or local union autonomy. Our per capita taxes are $24.50 a month. Last year we sent down over $1 million in per capita tax moneys to the States. The service we got in return certainly wasn't worth $1 million.

As well, you have a letter there. When I became business manager, I had been communicating with our general secretary-treasurer and we changed the logo on our letterhead to a logo that reflected what Toronto was all about. We took the sheet metal international's emblem off our letterhead and put our own logo on it. As you can see, the letter that I got back from the general secretary-treasurer was over a logo on a letter, threatening me in a directive from him that if I did not remove our local union logo off that letterhead and didn't put on the sheet metal workers', I could possibly be charged, whatever. This is the type of thing that happens.

I'm going to ask Al Budway, the business representative, just to spend a few minutes on some of the experiences he has had.

Mr Al Budway: Just quickly, because we're running short on time -- I realize that -- first of all, I've been a member of the Sheet Metal Workers' International, Local 30, since 1959. I served an apprenticeship, have been active in the union for quite a while, and have been a full-time rep since 1983, so I've got some experience.

My first experience, I guess, with the international was back in 1974 at the quadrennial convention in Miami Beach, Florida. At that time I was quite naïve about how the whole system worked. We had a basic resolution going there, asking for Canadian autonomy. That was the year the CLC had put into its constitution the Canadian standards for self-governing: the election of Canadian officers by Canadians, policies to deal with national affairs to be determined by elected Canadian officers and/or members, and Canadian-elected representatives to have authority to speak for the union in Canada.

It was a simple resolution, we thought, but after a whole week of the convention, our resolution finally came to the floor. It had been rewritten by two international reps and the general president. It was nowhere near the resolution that we had put in. At the time, we were pretty cheesed off about it. We couldn't even get copies of the resolution. We had to run around and try to get copies of it. Finally, when it hit the floor, Jack Donnelly -- some of you may know his name; he was a very well respected sheet metal worker representative for us and pushed Canadian autonomy quite a bit across the country -- got up and made quite an emotional speech on how we had been bamboozled by the international and how disillusioned he was with the whole process.

I got up, being quite a new young man on the block, and made a speech. I guess I got a little heavier. I was booed. I look back on the minutes; in fact, I've got the minutes right here from that convention. I look at it now and to me it doesn't look like much. You guys, when you're in the Legislature, say a lot worse things than what I said that day, I'll tell you that. It's nowhere near what you guys get into. So you guys would probably have been strung up.

Mr Mahoney: I've got immunity in there too.

Mr Budway: Yes, you guys probably would have been strung up down at this convention.

But anyway, as I was booed quite loudly from the floor, after that I went out in the hall and some of the Americans came up to me and said, "Jeez, you've got a lot of guts." At the time I didn't realize what they were talking about. But I noticed those guys from Detroit and Chicago all need tailors, because their coats all seem to -- I always wondered what the tailors are like in those places, because they have those coats that go like that. I was kind of looking around and I started realizing that even though I was from a family of 15 from Broadview and Queen and I was streetwise, I was playing in a big league here now. In fact, the general president emeritus, who is retired, the present general president who just got thrown out, came to a couple of the delegates from Toronto and said, "If we had that kid in New York City, he'd be cemented in the sidewalk tomorrow morning." I found out he meant it.

Some of the American delegates came up to me after on the QT and said, "You got a lot of -- ." I couldn't quite grasp what was going on, but I started seeing more and more the clear picture of how the unions run in the United States. In fact, if you ever get a chance, Steve, you should look up that Senate report on racketeering and mafia connection to the unions in New York City and you might get an idea of what I'm talking about.

Anyway, what we were trying to do was put the simple Canadian standards within our constitution. From that point, 1974 to 1980, there was constantly this harassment of trying to pull us out of the CLC. Finally, in the summer of 1980, we found out -- not myself, but the delegates who went to the Canadian building trades convention -- that in fact the international had withheld the per capita tax from the CLC and we were about to be thrown out. Finally, I guess a year later, in March 1981, the CLC made a decision to suspend the building trades people because the per capita had not been paid. There was no consultation with any of the local unions; this was just something done by Washington.

Again, I still maintain it goes back to that we want to elect our own people. We wanted to elect our international reps. We wanted to elect everybody, a simple democratic right that I think everybody should be able to have.

A lot of us by this time were quite involved with Metro labour councils, the Ontario Federation of Labour and so on. John Donaldson, who some of you may know, is the construction representative at the Workers' Health and Safety Centre now. He went through the CLC and asked if they could help us keep the building trades within the CLC. So along with him and John Cartwright, who's now business manager of the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trade Council; Chris Thurrott, who happens to be present here and who is a full-time rep of the building trades now; Terry Lewis, over here in the back, who was representing from Hamilton and who came in front of the committee on Monday; and one other person, Jim Bentley, who started off with us, we went out on the road to try to convince the local unions and get the information out to the members on what actually was happening.

Jim Bentley only spent two days with us. He had just recently retired. He was very active; in fact, he was an executive board member of the Metro labour council, very active in the OFL and very, very active in the boycott against grapes. In fact, he spent a lot of time with Cesar Chavez in California. He had decided to go on the road with us. He got a call the night he was supposed to go to Thunder Bay that if he went on the road with us to fight to stay within the CLC, his pension would be -- how do they put it? There would be administrative problems with his pension fund. In other words, the cheques would be late or wouldn't get there at all.

He was devastated. I remember very distinctly how devastated he was. There's a guy who spent most of his life fighting for unionism, and here are the hard-nosed international people coming down on him. He was from the United States, by the way. He's dead now but I'm sure a lot of people remember his name.

That is the kind of thing that went on. Anyway, for about a month we went on the road and tried to organize and tried to get people to stay within the CLC.

The threats and intimidation started coming down. I was threatened many a time as being a traitor: intimidations, all kinds of threats, openly told that I was going to be charged for promoting a dual organization. Eventually what happened, and I didn't find this out until quite a while after, was there were some backroom meetings, and what the CLC had decided was that it was better than putting our heads on the chopping blocks to get us out of there and try to fight this thing another way. Some people did stay in the fight for a few more months, but unfortunately the split between the CLC and the building trades happened. Just recently, as you heard, we've got back in again. That's the type of thing I can relate to.

