Labour Relations
Amendment Act (Construction Industry), 2000, Bill 69,
Mr Stockwell / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
relations de travail (industrie de la construction),
projet de loi 69, M. Stockwell
Toronto-Central Ontario
Building and Construction Trades Council
Mr John Cartwright
Internorth
Construction
Mr Paul Richer
Carpenters' District
Council of Ontario
Mr Bud Calligan
UA Local
463
Mr Larry Cann
Labourers'
International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District
Council
Mr John Moszynski
Ontario Sheet Metal
Workers' and Roofers' Conference
Mr James Moffat
Mr Jerry Raso
International
Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental
and Reinforcing Ironworkers
Mr Aaron Murphy
Mr Gary White
Ontario Pipe Trades
Council
Mr Neil McCormick
Eastern
Construction
Mr Ed O'Neil
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY
Chair /
Présidente
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's L)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest-Nepean
PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury L)
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West / -Ouest ND)
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et
les Îles L)
Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale
PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Mr Avrum Fenson, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1614 in room 151.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (Ms Marilyn
Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I call the meeting to
order. The first item of business is the subcommittee report on
Bill 69. Do I have a motion to read the report into the
record?
Mr Rick Bartolucci
(Sudbury): I move that the summary of decisions made at
the subcommittee on the committee business be now read into the
record.
Your subcommittee on
committee business met on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, and recommends
the following with respect to Bill 69, An Act to amend the Labour
Relations Act, 1995 in relation to the construction industry:
That the committee intends to
meet for the purpose of conducting public hearings in Toronto on
May 16, 17 and 18 from 3:30 pm to 6 pm and tentatively in
Sudbury-
Mr David
Christopherson (Hamilton West): Dispense.
Mr
Bartolucci: Dispense.
The Chair:
Carried.
LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (CONSTRUCTION
INDUSTRY), 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS
DE TRAVAIL (INDUSTRIE DE LA CONSTRUCTION)
Consideration of Bill 69, An
Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, 1995 in relation to the
construction industry / Projet de loi 69, Loi modifiant la Loi de
1995 sur les relations de travail en ce qui a trait à
l'industrie de la construction.
The Chair:
Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I wish to extend my apologies
for the delay in starting this meeting. Unfortunately, until
orders of the day are read in the House, we're not able to start.
So, without further ado, we will move directly to opening remarks
by the Minister of Labour.
Mr
Bartolucci: I believe we have unanimous consent from all
three parties to forgo the opening remarks by the Minister of
Labour by the critic for the official opposition and by the
critic of the third party, and move directly into
deputations.
The Chair:
Is that agreed? OK, then we'll move directly into delegations,
witnesses.
TORONTO-CENTRAL ONTARIO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION
TRADES COUNCIL
The Chair:
The first witness is Mr John Cartwright. I should say, ladies and
gentlemen, that we have 10 minutes for each witness. I will be
adhering to that fairly strictly this afternoon because of the
time delay. If you take the full 10 minutes, that's fine, but if
there are a few minutes left after your presentation, I will
allow some time for questions from members of the committee.
Good afternoon, Mr
Cartwright.
Mr John
Cartwright: Good afternoon.
I can't get over the
interesting time in the last number of months leading up to these
hearings and this bill. My name is John Cartwright. I'm the
business manager of the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and
Construction Trades Council. With me is Gary White, who's a
business representative for the council.
Our council represents over
45,000 tradesmen and tradeswomen in the greater Toronto area, and
we think it's important for the committee to understand one
thing: The construction workforce in the greater Toronto area is
the most productive construction workforce in the world. That's
not something we're saying because we want to say it; it's
something that our contractors who work around the world come
back and tell us is the case. So we think it's important, when
the government or the opposition parties look at this bill or any
labour law changes, that they understand that you should not
endanger that workforce either through what you're going to do
with Bill 69 or any future labour law changes.
I've had the fortune-or had
the misfortune-of being probably the only person at both sets of
industry negotiations, the residential industry and the ICI
sector, that have led to the amendments in Bill 69. It's
something I look at and say we can live with some of the
amendments, largely because the alternatives seem to be a demand
by extremist employers to remove section 1(4) of the act or do
other such detrimental things to our members.
But there are some amendments
being proposed that we find deeply disturbing. The main one is
the removal of the effective right to strike for workers in the
residential industry. The notion of a 45-day window, which
was arrived at arbitrarily,
means that our members are not going to be able to withhold their
labour in any effective way and essentially removes that right to
strike, which you know is guaranteed under the ILO conventions
for all workers, particularly in the private sector. We're not
aware that this has ever been done before in this province.
We're concerned about the
arbitration process that's going to interfere in the ICI existing
collective agreements, where there was an understanding that the
words "significant competitive disadvantage" were going to be
part of the test in order to open up those agreements. The word
"significant" is not found in the legislation, and we think that
creates far too wide a loophole that may be abused.
We're very concerned about
the establishment of something called "regional employer
organizations" that would be deemed by cabinet without any formal
accountability to our industry or to anybody else, and the
ability of employers in the ICI arbitration process to present
multiple final offers to the arbitrator.
There are a number of other
areas that we've suggested are things that also should be amended
in the bill. They are listed in our submission that's in front of
you.
1620
We spend most of our time
talking about removing the right to strike in the private sector.
I was at the table through this entire piece, and we had a
situation where the apartment builders came and said, "We don't
want as many strikes," and the government came and said: "We
don't want as many strikes. What are you going to do about it?"
The builder said, "Let's have a mandatory arbitration process
kick in after 60 days." You have a strike window of only 60 days
and then you lose the right to strike. You must go back to work
and arbitration kicks in.
It's interesting because
everybody said that doesn't make any sense, that all you would do
is ensure that builders would schedule around that period of
time. It's a fixed period of time, from May 1 for 60 days at that
point, and they would simply schedule around that. All you do is
reduce, actually, the production of homes. As well, you would
ensure that unions ended up exercising the right to strike
immediately on May 1 because they didn't want to lose any
pressure they would have on the employers in order to come to a
meaningful negotiated deal.