But there's another thing I want to just quickly mention in regard to agreements. In 1984, there was an agreement that was imposed on us by the international unions, a maintenance agreement with Hydro, the retubing. You heard about the accident at Ontario Hydro, Pickering, and there was a big retubing program. With that, there was a need for a so-called maintenance agreement.

We were opposed to it because it was taking a 10% cut in our pays. It was a continental week, where you would work five days a week, whether it would be Friday till whatever, and you wouldn't have your weekends. There was time and a half for overtime and there were a lot of concessionary things within this maintenance agreement. We were opposed to it, the ironworkers were opposed to it, the electricians were opposed to it, and we fought that.

One day I had to go out to the Pickering Hydro. Hydro waves this agreement in front of me: "Well, there it is. It's signed, Budway." "What do you mean, it's signed? We're not signing it." "Your Canadian director flew in here, signed it and flew back out again."

1650

We didn't even know it was signed; our membership didn't know; the people working on the project didn't know. Now they were going to go into hot areas, contaminated areas, to work at 10% less in worse conditions than they were already in. This is the type of thing at the international. I hope these stories will help you realize that we need Bill 80.

The Acting Chair: I guess I should ask, are there any more presenters?

Mr Raso: We have one.

The Acting Chair: Okay, because you've got 10 minutes. Could you state your name for Hansard.

Mr Tim Fenton: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name's Tim Fenton. I'm the business manager of Local 397, Sheet Metal Workers in Thunder Bay. I'm here today to talk about one of the points, section 138.3, the geographic jurisdiction. Most of this has been taken from notes and correspondence. I wasn't the business manager at the time this took place. I've been with the local union only about three years, but quite a few things have happened.

Back in 1946, the geographic jurisdiction of our local was determined. It included the districts of Thunder Bay, Rainy River, Kenora and Cochrane. During a convention in 1963, the boundaries were readjusted. It gave Thunder Bay the northeasterly portion of the district of Cochrane.

During a recessionary period back in 1983, the Sudbury local made a request from the general president in Washington to review the borderlines of Sudbury and the Thunder Bay locals. In this request, he instructed the international rep, in the following month, to make an investigation as to whether or not this would be an appropriate change of geographic jurisdiction. The international rep did come down -- that was approximately six to seven weeks later -- and it was at that time we were finally notified that this was going to be a change.

It came about because there was a job in a northern region called Detour Lake. Detour Lake was a very small mine site. It probably would have supplied work for seven or eight men for three or four months. It wasn't a big deal. Perhaps the local union would have been able to make some amendments to our geographic area for one project. But as it turned out, the international rep made a report to the general president in Washington and in July the general president in Washington decided to change our boundary lines, which altered approximately 60,000 square miles of territory for our local union. There was quite a bit of work that had gone on in there. We had serviced the area for about 35 years and we had lost a substantial amount of work. It all happened because they just wanted one small job.

It required our then business manager to go to Florida to appeal our case to the general executive council. The general executive council said it could not rule on it because the general president had the only authority on geographic jurisdiction and that it was up to him to make any decisions on territory.

During this time, approximately six months, we lost some work -- it wasn't a great amount -- during the recession. But then, again, we were experiencing about 45% unemployment, so it impacted us quite a bit. The general president later reversed his decision and gave us back the jurisdiction. Unfortunately, I didn't make enough maps to go around today. If Mr Raso could circulate what's there, I don't know if it'll be any help.

We're talking about a very small project that started the wheels turning and ended up carving out 60,000 square miles of jurisdiction. It's a substantial amount. It created a lot of hardship for our members and a lot of resentment. That's why I'm here today. They've instructed me to come here and tell our story about geographic territory and how it can be altered by the stroke of a pen. That's why I ask that all four points of the bill be left intact. I wish we could get the fifth one. I feel perhaps some daggers in my back right now, but we'll find out when we leave.

Mr Mahoney: Me too.

Mr Fenton: That's about all I have to say about geographic jurisdiction. I'm sorry there were not enough maps to go around.

The Acting Chair: I take it this is the end of your comments, then, as a group. We have a minute for each caucus.

Interjection: Yes, but we didn't start till quarter to 4.

The Acting Chair: I know that it's a bit short of the full hour and a half. I'll give everybody one quick question. The reality is that we have a vote at quarter to 6. We have two more presenters who were to run till 6 o'clock. So everybody's being cut. I will allow one question from each caucus. Mr Mahoney was the first one up.

Mr Mahoney: Well --

The Acting Chair: Quickly, please, Mr Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: I couldn't possibly do justice. Let me first of all thank you for reading all my Hansards; I'm impressed. I should get my constituents to do the same thing.

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: They'd all fall asleep, right?

I guess there's not much point in even asking a question -- I've got a long list of them -- but let me just say to you first of all that I don't consider it anywhere near bordering on treason for you or anybody else to support or not support a bill. I think that this is the democratic process and that we have a lot of questions that relate more to the structure within the legislation than they do to the specific problems you've outlined. In fact, one of the things I've said from day one is that if we could have some of the problems out on the table, maybe we could talk about ways to solve them without using, frankly, what I consider to be a shotgun to kill a fly. I don't like that metaphor, because I know you consider these things more significant than a fly, and I appreciate that. But I just say that I think it's overkill.

I can't really deal with some of the problems that you refer to. Mr Ward's accusations about girlfriends and getting money and all of that kind of stuff -- I really don't know the first thing about that kind of thing. I can't really deal with them. But on many of the issues of boundary changes, the last one, these are the kinds of things that if there are problems, if there is heavy-handedness, I can tell you that my party would support finding a way to resolve them. We do not support, under any conditions, any government coming in arbitrarily, unilaterally, adjusting duly passed constitutions in democratic bodies. That's a philosophy I simply will not support happening.

Just as I see the conference having a position where I presume there are rules and regulations, you may face the day one time down the road when the government may decide, once it has adjusted the constitutions to deal with either real or perceived problems from international unions, it wants to do it with your conference or maybe with national unions, or maybe it just thinks it knows best. I reject that. I think there are many, many questions that you've raised.

I suppose I could take exception to some of the comments in relationship to my comments. Let me just say that I did acknowledge that your Local 30 is opposed to it and have no problem with that. I think that's what this process is all about. But in the time of a minute, I have no illusions that I'm going to change your minds about anything. I just tell you that --

1700

Interjection: In support.

Mr Mahoney: In support. I apologize; I meant in support. I acknowledge that you're in support of the bill, but I couldn't go through, in the time that's allotted, and get any questions. But I'd be happy to do that with you privately, if you want to.

Mr George Ward: Just on that, you happened to mention the conference. The government in fact indeed did do something similar to that, and I believe it was under the Peterson government. They took the voting structure that's in the Ontario conference's bylaws on ratification of provincial collective agreements and put it in the Labour Relations Act as the proper procedure for voting.

So don't say that all of a sudden they don't do things; they do do things. When they see things, they do interfere, if you want to call it "interference" by governments. When they saw something that needed to be fixed, your government, I guess at the time, and a credit to it, saw the proper procedure, which was in the conference bylaws, on the proper way to ratify a collective agreement. They went for it and they changed the legislation to show the procedure, that they be locked in a sealed box and the sealed boxes from all over the province of Ontario come to a central area and be counted.

I believe it was the Peterson government that took that out of our bylaws and put it in. So from time to time there is some fine tuning needed as to how unions operate. I don't think anybody can be opposed to any kind of fine tuning.

Mr Mahoney: Can I just be clear that from day one we've said that if there are problems that need resolving, we'll sit down and talk about those particular problems. We never had a problem with that.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I'll only be a second. I just want to say I appreciate you people coming here and telling us the problems you've had. The only problem I have, again something that Steve's talking about, is government interference when you are an elected body. I would have hoped you could have settled it. With what you've told us today, you're having a hard time doing that, so I can see where I can help support this bill. I can only speak for myself; I can't speak for the PC Party on that, because there are different concerns.

I know how you feel about this. That's why I ran to get elected, because I think local autonomy is very important and I always had trouble with Queen's Park trying to tell us in our area what to do. It's sort of the same thing. I do sympathize with you, and hopefully I can support this bill.

As I say, I have trouble supporting it when it's coming from this government, because of some of the high-handed things it does, and I don't agree with it. But in this case maybe they have it on track for a change.

The Acting Chair: Mr Ward, your response.

Mr George Ward: Just again on interference, if you want to look at the legislation which the then minister, Bette Stephenson, under a Conservative government, brought in for legislative provincial bargaining in 1978, talk about altering the jurisdictions and the way local unions operated in the province of Ontario.

I know in our own local we negotiated three distinct different areas. We negotiated separate agreements from one contractor to the other. Your government saw it as a bad idea of leapfrogging that continually caused dissension within the construction industry, and yes, the Conservatives under Bette Stephenson did interfere in the bargaining process and put in provincial bargaining. Interfering into how unions operate is no new game here; it happens all the time.

Mr Murdoch: All I can say is that --

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Ward. Mr Murdoch, you had your time. Ms Murdock.

Mr George Ward: I think she retired very successfully; I don't think she was defeated.

Ms Murdock: My question actually is to Mr Raso on a comment he made, but I suppose that any one of you could answer. It's in relation to the support for the four points, and the one point in terms of jurisdiction, geographical-sectoral jurisdiction, being determined upon application to the OLRB by the international. That's the way the potential amendment reads now.

There has been some discussion about that rather than having every single intervention or geographical jurisdictional change coming from an application by the international to the OLRB, it would be done by the local itself instead, so that it would be complaint-driven rather than having it done each and every time. "We need the jurisdictional clause the way it exists" is what you said. If that was changed, would your position still be the same?

Mr Raso: The first point is that we like it the way it is because, as I think someone said, jurisdiction is established over a long period. We're talking about long-established jurisdictions. It shouldn't be easily changed.

In terms of the question of who goes to the board, we're not opposed to amending it to state that it will be complaint-driven, that the local union will make the application. However, we think it's imperative that if that is going to be the case, the international must provide, I don't know, 30 days' notice to the local union of its intention to alter.

What we think is absolutely necessary is that the application to the board go before the altering of the jurisdiction occurs, because jurisdiction is a big practical deal. We're not just talking about changing things on paper. It affects human beings. It affects workers on sites.

Ms Murdock: I'm very aware of that, as evidenced in Sudbury, yes.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms Murdock. Perhaps you can just finish.

Mr Raso: If you allow a jurisdiction to change and then you make an application and it's changed back, there's going to be a lot of chaos and instability out in the field.

For example, you could have a job site on Monday with 50 people working there and the international literally and unilaterally sends a letter or a fax to a local and says: "That's no longer your work. Get your people off." They go off, you get another group of workers go on to that site, the local goes to the board, makes an application to change and the local wins. Those 50 people are now ordered off the site, and the original 50 people have to go back on. That's chaotic and it's not in the interests of the union, nor is it in the interests of the employer, because they're not going to know what's going on. All they know is that they want sheet metal workers onsite and there's a fight going on about which 50 people or how many should be there. In the interest of stability, it should be that the international has to provide notice first and then go to the board.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Raso. Thank you to all of the people from the Sheet Metal Workers. You've managed to grab your whole hour anyway, even though I tried to squeeze a bit of time out of you. Thank you for coming before us.

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 353

The Acting Chair: Perhaps at this time we could have the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353, please.

Can we have some order, please, in the room. Good afternoon. I welcome you to the committee. Could you, for Hansard's purpose, introduce yourself and the person with you.

Mr Joe Fashion: My name is Joe Fashion and this is one of my assistants, Bill Robinson. The reason for this big brochure is to counter international vice-president Woods's three-ring binder that he provided last week. We felt we needed to have as much in front of the committee.

Interjections.

The Acting Chair: Could I ask the members to please keep it down. At your leisure, sir.

Mr Fashion: Thank you very much.

The Acting Chair: Try to remember that we have another group to present and there will be a vote at quarter to 5, at which time we will have to call it --

Ms Murdock: At quarter to 6.

The Acting Chair: Or at quarter to 6; I keep trying to get out early, but nobody's going to let me.

1710

Mr Fashion: I will try to be as fast as I can, but we do have an awful lot of things to talk about, so I hope the committee will be patient.

My name is Joe Fashion. I am the elected business manager of IBEW, Local 353. Our local has 6,000 members and our jurisdiction is from Oakville to Pickering and north to Lake Simcoe. I've brought with me today some of our local union officers and members. Maybe you'd like to stand up, 353. Come on.