What do we end up with? Not
60 days; in fact, we end up with 45 days, which is completely
unacceptable. We think that sets a very dangerous precedent in
labour law for the private sector in this province. We're very
concerned about it. We're concerned because it strips the right
to strike from our members, and that is effectively the only
thing workers have in this society to ensure that they have a
better deal from employers.
We're concerned because of
where it takes us: to mandatory arbitration. It's ironic that the
Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario, who have been
involved with the IBEW in arbitrated settlements in the ICI
sector with their principal agreement in the last three rounds of
bargaining, are the very people who have been demanding that
massive changes be made to our labour law because the results of
that arbitration were untenable. We think it's very mistaken for
anybody to believe that mandatory arbitration is going to resolve
serious labour relations differences. We also think that if you
try and force arbitration on workers in the residential industry,
they will vote with their feet if they feel that's unfair.
The word "significant" in the
ICI sector arbitration is going to be dealt with by quite a
number of speakers. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on that,
other than to say that our council and myself agreed that there
needed to be some flexibility brought into the ICI bargaining
scheme, but we don't want to see flexibility replaced by abuse.
We want to ensure that if there is going to be an arbitration
process in place, that at the end of the day that's not used as a
process by employers to gang up and continually throw demands for
concessions and reductions in rates and wages one time after the
other regardless of the significance of the collective agreement
as it applies to the industry. The notion that they can come back
every six months is quite simply flawed. Our industry doesn't
shift its behaviour in a six-month period. You don't notice a
change in the tendering over a short six-month period.
Let me talk about related
persons for a second. The first labour board case I ever dealt
with, it took the accountant of the employer half a day in front
of the labour board to explain all the interrelated corporations
that individual owned. They were all in the names of his wife,
his children, his nephews or his nieces. We're very concerned
that if you take that out of the position altogether, you will
not get the true picture.
What's missing from Bill 69
is key, and that's about justice for workers. Since Bill 31 came
into place, we know of five contractors who have fired workers
during organizing drives. I have a list of them here if there's
any question about it. People might want to refer to this later
on. I'll leave that with the committee.
There's nothing in this bill
that changes the balance of power, where intimidation is the name
of the game right now in the construction industry, when workers
try to organize. Imagine workers going there, thinking they have
the right under law to sign a card to join a union, and finding
themselves fired. In the case of the Drycore 10, they were fired
on February 3. There still has not been a date set in front of
the labour board. That didn't happen just once because of a bad
employer; that has happened time after time in this province.
The government had the
opportunity to change that, to bring back automatic certification
in the construction industry, at least, where there are extreme
cases of unfair labour practice. They have not brought that back
in. Instead, we hear that at a later date they may bring in a
possibility for employers to intimidate workers even more. I'm
going to leave that list of these contractors for this
committee.
Bill 69 is supposed to be
about fixing problems in the industry. You can't fix problems in
the industry if workers are being told that if they consider
joining a union they'll be
fired or their company will double-breast and set up an
alternative non-union spinoff. That is not right. We have sent
that message to the Premier, to the minister and to other people
in the caucus. We will continue to talk about the injustice of
workers being fired because they want to choose a union, and we
will continue to demand that this government do something about
it, rather than continuously in this legislative program take
away rights of workers and empower employers to drive wages down
and have people working for less. That's our submission.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Cartwright. That is your full 10 minutes, so there
isn't time for questions.
Mr
Cartwright: Could I leave this for the committee,
then?
The Chair:
Yes, please do.
Mr
Bartolucci: Madam Chair, will we get copies of
those?
The Chair:
Yes, by all means. Each member of committee will get copies.
Anything that is submitted to
the committee will be distributed to all committee members.
INTERNORTH CONSTRUCTION
The Chair:
Mr Richer, Internorth Construction.
Mr Paul
Richer: Madam Chair, members of the committee, I'd like
to thank you for the opportunity provided to me today to address
you. My name is Paul Richer. I am the vice-president of corporate
services with Internorth Construction. Today I'm speaking not
only on behalf of Internorth but on behalf of eight general
contractors in the province of Ontario that remain bound to what
has become known as the Toronto and central Ontario working
agreement.
To give you a little
background-and certainly there's more information contained in
the handout; I'm not going to read it to you verbatim-these
agreements were signed in the 1950s and 1960s primarily. The
agreement makes clear reference that it's to be bound to those
trades that are members of the building trades council and whose
agreements are on file with the builders' association. At the
time those agreements were filed, there were only six agreements
on file with the builders' exchange. Those were the six civil
trades agreements-carpenters, labourers, operating engineers,
bricklayers, cement masons and reinforcing steel placers.
The agreement was
unenforceable as a voluntary recognition agreement, and that did
not change until there was legislative change in 1978 through
1980, at the time the provincial bargaining came in. The change
at that time changed the definition of the building trades
council and granted it the status of a union and an ability to
have it recognized as a union and to grant voluntary recognition
to it. The labour board took that change and applied it
retroactively against agreements that had been signed in the
1950s and 1960s. In some cases they applied it retroactively for
30 years.
In 1982, when the process of
the labour board started, there were 288 companies bound to the
agreement. A list of those companies is included in the handout;
it's a list that was provided at the time to the construction
association by the building trades council. The remaining eight
contractors that are bound today are Ellis-Don, Eastern, Vanbots,
Internorth, Harbridge and Cross, Lisgar Construction, Tom Jones
Construction and Morocas. These are among the oldest contractors
in Ontario. The balance of the contractors have shut down, moved
out of the province or gone broke. They just literally do not
exist any more as a working entity in this province, and the
primary reason is uncompetitiveness, caused by the wall-to-wall
agreement.
During the recent
negotiations, which I attended, and after the negotiations
concluded and in subsequent meetings with the minister and in
public meetings, the senior officials of the Ministry of Labour
put forward a proposal on February 3, 2000. That proposal is
contained in the handout. The proposal included relief for
building trade general contractors outside labour board area 8,
which is a geographic area covered roughly by Ajax to the east,
Milton to the west and looping around Bradford and back down. The
relief was supported by the ministry and by its officials. At the
employers' meetings in London, Thunder Bay and Ottawa the week of
April 10, representatives of the ministry confirmed that this
change would be contained in the pending legislation.