It's too bad Mr Mahoney's not here, but these are local people, rank-and-file people who are in favour of Bill 80.

I'm an avid supporter of our international union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. I served my apprenticeship in the IBEW, Local 353, and I have been a member for 35 years, I've been the elected business manager for the last six and a half years and I have recently been re-elected for a third three-year term. I'm proud to be a member of the IBEW and I hope to be a member until the day I die.

However, there has been evidence of abuse of power by our international office towards myself and other elected officers and members of our local and indeed many other local unions. The need for Bill 80 has never been more apparent than it is today. It is my sad duty to come here today and publicly illustrate the need for legislation to protect the elected officers and members and local union autonomy.

I say it is a sad duty because the actions of a few high officials of the IBEW and their continual abuse of power have allowed them to interpret the constitution of the IBEW to suit their own purposes. By so doing, they have maligned the character and reputation of our membership and their duly elected officers.

There have been allegations made before this committee by our international vice-president, Ken Woods, which cannot go unanswered. Let's be specific. The Greenbelt gas pumping station: International vice-president Woods sent me a letter dated December 5, 1988, in which he refers to problems on the job site, and he informed our local that the job site was under international supervision and that his representative, Mackenzie, had been assigned to ensure that the supervision was carried out.

This was the first time Local 353 had received any correspondence from the international office or had any discussion whatsoever with the international office concerning this job site. I would like to refer to tab 1, page 1, which contains our correspondence with the international.

In August 1988, the Toronto United Association, Local 46, pipefitters, lost their jurisdiction over this job site to the UA Kitchener local. The contractor, Nicholls-Radtke, is based in the Kitchener area and wanted to use their employees from Kitchener to work on this project. The project was primarily pipefitters' work and because of this, Local 353 members did not arrive on the site until September 1988. Yet in his letter to the international president, he implies that Local 353 electricians have caused the project to be three months behind schedule. We had not even been on the job site for three months, yet we were to blame.

The supervision on the job site was so incompetent that they were not using proper explosion-proof fittings and our members reported this to the Ontario Hydro inspection office, as it is their duty and obligation as licensed tradesmen to protect public safety. The contractor wanted to use his employees from Kitchener to do the work, which rightfully belongs to our members.

The ICI provincial construction agreement protects the work in a local union's jurisdiction by only allowing an electrical contractor to bring in one worker from another local, and all the other workers must be hired from the local union, in this case, Local 353.

At this point, I want to bring to your attention that IVP Woods's international representative, Mackenzie, and company representative, Eric Hardman, are members of Local 804 Kitchener, which benefited by taking the work away from Local 353. Further, the owner of Nicholls-Radtke, Bill Nicholls, is also from the Kitchener area.

We were astounded and insulted to find out from IVP Woods's presentation before this committee that the basis for his actions were as the result of Mackenzie's report dated December 3, 1988, and a weekend conversation with the owner, Bill Nicholls. You will note that Mackenzie's report is based on allegations contained in an alleged daily journal that was kept by the company representative, Eric Hardman. That's at tab 2, page 1. If you will turn to that page, you will see IVP Woods accepts the word of a company official and never consults us.

Neither the members on the job site nor the elected officers of the local union were ever given the opportunity to respond to these allegations before the IVP took the job site away from our members.

The company's repeated violation of our collective agreement forced our local union to file grievances at the Ontario Labour Relations Board for lost wages and benefits and the firing of three union stewards and health and safety representatives. International vice-president Ken Woods, in his presentation to the committee, failed to mention that subsequent to his removing the job site from our jurisdiction, Nicholls Radtke had to pay damages to Local Union 353 for the violations of the collective agreement. In fact, Woods's actions interfered with the due process at the labour board and jeopardized our grievances which were properly before the board.

Bill 80 will prevent the international office from interfering in local union autonomy and allow elected officers to fulfil their legal responsibility to represent their members to the best of their ability. If this was an isolated case, the need for legislation would not be so compelling, but unfortunately, the international office's continual interference in local union affairs makes it difficult for local unions to function in accordance with the Labour Relations Act.

As recently as June 29, 1993, international vice-president Woods sent our local a faxed letter -- see tab 3. You will note that this directive gave our local union until 5 pm of that day to respond to the contractor's needs or the local union would lose its jurisdiction over the projects in question. He even threatened me that he would bring in workers from Quebec to replace our members onsite, and reminded me what he did to us on the Greenbelt site. This is just another example of the high-handed actions of our international office.

Tab 3, page 3, is our response to the IVP's letter. You will note it is dated the same day as his letter. The contractor in question was continually violating the collective agreement and provincial health and safety regulations. Consequently, we were forced to file grievances after they endangered our members' safety and fired the Local 353 health and safety rep who had phoned the Ministry of Labour.

Subsequent to this, the contractor in question had to pay damages to our local for the violations of our agreement, and the construction health and safety inspector shut down one of these projects until the trenches were made safe enough for our members to work in them. Bill 80 will help prevent these international office threats and intimidation.

In IVP Woods's presentation, he has submitted a letter dated April 20, 1978, from International vice-president Ken Rose to international president Pillard, which is in tab 4 in our presentation. Please turn to page 5 at tab 4. This is the first time we have ever seen this letter which was provided by Ken Woods in his presentation a week ago. It's the first time we've seen this letter written 15 years ago. Along with a number of unfounded allegations, the real truth behind the trusteeship over our local is seen here on page 5.

1720

I quote from his letter, "I am concerned as to the possibility that the forthcoming election of LU 353 may very well see the dissidents in complete control of the local union." As I say, that's in the international vice-president's letter on page 5. We've highlighted it so that you don't have to spend too much time looking for it.

We have always maintained that the trusteeship was put in place to prevent the international's appointed business manager from facing the membership at the election. Now IVP Woods has given all of us a document which shows the smoking gun. Any member who dares to disagree or shows some individuality is branded a dissident or a communist. Referring to International vice-president Rose's letter, on page 3 of the same letter, you'll see that he, in his letter to international president Pillard, has put in it that there are some radicals, and then, in brackets, "some say communist."

In May 1978, nominations were held at the regular Local 353 union meeting in accordance with our bylaws. A business agent, Bill Jacks, and executive board officer Robert Gullins stood for the office of business manager. William Robinson, an executive board officer, stood for financial secretary. These were two full-time positions within our local union. The very next day Bill Jacks was fired by Bill Hardy, the incumbent and internationally appointed business manager. The following week Local 353 was put into trusteeship and Robinson, Gullins and others were suspended from office and elections were cancelled.

The main reasons given for the trusteeship were unauthorized expenditures of local union funds on gifts to pensioners and Christmas parties for members' children and the failure of the local union to get international authorization for a legal strike a year earlier, in June 1977.

The interesting thing to note is that the part-time officers, namely, the president and executive board, were immediately removed from office, while the full-time, paid officers, business manager and financial secretary, were left in office to carry on as they had in the past. These same full-time officers had the responsibility and authority to manage the finances of the local and get authorization from the international office for a legal strike.

There is something really lacking in the laws then and still today concerning trusteeship that Bill 80 addresses. Not only was Local 353 allowed to be legally put into trusteeship without any obligation on the part of the international to justify its action before an impartial tribunal such as the labour board, but it was allowed to continue the trusteeship for a year.

Then they made application before the labour board to continue the trusteeship. Fortunately, some of our members hired a lawyer and intervened at the labour board. The international reluctantly withdrew its application because it knew it did not have just cause. They were forced to end the trusteeship, but before they did that they unilaterally appointed new officers and changed the local union bylaws.

These new bylaws suspended elections for another two years and changed the election process to a mail-in vote. The membership responded by passing new bylaws which would return the local election to a poll vote with an absentee mail-in provision. International vice-president Rose refused to approve this bylaw even though he had approved it prior to the trusteeship and it was in compliance with the IBEW constitution.

Over the subsequent years, Local 353 passed numerous bylaws which were identical to other IBEW locals in the province. The International vice-president, Ken Rose, still refused to approve the bylaws. It took from 1978 to 1987, after many attempts, appeals and letters to legal counsel, until the bylaws were finally approved -- see tab 5. You can see that the trusteeship was legal for one year, but it took nine years to get the bylaws and officers of the local union back in place.

This should illustrate the need for Bill 80, which would give local unions some autonomy and prevent the international office from directly or indirectly interfering with local union autonomy.

You will note in the IBEW constitution the enormous powers of the international president and his vice-presidents regarding charges and trials. The allegations in IVP Rose's letter dated April 20, 1978, which was sent to International President Pillard -- tab 4 -- are the same allegations that are contained in charges laid against the former president and executive board members of Local 353 -- see tab 8.

To summarize, International vice-president Rose sends a letter with allegations supporting trusteeship to International president Pillard. International vice-president Rose then assigns his representative, Moore, to take charge of the local and investigate his own charges. Moore then lays the very same charges against the part-time officers. International vice-president Rose then assigns another one of his representatives, R. McWillie, to hear the charges. At the subsequent trials, a third international representative, Swift, testifies against the accused. Then IVP Rose makes the final ruling, convicting the members on his own charges. The appeal of these charges then goes to International President Pillard, who had already ruled that the officers were guilty by placing the local into trusteeship. This is an obvious violation of the laws of natural justice. Bill 80 would help alleviate this abuse.

The Acting Chair: If I might interject at this particular moment, you've been approximately 20 minutes on this. As I said, I'm going to have to cut you off quite soon. If you could quickly sum up, we could have a couple of questions.

Mr Fashion: I believe I've got four pages, and I'll go as fast as I can.

In the United States, there's legislation which attempts to give local unions a bill of rights. This legislation is known as the Landrum-Griffin Act, and it was passed in 1959. Yet the courts in Ontario will not hear cases concerning internal union problems. We have heard statements by the international unions that there is no need for Bill 80, because the union constitution and appeal processes protect members from abuse of power. We have submitted documents -- tab 7 -- which clearly illustrate the need for Bill 80.

An American IBEW member, Dan Boswell, was removed from office, fined $1,500 and banned from any candidacy for six years for criticizing local union officials. Mr Boswell filed suit under the Landrum-Griffin legislation, won his court case and was awarded damages.

During the trial, union attorneys claimed that their union was a model of democracy, that the Boswell case was an isolated incident. Even if his complaint was justified, they argued, it would be unfair to compel the union to revise its constitution because of a single disciplinary action, even if it was in error. To test the claim, Judge Lacey ordered the union to open its disciplinary records for inspection and gave Boswell 10 days in which to investigate the files. Under extreme time pressure, the Association for Union Democracy recruited volunteer lawyers and law students to examine documents in most IBEW districts all over the US and Canada. The documents proved that, in some 750 cases at least, IBEW members had suffered penalties over a 10-year period on the basis of illegal union restrictions on free speech.

Interestingly enough, some of our former officers' cases could have been part of that investigation. William Robinson was charged and convicted by IP Rose for writing an article, entitled Unanswered Questions by the International Office, that was submitted to the editorial board of the local union newsletter -- see tab 6. Let's look at these questions at tab 6 that he wanted answered:

1730

"Why was the business manager of our local removed from office?

"Why was the former business manager who lost a democratic election appointed as the new business manager?

"Why did the international office order the membership back to work when there were only four working days to go before the scheduled ratification vote?

"Why did the international insist on having a mail-in ballot even though the executive board and the membership were opposed to it?

"Why did the international vice-president not come to the union meeting to explain his reasons rather than sending an assistant who antagonized the membership?

"Why did the international refuse to allow the executive board to call a special meeting as it is their right under the constitution?

"What ever happened to local union autonomy?

"As an officer of Local 353, I would appreciate an answer from the IVP to these questions at a union meeting in the near future."

Bill Robinson was charged and convicted for that.

Robert Gullins and William Robinson were charged by the international for merely attending an ad hoc committee meeting that was opposed to provincial bargaining. Their so-called crime was to attend a meeting to discuss upcoming provincial legislation -- see tab 6.

If Bill 80 is not retroactive to the date it was first introduced, we could be charged for appearing before this committee and expressing a view that is different from the international's. In fact, if Bill 80 does not get passed or is watered down, we expect that the international will charge us or find some way of punishing us or our membership. They will say the charges have nothing to do with Bill 80. There will be some other trumped-up charges similar to the ones that have been laid in the past -- see tab 6, page 3.