1630
Twice during the week of May
1, Premier Harris stated that he supports relief outside board
area 8 and would support such an amendment. The relief provided
in Bill 69 does not include the promised relief outside board
area 8. The legislation provides no relief for the remaining
general contractors bound to the working agreement. The proposed
enabling framework is restricted as to what portions of the
collective agreements relief can be sought from, and that
certainly doesn't include subcontracting clauses.
It is our position that the
legislation must be amended to reflect the February 3, 2000,
ministry proposal paper. If that recognition, which the paper
recognizes is to be granted voluntarily, is not granted
voluntarily, then there should be some sort of legislative
amendment to enforce the relief for board area 8.
Bill 69 is a step forward,
there's no question about that. It would be a more significant
step forward and a much more meaningful step if it was inclusive
of all of the February 3, 2000, ministry proposals.
You will hear from employer
groups that will come in and say: "The change requested outside
board area 8 is not fair. We have collective agreements that we
are signatory to but haven't hired anybody for a number of years
and we want relief for them."
The difference between those
contractors and the eight remaining building trades general
contractors is that the agreements we are seeking relief from are
agreements where we have never hired employees, we have never
been signatory voluntarily to the union, they have never brought
us to the labour board and certified us. Their reliance is only
on this building trades agreement which was given new meaning in 1980 and applied
retroactively.
The general contractors
affected are the oldest in the province. They've chosen for many
decades to base their operations in this province and would like
to continue to do so in the future. They should not be forced out
of the province by antiquated laws and by antiquated OLRB
decisions.
I'd like to thank you again
for the opportunity to present. Those are my comments. If there
are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Richer. There are about two minutes, perhaps three,
for questions. Do the members of the committee have any
questions?
Mr
Bartolucci: Thank you, Mr Richer, for your presentation.
You're obviously a person who has some concerns with regard to
the multiple offers that can be made in the arbitration
process.
Mr Richer:
I'm not sure what you mean by the multiple offers. There's a
framework that has been put in place, that we are quite anxious
to have come into place, that we can use where it is available to
us. What I'm saying is, as these eight general contractors, that
framework is not going to afford to us the relief that we
require.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you for your presentation.
The Chair:
About one minute, Mr Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: Was it your understanding that if there
wasn't an agreement reached that 1(4) was going to be removed, or
was it your understanding that if negotiations failed, the status
quo would just continue?
Mr Richer:
No, the deletion of subsection 1(4) was what the coalition or the
members of the coalition who are representing the employers were
requesting. There was obviously a lesser position being put
forward by the union. We were always told by the government that
in the event that something could not be negotiated, either the
high-low or something in between, the government would impose
legislation and a solution as they saw fit if the parties
couldn't agree.
Mr
Christopherson: You realize the minister says that's not
the case on the floor of the Legislature and he said that's not
what happened?
Mr Richer:
I'm not aware of what the minister said in the Legislature.
Mr Marcel Beaubien
(Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Mr Richer, you mentioned that
these signatory agreements occurred approximately 20 years
ago.
Mr Richer:
In some cases, 30.
Mr Beaubien:
How did they work? How did those agreements perform in the
workplace in the first 15 years of the agreement?
Mr Richer:
Beyond the civil trade agreements, which we were all directly
signatory to, we granted voluntary recognition to general
contractors or the unions certified us at the labour board. With
those trades, there was no qualification whatsoever. We were
bound to them. If we violated the agreement, we were subject to
penalty. Those agreements were not relied upon by any of the
other trades that I am aware of prior to the legislative change I
mentioned, in the early 1980s, that allowed the board to give
this an interpretation of a voluntary recognition agreement.
Until that point in time, there was no claim by these trades
against the contractors that I'm aware of.
CARPENTERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ONTARIO
The Chair:
Mr Bud Calligan, Carpenters' District Council of Ontario. Go
ahead.
Mr Bud
Calligan: Good afternoon. My name is Bud Calligan and I
am the secretary-treasurer of the Carpenters' District Council of
Ontario. On behalf of the membership, I represent over 14,000
skilled carpenters, drywallers, floor covering installers,
caulkers and pile drivers in the construction industry in
Ontario. The Carpenters' District Council of Ontario views Bill
69 as an alternative to the proposals made by certain employers
to repeal or weaken section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.
Repealing or weakening
section 1(4) would have triggered a return to the extreme levels
of conflict that characterized the construction industry prior to
adoption of the Davis amendments, which included section 1(4). In
our view, Bill 69 reflects an industry-based approach to
addressing the competitiveness issue raised by certain employers.
However, while we do not oppose the general direction of Bill 69,
we believe the bill requires amendments if it is to obtain the
desired outcome.
I was one of the six labour
representatives who met with the contractors group and the
Ministry of Labour staff to try to find an industry solution to
the competitive issue raised by the employers. The carpenters'
union has had an enabling clause in its provincial agreement
since the early 1990s to address the competitive issue. We know
from past experience that where the amending clause is used it
has been successful in making our contractors competitive. The
amendments suggested in our brief are constructive amendments
that we know from past experience will help to facilitate Bill 69
and make it a workable industry solution. Our brief on Bill 69 is
a lengthy one and similar to the briefs you'll receive from some
of the other labour groups.
Given our time constraints
today, I will only address two of the points in the submissions.
First is the area of section 163.2 to section 163.4 of Bill 69,
regarding designated regional employers' organizations. It is at
pages 7 to 11 of our brief. This section creates a new and, in
our view, unnecessary entity. It will undermine existing local
employers' associations and conventional employer bargaining
agencies' authority. The rationale for introducing this new
entity, as we understand it, was to cover areas where there was
no local employers' association. In the few instances where this
is the case, the employer bargaining agency could assume the role
of the local associations. Including this in Bill 69 will only
add to the confusion and undermine the workability of the whole
process. We have made specific recommendations regarding this at page 10 of the brief. I
would ask that you consider the recommendations that have been
put forth regarding this issue.
1640
The second item of the bill I
would like to address is subsection 163.2(4), which deals with
the subject matter of proposed amendments. It can be found at
pages 11 and 10 of our brief. Subsection 163.2(4) sets out the
provisions of a collective agreement which may be amended under
the procedures set out in the bill. The section reads in
part:
"The application may seek
only amendments that concern the following matters:
"1. Wages, including overtime
pay and shift differentials and benefits."