The Acting Chair: I'm going to have to ask you to --

Mr Fashion: I've got a page and a half.

The Acting Chair: Well, very quickly.

Mr Fashion: I don't know if the members of this committee can appreciate what goes through a victim's mind when he works hard for his local union, only to be rewarded with malicious charges which malign his character and destroy his credibility and reputation with his peers. I can tell you today that I don't wish this fate on anyone. I cannot describe to you the pain and torment this causes an individual. I've been through the process, and it took me five years to clear my name. They tried every intimidation tactic to get me to drop my appeal. I can relate to the anguish of my fellow members and officers who have gone through this ordeal. I hope our efforts here today will convince this committee to put an end to this type of persecution by ensuring Bill 80 is strengthened, not watered down.

Finally, I want to address the disaffiliation clause in the bill. While I am not in favour of disaffiliation, I believe the clause would have protected other unions that have had their union dues increased drastically because no one would dare question what their IP was doing travelling around the world.

The internationals make a case for the need for the trusteeships, and I concede that in some cases the need exists; I guess, for example, the example the other night where somebody had stolen $1.5 million. There surely should be a trusteeship over something like that, but there should be a just-cause hearing.

I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear here today.

Mr Bill Robinson: I just wanted to clarify for the record that there's some misinformation being stated here by individuals in front of this committee.

First, Local 353's 6,000 members and Local 1788's 1,400 members represent one half of the construction members of the IBEW in the province. The Toronto and central building trades council affiliates represent 60,000 construction workers in Ontario. That is a majority of unionized construction workers in the province who have supported Bill 80.

Second, the Labour Relations Act, which has been amended by both Liberal and Conservative governments, overrides the authority of all construction union constitutions in the province. For example, a trusteeship cannot continue beyond a year without justification at the labour board. Provincial bargaining also overrides all constitutions because the IP or IVP cannot have other agreements for this type of work on construction, yet the constitution gives them authority to do so -- page 25 of our constitution. Also, 149a of the act specifically tells unions who can vote on the contract. Non-union members can vote. The act is a complete regulation of constitutions, containing hundreds of rules and regulations concerning the rights to strike, organizing, union membership, grievances, cease-and-desist orders, decertifications, trade jurisdiction, grievances and collective bargaining.

The act presently regulates union constitutions and local bylaws, and it works in parallel with these other documents. So the argument that the bill is some kind of precedent in this regard is simply not true. I hope that we have put this myth to an end. All union constitutions are subject to the laws of the land in Canada and the United States of America and any other countries in the world in which the unions operate.

The broad powers of the international president force us to belong to organizations and pay our members' money to the CFL. I can assure you that Local 353's 6,000 members would not pay another dollar to Mr McCambly's organization if we had a choice. So there is little doubt why he is down here complaining about Bill 80. He wants our money, yet he does not speak for us or represent us in any way.

Bill 80, simply put, is all about sharing power with the internationals and protecting local union autonomy. If Bill 80 is passed, the locals and the internationals will have a more harmonious relationship because locals will be on a more level playing field and compromises and consultation will be a reality.

The Acting Chair: I can't allow any questions. The other presenter is going to end up with 10 minutes out of this deal.

Mr Mahoney: Could we have a vote? I'd suggest we just hear the next presenter.

The Acting Chair: That's what we're going to do. Thank you very much for your presentation.

LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 183

The Acting Chair: Could the Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 183, please come forward. Could you start your presentation.

Mr Keith Cooper: Right away?

The Acting Chair: ASAP, please. Could we also have some order in the room. Keep it down, please.

At your leisure, sir; well, no, not quite that relaxed.

Mr Keith Cooper: Not at my leisure? Speed it up.

The Acting Chair: Yes, no leisure.

Mr Keith Cooper: A quick leisure.

The Acting Chair: Can we have some quiet in the room, please.

Mr Keith Cooper: Good afternoon -- I guess it's evening by now -- honourable members. I'm appearing on behalf of the Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 183. With me today is Brother Tony Candiano on behalf of Michael J. Reilly, business manager; Tony Dionisio, the president; and Rocco Lotito, secretary-treasurer of Local 183.

We would first like to congratulate Premier Rae's government on having the foresight and understanding to tackle this proposed amendment to the Labour Relations Act of Ontario. We appreciate the busy agenda which you have set for yourselves and your commitment to a thorough examination of this particular piece of legislation and of the need for it.

We would like to point out respectfully to the loyal members of the opposition that this particular piece of legislation should not be considered anti-business. As I'm sure you've noticed, there have been no appearances by employers opposing this bill, and rightly so. The four major points which Local 183 supports will have no impact on the business community and are simply extended to create uniformity and equity throughout the various labour organizations in the province.

The Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 183, has a long and involved history in this city and its surrounding areas and has provided considerable assistance to our members, the employers with which we deal, various governments as well as the community itself.

Presently, Local 183 has some 11,000 members working with many different skills in the construction building trades in Toronto. We offer a state-of-the-art training facility, a modern, fully staffed dental clinic, a prepaid legal clinic and a social services department geared to helping our members adjust to injury and unemployment. Additionally, we sponsor non-profit and cooperative housing ventures which provide both employment and cost-effective shelter for thousands. In January, we will be opening a soft-tissue rehabilitation clinic to better assist our members in receiving treatment for injuries commonly found in our industry. All of these endeavours are operated under joint management-labour boards, with the various trustees devoting a great deal of time to their successful operation.

Unfortunately, some of our brethren in labour do not enjoy the same working relationship with their international unions and various trustees as we do at Local 183. Accordingly, Bill 80 is a necessary legislative step to ensure that some of these locals have their rights and interests protected with fairness and equity. It would be foolish to weaken or dilute the bill as, without the safeguards which will be established once this piece of legislation becomes law, many unions would realize no benefit at all from these amendments.

1740

With respect to section 138.2, to which I draw your attention, these provisions are necessary to ensure uniform collective bargaining rights for all employees affected by a particular collective agreement.

Turning to the second major point of this legislation, I would like to discuss section 138.3. The constitutions of many major international unions allow the union's general president to change a Canadian local's jurisdiction overnight and without any legitimate reasons whatsoever.

The crucial elements to this particular section are, firstly, a provision for just cause. Although we commonly associate the principle of just cause with matters pertaining to discharge, there is clear relevance to the unilateral altering of a local union's jurisdiction. Just as no persons should be dismissed from their employment without good reason, no local should have its rights ignored without justice being served. Furthermore, subsection 138.3(2) should be altered to allow for an application to be made by the local trade union in the event its jurisdiction has been or will be altered by its parent.

These provisions simply extend the concept of fairness and equity throughout the system while allowing for all factors, such as the union's constitution, the local's ability and the wishes of the local's membership to be taken into consideration by an independent board.

The spirit of just cause should be, and is, continued in section 138.5 of the bill. Once again the particular wording of the constitutions of many international unions allows for unilateral action to be taken by the general executive board without the necessary requirements common law and common sense would require.

Once again, should there be good reason or reasons which may be justified before an independent panel, justice is served and the membership's interest protected by this legislation. However, should there be an absence of reason, the membership is still entitled to protection of their rights. This section provides for that two-way protection necessary to promote and ensure fairness. As a simple matter of semantics, we would suggest that subsection (3) have the phrase "must first consider" removed from within the context of the section. As the board would not be bound by the international's constitution as the section is now worded, this phrase is simply unnecessary.

The fourth and final point which we would like to address is section 138.7. With our country's present dilemma in regard to the viability of our social safety net and the increased costs on our tax dollars, employment benefit plans, which may include everything from major medical to pension plans, are becoming increasingly important to the average worker.

Additionally, numerous governments, think tanks and financial analysts have opined that well-funded pension plans may provide considerable funding for all types of development, thereby providing further employment, economic growth and an improved business climate, not to mention the relief to governments and taxpayers who must ultimately find funding for certain developments.

Accordingly, the members, and by extension their locals, need the ability and representation to make solid and well-planned choices on how their plans are governed and how their funds are invested. Just as any major corporation provides representation proportionate to the shareholder's interest in that company, so should a local and its membership be accorded the same rights. If I may be so finicky as to point out that at the conclusion of subsection 7 the words "by employers" be added to fully and accurately define the terms set out before, I will close our submission on the technical aspects of the proposed Bill 80.

To conclude our report to the honourable members, I wish to reiterate that the underlying purpose of this legislation is to introduce and promote fairness and equity. None of the proposals being made should be construed as an attempt to gain power or wealth. Rather, we are merely interested in ensuring that common rights accorded citizens, private, public and corporate, be extended to our brothers and sisters in the construction unions.

The Acting Chair: I thank you for your presentation. What we can do is we will start going around, but should the bells ring for this vote we will have to call the hearings for today. I will start this time with Mr Mahoney.

Mr Mahoney: I guess we don't know how much time we have.

Do you have any concerns about international work in light of Bill 80? First of all, Bill 80 is passing. It's nice that everyone is going to spend all this time addressing opposition concerns and remarks, but the reality is that they've got the guns.

Applause.

Mr Mahoney: You guys can all applaud, because they're going to pass the bill. As a result of that, do you have any concerns after it passes about the ability of Ontario workers to get work in the United States?

Interjection: No.

Mr Mahoney: I'm asking the gentleman, if you don't mind.

Mr Keith Cooper: At this point in time, I think it's difficult enough for our workers to find employment in Canada. With the oncoming NAFTA and other such free trade agreements in the works, I think at this point in time our interests should be to protect our members' rights in Canada. I don't think we need to be concerned with the American economy or finding work in the American economy.

Mr Mahoney: I'm not concerned with the American economy; I'm concerned about the potential mobility of workers in the construction industry. I'm not concerned about NAFTA in regard to this. Forget the States; talk about Manitoba. Do you have any concerns about the ability of an Ontario construction worker to work in another province, for example, be it on a megaproject or perhaps just a residential project in Winnipeg? I'm thinking of a worker in Kenora. I just want to know if you have any concerns.

Mr Keith Cooper: The short answer to that would be no.

Mr Mahoney: Can you tell me if there's any legitimacy to concerns about different rules in different jurisdictions with regard to labour mobility?

Mr Keith Cooper: Which jurisdictions?

Mr Mahoney: Any jurisdiction. If Ontario unions have different rules and regulations or you escalate a war with the internationals in some way, are there any concerns? Surely to God you don't think that Bill 80's going to solve all the problems of the world and all of sudden everybody's going to have work on their plate. I don't think anybody thinks that. In fact, I don't think Bill 80 addresses work for anybody, under any circumstances.

My concern is the relationship in the broader labour movement. Do you see any potential impact if a union in Manitoba works under different rules? We've seen the problem between Quebec and Ontario, and hopefully that'll be solved in the not-too-distant future, but I'm just asking if there are concerns about that relationship in other provinces.

Mr Keith Cooper: Well, no. The Quebec-Ontario situation is more of a provincial government issue rather than a labour issue, so I don't think it has any relevance. As for the mobility of workers from one province to another, the purpose of Bill 80 is not to "launch a war" against the internationals; it is merely to ensure that our rights are protected.

I don't think you're going to see any wars launched. If there is just cause, that will be dealt with arbitrarily, before a panel, as we do every day in front of the labour relations board with employers. I haven't had any employer shoot at me; I don't think I'll have an international shoot at me. I don't think it will affect mobility whatsoever.

Mr Mahoney: The Ontario Labour Relations Board is a pretty busy organization.

Mr Keith Cooper: Indeed.

Mr Mahoney: Do you have any concerns about them taking on the role of referee in what I think is primarily internal union politics? But you may not. Do you think there's a problem in that area potentially?

Mr Keith Cooper: The only potential problem may be a funding issue, which would have to be addressed at that point in time. Other than that, the whole concept of the labour relations board is, of course, one of government involvement in the unions to promote a fair and quick, efficient system, and to keep us out of the courts, which quite often become clogged and take two or three years to resolve any matter. I don't think it will be in any way affected by the labour relations board or vice versa.

The Acting Chair: If I might, if you have one more quick one, because Mr Murdoch would like --

Mr Mahoney: I'd just like clarification on a reference to something you said. You're suggesting on page 4 of your presentation, if I understand this correctly, that you don't even want them to take into consideration the terms of the constitution when making a decision; just forget it. Is that what you're saying?

Mr Keith Cooper: No. If you read it correctly, it's a simple matter of semantics. As I said in my report, the board is not bound by the union constitution.