Benefits should not be
included in the amendable items. Health, welfare and pension plan
benefits are part of multi-employer plans and are specific
amounts of hourly contributions from the collective agreements.
Any reduction or change in these amounts could jeopardize
benefits for an employee and their family members. Benefits
should, therefore, not be subject to any amendments under Bill
69.
I have very briefly touched
on only two items contained in the brief. I respectfully ask that
you carefully consider all the amendments offered in the brief.
They are constructive amendments and are meant to make Bill 69
workable.
Thank you for your time. I
would be pleased to answer any questions.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Calligan. We have time for about three
questions.
Mr Carl DeFaria
(Mississauga East): I understand that you represent the
council of carpenters and skilled workers. Do you know the
position of people like Tony Dionisio from local 183? I'd like to
know if their position would be similar to yours.
Mr
Calligan: I can't speak for that. I believe the
Labourers are making a presentation later on today.
Mr
DeFaria: Thank you.
Mr
Bartolucci: I'd like to go back to section 163.4(4).
Could you outline to the committee why benefits are so important?
Could you maybe outline the social costs attached to excluding
benefits from the process?
Mr
Calligan: We believe that if there's any amending done
to the collective agreement, it should be done to the hourly wage
package or the other items in there and not the benefit package.
That should be left to the sole discretion of the union itself
and the trustees. Our benefit plans are paramount to making sure
that our members and their families receive proper eye care and
drug benefit and dental plans, and that our members receive a
decent pension plan. If those items are subject to benefit
reductions, that could have a catastrophic effect on our members
over the long term, and even the short term on some of the health
and welfare benefits. Therefore, any reduction on that could
upset all the health and welfare plans for all the local unions
right across the province.
Mr
Bartolucci: Absolutely, and in the long term cost the
province of Ontario more money.
Mr
Calligan: Correct.
Mr
Bartolucci: Thank you very much.
Mr
Christopherson: Bud, thank you for your presentation.
You can appreciate that while this hasn't been as difficult for
my caucus and me compared to what you've gone through on all of
this, it hasn't been easy for us either, understanding where you
are as labour leaders. This is another piece of anti-labour
legislation in its totality, right now, as it is on the floor of
the legislature, so I'm not trying to put you in an awkward spot
but I am trying to get out in the open all the dynamics at
play.
Do you have any undertaking
right now from the government that they're seriously considering
any of these amendments you're putting forward? Before you
answer, I ask for this reason, to put my cards on the table: If
they're not indicating to you that they're prepared to listen and
make any amendments, then right now the Minister of Labour is
running around town saying, first, that 1(4) is not a threat to
you, that you voluntarily want all these things to happen; and
second, that with the undertaking he has to get this through the
House, unless he hears something from the union leaders today or
in the ensuing days to follow that changes need to be made or
else, quite frankly I see no reason why Stockwell in his current
frame of mind would make any changes.
So we need to get a sense
of what dynamics the labour leaders are bringing to the table
vis-à-vis these changes, particularly the ones that John
pointed out, which from their recollection were not even part of
any original agreement.
Mr
Calligan: The minister wants an industry solution to the
perceived problem of competitiveness in the province. For
anything to work in the construction industry, there must be
co-operation from the industry itself-from management and from
labour.
The amendments we have put
forward, as I said, are constructive amendments. If the
government wants this to work, they need to make it work. Without
the amendments we've asked for, I don't know whether this will be
workable. We need something that is relatively simple to work
with. From our past experience where we've dealt with amending
clauses and stabilization funds, and those type of issues, we
know what makes them work and what doesn't make them work. As I
said, he amendments we have asked for are not way out of whack.
They are constructive amendments. They will make this work.
Without them, though, it's very much up to question.
Mr
Christopherson: On the matter that you raised about
section 163.2 in terms of what the sub-agreement can change, and
you're mentioning benefits, I raised on the floor of the
Legislature the issue of items 2 and 3, which talk about hiring
hall practices. At the time, when we were talking on the floor,
both publicly and privately, the minister said that there are
other clauses in here that mandate that even though
sub-agreements have to contain these hiring practices, I wasn't
as certain that that's the case. But I'm not a lawyer. I asked
the minister to check. He had lawyers looking at it that night. I
have yet to hear anything.
So what I want to do on this issue, if you'll allow
it, Chair, is ask the parliamentary assistant if he has the
answer. I appreciate that you may not today, and if you don't,
would you give us an undertaking to give us the government's
legal interpretation of whether or not any hiring hall practices,
as designated in 2 and 3, would be subject to change in a
sub-agreement?
The Chair:
As long as it's 30 seconds or less.
Mr Raminder Gill
(Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I don't have any
answers today, but the minister will be speaking to us later on.
Perhaps you can put that question at that time.
Mr
Christopherson: No, he won't.
Mr Gill:
He's not going to be speaking to us, Madam Chair?
Mr
Christopherson: Are you out of the loop?
Mr Gill:
OK. In that case, I will try and get the answer in due
course.
Mr
Christopherson: By "due course"-before these committee
hearings are concluded? That's fair.
Mr Gill:
Before the final submission, which I think is May 25.
Mr
Christopherson: No, no, before the hearings are
concluded, because we need to know whether or not it's in there.
I'm not playing any games here. He said he was going to give an
undertaking. Chris just-
Mr Gill: I
think it's May 25, as we agreed. That is the final
submissions?
Mr
Christopherson: Yes.
Mr Gill:
So by then we'll try and get some answers.
Mr
Christopherson: It shouldn't take that long, but all
right.
The Chair:
We really do have to move along, Mr Christopherson, in fairness
to everyone here. Thank you very much, Mr Calligan.
UA LOCAL 463
The Chair:
The next speaker is Mr Larry Cann, UA Local 463.
Mr Larry
Cann: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Like the
chairperson said, my name's Larry Cann. I am a business manager
for a local plumbers union in the Oshawa area and I'll be
speaking in support of the brief presented by the construction
unions of Ontario, and also the Toronto-central Ontario building
trades and the residential portion that John Cartwright spoke
about in regard to the removal of our right to strike, because
there are a lot of housing projects and so on and so forth that
are going on in what I guess I'll call the Durham region.
As the previous speaker
said, the brief is long so I'm going to be speaking particularly
to pages 3, 4, 5 and 6. It's under A. It's the section on the
changes under 1(4), the single employer, and section 69, the
successor employer.
Under the proposed bill,
the labour board has been directed to disregard "any relationship
by way of blood, marriage or adoption" between individuals having
a direct or indirect involvement with the first entity "and an
individual having a direct or indirect involvement with any of
the other entities" in subsection 1(4), section 69
applications-and in the bill it's subsections 126(3)1 and
126(5)1-and to only consider three particular factors if the
applicant claims relief under section 1(4)-subsection 69, which
are the length of any hiatus between the activities of a key
individual with the entities in question; whether the key
individual occupied a formal management role in the first entity;
and whether the first entity was able to carry on business
"without substantial disruption or loss when he ceased to be
involved with that entity."
1650
In the brief there's a
sub-title, "Difficulties with the Proposed Amendments in Bill
69." Like it states, there's an extensive jurisprudence before
the Ontario Labour Relations Board on the effect of pre-existing
relationships, including family relationships, on related and
successor employer applications. In a recent decision dated April
27, 2000, the Corporation of the Town of Ajax versus CAW Canada
et al, the dissenting judges of the Supreme Court of Canada at
page 4 quoted from the 1979 decision of the board in Metropolitan
Parking Inc [1979] OLRB Rep 1193 as follows:
"The board has always been
especially sensitive to any pre-existing corporate, commercial or
familial relationship between the predecessor and the alleged
successor; or between the predecessor, the alleged successor and
a third party. Transactions in these circumstances require a more
careful examination of the business realities than do transfers
between two previously unrelated business entities. The presence
of a pre-existing relationship may suggest an artificial
transaction designed to avoid bargaining obligations"-which most
of us in the building trades have been involved in at one time or
the other-"or (more commonly) there may be a transaction in the
nature of a business reorganization which does not alter the
essential attributes of the employer-employee relationship, and
which should not, having regard to the purpose of section 55 [now
section 69] disturb the collectively bargained framework for that
relationship....
"It would be incorrect to
make this consideration a decisive `test' for successorship; but
where there is a pre-existing corporate connection between the
predecessor and the successor the board has been disposed to
infer a `transfer' if there is the slightest evidence of such
transaction.... As a practical matter, it is much more difficult
to sustain the contention that one has not acquired a
predecessor's business but merely founded a new, independent, but
similar, business serving the same market."
That may be fine at
McDonald's, but in the construction industry it normally doesn't
take place.
The other dissent observes
that this concern with pre-existing relationships arises from the
board's desire to capture artificial transactions designed to
avoid bargaining obligations. Family relationships often arise in
key person cases, although not only in key persons cases.
Requiring the labour board to disregard that evidence, while on the other hand taking
into account the three specific factors set out in the new
legislation, creates an unreasonable constraint on the board's
ability to assess the key persons factor in related or successor
employer applications.
The proposed amendment in
Bill 69 are overly broad. We accept that a family relationship
should not be the only factor considered by the Ontario Labour
Relations Board. However, there is no logical basis for
precluding the OLRB from at least taking a family relationship
into account, given that family-based firms are common in the
construction industry, as is the multiplication of corporate
entities. The proposed amendments, therefore, have the effect of
discounting a factor which, together with other relevant
evidence, could lead the OLRB, in appropriate cases, to issue a
single or successor employer declaration.
We also note the purpose of
the proposed amendment, as described by the Minister of Labour
himself. In presenting Bill 69 for first reading, the minister
said, and gave an example:
"For instance, a father is
operating an electrical company and the son is an electrician in
that company. There are 200 employees in the company, but the son
is simply an electrician. We don't think it's right that if that
son wants to go out and open an electrical company, he
automatically becomes unionized simply because he's related to
the person who owns the company with 200 people. We're not saying
that they couldn't be a key person; all we're saying is that if
you get to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, you can't just
say, `They're related; therefore this person is automatically
unionized.'" I don't believe we've asked for that.
" ... there has to a more
compelling argument involved in that than simply saying, `You're
related.' All we've said in the key man portfolio is that you
just can't make the argument that blood relations and the
person's position in that company should make it automatically a
unionized operation."
This is at page 8 of the
Internet version of Hansard, May 1, if anyone wants to look.
Clearly, what the minister
intends is that the OLRB not be allowed to rely solely on a
family relationship to determine a successor or related employer
issue. The minister's statement does not suggest, nor should the
minister suggest, that a family relationship cannot be taken into
account as one consideration among others. The inference from the
minister's statement is inescapable, namely, that the wording of
the proposed amendment goes beyond the government's
intention.
The construction unions of
Ontario respectfully submit that, as currently drafted, section
126 as set out in Bill 69 does not reflect what the Minister of
Labour has described as his purpose and would unreasonably
constrain the labour board from making appropriate
determinations.
Recommended change to Bill
69: The construction unions of Ontario propose that subsections
126(3)1 and 126(5)1 be amended to require: that the board not
make a single successor employer declaration solely on the basis
of a family relationship, and that the board will continue to be
permitted to take family relationships into account in making
related and successor employer determinations.
I think what most of the
labour and management want, when they go to the Ontario Labour
Relations Board-and I've been there numerous times on these
cases-is fairness. I don't think either party will feel that
there is fairness if there's someone outside dictating what
evidence can or cannot, or should or should not, be put in
there.
I've also presented and
left with you a brief of just two pages of some of my own
feelings about the general contractors and what's there. I'm not
going to go into them. I'll leave them with you to read.
One case I heard John
mention was the time that he spent at the board going through a
previous case and the family intricacies that it went through.
Our organization and the united association of plumbers and
steamfitters went through the same one not long ago, and I think
they spent somewhere around two and a half years and maybe 30
days at the board going through the case of a gentleman who had
set up a company where he had computer access from the non-union
companies to the union companies. They were all related and in
his daughters' names, and so on and so forth, but they stemmed
from the same purpose. These are not easy cases for the building
trades to win the way the legislation is today. That's evidenced
by the-no, I won't say which report it was, but like I said, we
have about a 50-50 chance. I'll leave it at that in case there
are any questions.