Mr Mahoney: You don't even think they should consider it, though, even if it's semantics?

Mr Keith Cooper: That's not the point. It's still in there as being "they shall consider." My point is they shall not first consider. It can be considered among other principles of fairness, but it shouldn't be the --

Mr Mahoney: So then you don't necessarily want it deleted entirely; you just want it to read that they must at some point consider it.

Mr Keith Cooper: They may consider it indeed.

1750

Mr Murdoch: I want to congratulate you for coming here and for making your presentation. As you know, I agree with this local autonomy. That's one of the reasons I said I got elected.

I do have a bit of a problem with government having to do this and, as Mr Ward pointed out, the Liberals and the Conservatives had done it in the past. That doesn't mean it's right, but if this is the way we have to go, then I guess this is the way we're going to have to go. What I'm hearing from a lot of the locals is that's what you want us to do and that's maybe what we're going to have to do.

The internationals -- some of them have been here and I see some more of them are coming -- try to tell us, and they say this will create chaos and management's not going to like this and it's going to cause a lot of problems. You really don't foresee that?

Mr Keith Cooper: As I pointed out in the report, to the best of my knowledge, I don't know of any employers who have made any mention of the bill. I may be incorrect in that assumption, but I don't believe so. As I said to the honourable member before, I don't feel it's going to create a war between the internationals. It should promote fairness.

Mr Murdoch: I think most of the locals have expressed that and that's why we're here, to listen and to see. I would hope then the bill proceeds as fast as it can, once they have the hearings and everyone's had a chance.

Mr Keith Cooper: Indeed.

Mr Murdoch: So again, thanks for coming out. I don't have a lot to ask you because I sort of agreed with what you've said so far.

Mr Keith Cooper: Thank you.

The Acting Chair: Just as a point of clarification, actually the Boilermaker Contractors' Association of Ontario --

Mr Keith Cooper: Did make a representation.

Interjection: On Monday.

The Acting Chair: Yes. Thank you. Ms Murdock.

Ms Murdock: Thank you very much. I had such a short time the last time to ask the question, I didn't even think to thank the presenters, so I'll do that first off.

I want to follow up on Mr Mahoney's point on page 4 of your presentation because I'm surprised, actually, that you would delete "must first consider" the constitution of an organization based on the fact that the phrase is simply unnecessary. I would think that because it is not "bound by" following it, but that it should be a consideration of the rules of how you organize yourselves and each union might have something a little bit different as to how they operate and therefore their constitution would be relevant to a decision made by any independent body.

Mr Keith Cooper: Therefore it should be considered.

Ms Murdock: Yes. I'm surprised you would ask to have "must first consider" removed.

Mr Keith Cooper: As I stated at the beginning of that sentence, it was a simple matter of semantics. The particular section we're speaking about goes on to say "shall not be bound by." If it shall not be bound by, I think in terms of fairness that all of the other issues which the board may deem to consider should be considered equally. The weight attached to "must first consider" seems to indicate that you should first and foremost consider a union's constitution without regard necessarily to equal weight to all the other considerations.

I think all considerations should be equal. If the constitution has a relevant provision which is not onerous in any way, which is fair under any system that we know and it is applicable to whichever situation arises at the time then, yes, the constitution can be consulted and considered and perhaps even adhered to.

On the other hand, a particular constitution may have a very onerous provision which places a demand which may be impossible for the local union to meet. I don't think any additional weight should be attached to that. I think it should be taken in concert with the rest.

Ms Murdock: I thank you for that. I don't know whether I agree with you, mind you. Anyway, I wanted to ask you -- one of the earlier presenters today had talked about the Bill 40 expedited hearings and how it has speeded things up. I know part of the Bill 80 is expedited hearings with a construction panel who have some knowledge of the industry and I want to know whether or not, in your experience, the expedited hearings since Bill 40 have truly speeded things up and whether that would be applied to the construction industry.

Mr Keith Cooper: My experience at the board, to be perfectly honest -- most of what we call section 126s, which are common grievance referrals to the board, are automatically expedited matters. That alone has helped us considerably. The other provisions for expedited matters, personally I've only handled perhaps three. In my three instances they have been quite well done, quickly and have resulted in quick resolutions and amicable resolutions. It should be applied and it should be carried through in certain instances. I think it would be a help to the labour board.

Ms Murdock: Thank you.

The Acting Chair: Any other questions from the members? The bell hasn't gone. Well, hearing no other questions, I thank you very much, Mr Cooper, for coming in.

Ms Murdock: I just think they should be commended on having done this so quickly and expeditiously.

The Acting Chair: That was the other part of it. Yes, I also thank you for the way you dealt with our time allocation.

Mr Mahoney: I had a request and I sent it through to you for two other people, local unions, to appear and I don't know if you got it yet. I just wonder how we might deal with that. I know we're on a very tight schedule, but if there's some way of fitting them in, even if it's only for a 10- or 15-minute presentation, considering the fact that they relate --

The Acting Chair: We have a waiting list.

Mr Mahoney: We have a waiting list already?

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: Maybe next meeting you'll have my letter by then. Maybe we could combine a lot of them.

The Acting Chair: Could we keep it down, please. We're still conducting the meeting. Hopefully by the next time, on Monday, I will have that letter.

Mr Mahoney: If we're able to combine a number of them into one presentation, sort of like we had today -- the only thing is that when we do combine three presentations and you wind up with no opportunity for questions, I frankly don't think that's fair to the committee members.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Or the presenters.

Mr Mahoney: Or to the presenters. That's right, because we may even need clarification. In future, if we are going to combine presentations, I think we must insist on at least having five or 10 minutes at the end of an hour-and-a-half presentation for committee questions.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Mahoney. Ms Murdock.

Ms Murdock: I would like to correct the record from when I chaired on Monday. After one of the presenters who was in favour of Bill 80, I made the statement thanking them for appearing and that they were the first group that we had heard and I was corrected by the critic, and justly so, that there had been one presenter, Mr Majesky, before that. I understand that some people in the audience were not very pleased at that, so I would like the record corrected.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms Murdock. Any other statements? Hearing no other conversation needed, I would like to draw things to a close for today and we will meet again Monday at the beginning of routine proceedings.

The committee adjourned at 1758.