The Chair:
We have about one minute for questions in total, so if you take
the full minute there won't be any other-
Mr
Christopherson: In your two-pager you make the
statement, "I truly fail to see how this bill will benefit anyone
in the long term." Can you just help me understand where that
leaves you as the business manager of local 463, in terms of the
bill? My general understanding is that, overall, the labour
leaders in the construction industry are supportive of the bill,
but there are a slew of amendments. I'm now trying to work my way
through where all this leaves us if these amendments aren't made.
That statement you've made there pertains to what?
Mr Cann: I
guess that pertains more to my own organization, my own area, my
own contractors. As it says in our brief, the overall concept of
trying to work together to make our contractors competitive, I
don't think there are many of us who are against that.
Within our own area, I have
been lucky enough to develop a relationship where I work very
closely with my contractors. We have done some of the things that
are in here because of the competitive nature of it. If we don't
have the amendments in there, what I'm afraid of is that the
labour leaders in this province will get to the point where they
feel you can talk but no one listens. If that doesn't leave us
any alternative at the end of the day, it puts us back in a state
of confrontation, I guess, with our contractors, which I don't see-that's what my
statement says there-benefits anybody. It doesn't benefit me, my
members, my contractors, the general contractors; it doesn't
benefit the government in any way, shape or form to have a
feeling of animosity or confrontation in the workplace.
Mr
Christopherson: Without the amendments, would you prefer
to see Bill 69 fail?
The Chair:
That's it, Mr Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: I'm not trying to be funny or coy; I'm
serious.
Mr Cann: I
know. If some of the amendments aren't out there, it's destined
to fail. I know that's kind of-
Mr
Christopherson: I hear you. That's OK. We're all in a
tough spot on this one.
Mr Cann:
It's going to fail because it won't work.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Cann.
LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,
ONTARIO PROVINCIAL DISTRICT COUNCIL
The Chair:
Our next witnesses are Mr Connolly and Mr Moszynski. LIUNA,
Ontario Provincial District Council.
Mr John
Moszynski: Thank you very much, and good afternoon,
committee members. My name is John Moszynski, I'm a member of
local 506 of our union and I'm a lawyer employed by the district
council.
The district council is run
by Brother Thomas Connolly, the business manager, who is seated
to my right. The council represents our 14 local unions
throughout the province and our more than 35,000 members who work
in the industry.
We have participated fully
in the process that has resulted in the proposed amendments to
the Labour Relations Act. Like the other construction unions in
Ontario, we think Bill 69 is a preferable alternative to the
repeal of section 1(4).
1700
We appreciate what the
government has done in resisting the demands for more drastic
changes. We do have serious concerns with particular aspects of
the bill. I'm going to try and go through them quickly. I want to
depart from my text to make two points. You will soon be
presented with a much more comprehensive brief from Brother Pat
Dillon of the provincial building trades council. The Labourers
fully accept and support the comments that are made in that
brief.
I also want to say that the
Labourers support the comments that were made to you by Mr Richer
a little earlier today. The Labourers also accept that the eight
general contractors to whom Mr Richer referred should be released
from their non-civil collective bargaining obligations outside of
board area 8. That has been part of the premise on which the
discussions have proceeded. It is a piece that remains to be
filled in before the industry's solution will be in place.
I'm moving now to discuss
the proposed changes to 1(4). You heard Mr Calligan from the
Carpenters speak at some length on those amendments. I just want
to reiterate that we also think the proposal should be amended to
require that the board not grant a related employer declaration
solely on the basis of a family relationship. We do think that
you should let the board consider, as it now does, whether the
family relationship is significant.
I suggest to you that there
may be circumstances where an employer would want the board to
consider the fact that when his son was working in the family
company, he really had no control, he really had no
responsibility and therefore no obligation should follow that.
It's very dangerous, in our submission, to tell the board not to
consider something. If you can trust anybody, you can trust the
board to give the matter full consideration.
As I mentioned, we
represent 14 local unions around the province. The largest of
course is our local 183 which represents the majority of workers
in the residential sector. They will be making submissions to the
committee later this week I understand. My general take on it,
for your information, is that they support the residential
amendments but that there are one or two significant points which
have to be dealt with and which ultimately should not present a
problem to the government.
Moving to the procedures
for effecting local modifications to provincial agreements, in
the audience I notice my good friend Joe Keyes, here from the
Ontario General Contractors Association. The General Contractors,
as the employer bargaining agency, are our counterpart on a
province-wide basis. We are the provincial organization of
unions. The employer bargaining agencies are the employer
equivalent.
The proposal to create
designated regional employers' organizations is, I think, of
concern to both the employer and union provincial organizations.
We have a comfortable relationship with each other. We are used
to working with each other, including arriving at modifications
to our agreement. We are concerned about creating another level
of employer organization that is entitled to participate in the
amending process. That's another body at the process. It's going
to slow things down. There may be diversions of interest. We
suggest to you that the only designated regional employer
organizations to participate should be those that the employer
bargaining agency sees fit. I'd suggest you don't want to
undercut the internal control of the provincial agencies.
If I can speak as well to
the subject matter of the proposed amendments, whether an
application can deal with or should be able to deal with benefits
or the total wage package-that particular question.
I want to suggest to you
that it's very difficult for anyone else to really appreciate the
situation we are in with our benefit plans. Regardless of whether
the member is making $30 or $15 an hour on the project, the
benefits still cost the union a set amount per hour.
If someone comes in and
says to the arbitrator, "I want to pay 15 bucks, and I only want
to pay a buck for benefits and a buck for pension," that creates an
incredible problem for us. Our preference in the circumstances
would be that the employer comes in and says, "My total cost per
hour can't exceed 15 bucks." Then if we have to take that 15
bucks and say to the member, "You can only have $12 in wages;
because we have to put $2 in benefits and $1 in pension, we'll
have to do that," we may be able to make some alternative
arrangements, do some internal pooling, something like that. But
to suggest that a third-party applicant could make a proposal
like that we think is ineffective. Let them ask for a reduction
to the total wage package and leave it at that.
I understand I only have
two minutes left. I won't cover things that have been dealt with
before.
I want to make a point
about the mobility provisions. They are of great concern. You may
not appreciate the degree to which those hiring hall arrangements
represent a local preference. There will be members up in
outlying areas of the province who watch the work coming, and
their lives depend on getting that work. What we're asking you to
do-a small amendment-is to make sure that the employer is
entitled to bring with him, to northern Ontario or wherever,
current employees, that if the employer has his workforce and he
needs these guys to go up north, or some of them, to do the work,
they must be his current employees. That's what you'll be giving
him a right to do and we don't really have a problem with that.
We do have problems with the notion that they can be other than
current employees, hired off the street. You can understand that
would be reasonable.
We're also concerned that
there's no opportunity in the legislation for consultation about
who the arbitrators are going to be, who actually pull the
trigger, if the trigger is going to be pulled. When we have
private arbitrators in our collective agreements, we can always
agree with the employers on whom we should get, who it should be,
who the arbitrator is who's familiar with the industry. We've
made that proposal to you, because as I'm sure some of the
committee members who may not have had a lot of experience now
know, this is a very complex industry. To tinker with it will
have ramifications.
I think I'm almost done.
Members, you'll find we have tried to make our brief short and
sweet and as much of an absolute, must-have list as possible,
because in response to the concerns that Mr Christopherson has
raised, the industries approach this like they always have, with
a commitment to find a solution we can live with. Frankly, we've
all come a long way. We are very close to a Bill 69 that everyone
can live with. I ask you to take our proposed amendments into
account and I thank you for your time.
1710
ONTARIO SHEET METAL WORKERS' AND ROOFERS'
CONFERENCE
The Chair:
The next speaker is Mr James Moffat of the Ontario Sheet Metal
Workers' and Roofers' Conference. We also have Mr Jerry Raso and
Mr Owen Pettipas. We also have a fourth gentleman, do we?
Mr James
Moffat: Yes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of
the committee. I'm James Moffat, the training and trades
coordinator for the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers'
Conference. With me are the business manager of the Ontario
conference; our in-house legal counsel; and the business manager
of our largest local union in Toronto, local 30, Al Budway.
The Ontario conference
represents 11 ICI local unions in the province, the largest being
in Toronto. There are smaller centres such as Windsor, Thunder
Bay, Kingston, Sarnia and Sudbury, just to name a few. We
represent approximately 10,000 members in the ICI sector. I will
now hand it over to our legal counsel, Jerry Raso.
Mr Jerry
Raso: The representatives of the Ontario Sheet Metal
Workers' and Roofers' Conference are here to say that we are
opposed to Bill 69. We do not endorse this bill, but we are here
to propose amendments. We do not feel this is a positive bill
that can help our members or the industry as a whole, but we are
here because we feel the bill is so anti-union, anti-worker and
anti-democratic that we must come to the public hearings to
present amendments to do whatever we can to help our members, to
lessen the damage this bill will inflict and to ensure that this
bill at least lives up to the words of the Minister of Labour
with respect to what it is intended to accomplish.
Our obvious preference is
that Bill 69 be withdrawn and not replaced with the repeal of
section 1(4) or any other anti-union legislation. We say with
confidence that that is the reason why this bill is not being
opposed by the majority of building trade unions in Ontario. It
is the fear of losing 1(4) that is the only reason this bill is
not being opposed. It is not because the unions like this bill or
feel it is good; it is because they are afraid that if we say no
to Bill 69, section 1(4) will be repealed. Our unions in Ontario,
the building trade unions, have seen the devastation caused by
the repeal of section 1(4) in Alberta, and they're terrified of
losing it and we're terrified of losing it. That's the only
reason Bill 69 is not being opposed by the building trade unions.
We say that if the threat of removing section 1(4) were removed,
no union would be supporting this bill.
Why are we against it? The
first reason is because this bill is an attack on smaller
communities in Ontario outside the Metropolitan Toronto area. It
attacks smaller communities in three ways. First, it will allow
employers to employ up to 40% of workers on a site from anywhere
in Ontario, meaning that they are no longer required to employ
workers who live and raise their families in the communities
where the work will be built. It is a statement that companies
can force workers to move around Ontario with them, instead of
saying that a worker in Sudbury has the right to work in Sudbury,
where he lives and where he raises his family. It gives
preference to large companies, mainly from Toronto, to say, "You
can force your people to work anywhere in Ontario," despite what
the effect of that will be on smaller communities like Windsor, Sudbury and
Kingston. Up to 40% of unionized workers in those towns stand a
very good chance of losing their jobs because the large companies
that come in from Toronto will bring workers with them.
The counter to that is that
there's no requirement in this bill that employers have to take
workers from the town in which they live and work. There's
nothing in the bill that says a Sudbury company has to take
Sudbury workers with them. There's nothing that says a Sarnia
company has to take Sarnia workers with them if they go out.
We're terrified of what will happen: that Toronto workers will
move around the province at the expense of the smaller
communities.
The second effect on small
towns is the ability to allow companies or employer groups the
right to seek amendments to collective agreements throughout the
province. We've heard that the trouble with this concept is this
designated regional employers' group. That phrase is so
wide-open, it leaves it open to any companies, say, from Toronto,
that do work in Windsor to make an application to cut wages in
Windsor even though they are not Windsor companies.
Third, what we're hearing
is, in section 160, the desire to allow large general contractors
out of their collective agreements, but only outside of Toronto.
The bill will allow them to remain unionized in Toronto but will
be decertified outside of Toronto.
Those are three examples of
how this bill is an attack on smaller communities.
The second reason why we're
opposed to Bill 69 is because it's a race to the bottom. The bill
is explicitly designed to reduce wages and to reduce benefits,
travel allowances, pension contributions etc. This bill is not
designed for employers to make an application to increase the
wages in a collective agreement. There's only one purpose for
giving companies the ability to seek amendments: to lower wages,
to lower benefits. We know that if union wages go down to the
level of non-union wages, those wages in turn will drop to
maintain the competitive advantage they have over unionized
companies. So it's clearly a race to the bottom.
Our third concern is the
attack on the hiring hall provisions of our collective
agreements. Our hiring halls are designed to ensure that the
people out of work the longest go to the top so they can go to
work. This bill removes that and it will allow companies to
name-hire up to 76% of the workers they need. They are going to
pick and choose. That allows favouritism and encourages and
allows discrimination against older workers, injured workers,
women and visible minorities, and clearly it's an attack on free
collective bargaining. Unions exist for one reason: to negotiate
better terms and conditions for their members. This takes that
away. Our hiring hall provisions are the heart and soul of our
collective agreements. They're the equivalent of seniority
provisions. The government is legislating what our hiring hall
provisions state. It gives employers the right to name-hire up to
76%.
With respect to everything
else in our collective agreements, it allows employer groups to
seek amendments to an arbitrator to amend what the unions have
freely negotiated with contractors. These are not collective
agreements that have been rammed down companies' throats. They
have been freely negotiated. It's giving contractors the ability
to amend those collective agreements without doing it, where it
should be done, at the bargaining table.
So why are we here? We are
here because the bill is so bad, we want to ensure that it lives
up to at least what the minister says the intentions of the bill
are and to lessen the damage.
The minister has stated
that the 40% maximum for mobility and the ability to name-hire up
to 60% cannot be changed by the arbitrator. I think that's what
Mr Christopherson was getting at. Legally, arbitrators have the
authority and the power to amend that 40% and bump it to 100%.
There's nothing in the bill that says they can't. Legally it's
done because those provisions are deemed to be part of the
collective agreement. The arbitrator can amend anything that is
stipulated in the collective agreement. The arbitrator therefore
can amend the 40% and bump it to 80% or 100%.
The Minister of Labour said
that this won't be abused because employers will still have to
pay accommodation and travel, and that cannot be changed by
arbitrators. Unfortunately, that too is incorrect. The arbitrator
has the explicit authority to amend and to delete the obligation
to pay accommodation and travel, so there's no protection for
workers. Those two amendments are in point 4 of our proposed
amendments on page 2.
1720
We also have in our list of
proposed amendments 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, all of which address the
issue of fairness for smaller communities. Those amendments, and
I don't have time to go into detail, are designed to ensure that
smaller communities don't suffer as much as they could under Bill
69. Those proposed amendments are such that only the employer
bargaining agency can propose to amend a collective agreement.
That way, companies from Toronto can't do it for Windsor. We're
proposing to restrict the ability for mobility, the ability to
bring people around the province. We want that deleted to make
sure that the 40% can't be raised. Another example is that we
want an amendment to ensure that if a company does take people
with them, they have to take people from where they are located,
not from anywhere in Ontario. We want to propose that the bill
say explicitly that a company has to take people from where
they're located.
The minister also said that
this is a good bill because it will create jobs for unionized
workers. The design and the goal to allow a few general
contractors out of their collective agreements will defeat that
purpose. That is not designed to create jobs for unionized
workers; it's designed to allow eight companies, and probably
more, to decertify. Our unionized workers outside Toronto will
not be working. That is not going to create jobs for unionized
workers. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. We just
allowed you to go a little over time. We still have three more
speakers to hear from.
Mr
Christopherson: If I might, Chair, while the next
delegation is coming to the table, through you to the
parliamentary assistant: That was exactly the reference made on
page 16 to 163.5. The minister was suggesting to me that that
guarantees that none of the changes to hiring hall practices can
be made-you've heard at least one legal opinion. This could be an
issue if the minister disagrees with what has been presented
here; it could be a huge problem. If he does agree, maybe we can
make an amendment that everyone can live with, and at least that
part of this bill, if it is going to become the law regardless,
could be looked at.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Christopherson.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL,
ORNAMENTAL AND REINFORCING IRONWORKERS
The Chair:
Mr Aaron Murphy for the International Association of Bridge,
Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers. Please
proceed.
Mr Aaron
Murphy: Madam Chair, committee members, I promise that
our brief will be pretty near as short as our name.
I'm here today as the
business manager of Ironworkers local 721 in Toronto. I'm also
speaking on behalf of the Ontario district council representing
six other locals in the province. With me is Gary White, the
business rep with the Toronto-Central Building and Construction
Trades Council, who is also a member of Ironworkers local 721 and
our vice-president. I've asked him to join me, if that's OK. He
has been my right-hand man on Bill 69. He coaches me through the
process and tries to help me understand what it's all about. I'm
pleased that he could join me.
Given the brief time
allotted, I'd like to take this opportunity to address only a few
concerns with the bill. Before I do so, on behalf of the
Ironworkers in Ontario, I'd like to express our strong objection,
first of all, to even being here.
Bill 69 is, at best, the
lesser of two evils. The request of a few employers in the
construction industry to remove section 1(4) drove us to what the
government is calling a compromise bill. The bill is not a
compromise, but something perhaps less damaging than the
alternative-maybe. Having said that, the bill as it stands
requires several amendments.
Although our presentation
is brief, we do support the brief of the construction unions of
Ontario. We feel it's a good one and we wholeheartedly support
it.
It appears that the
minister has used the Ironworkers' agreement with the Ontario
Erectors Association, our employer bargaining agency, as an
example of mobility. What's good for the Ironworkers may not
necessarily be good for other trades. We negotiated mobility in
hiring hall practices with our contractors to give them a certain
amount of freedom to choose whom they want to hire. We have a
50-50 arrangement with our Ironworkers and almost 100% with our
reinforcing rod people. We find that works for us. It has some
hang-ups, but it does work for the most part.
While we can live with the
type of mobility we have with the OEA contractors, the
Ironworkers oppose allowing arbitrators to give more mobility to
contractors than what's allowed for in the bill. We are concerned
that under the theme of "competitive disadvantage" an arbitrator
can award 100% name requests to a contractors' association. We
believe that an arbitrator should not be given the authority to
surpass the limits of Bill 69.
I can assure you that if
contractors were given 100% name-hire, many members of our local
union, and especially older workers and minorities, would suffer
a severe hardship; 50-50 name-hire is a good balance and that's
what we support.
Another concern we have is
what is meant by "competitive disadvantage." It is simply too
wide open. I don't think there is a contractor in Ontario who
isn't at some competitive disadvantage. If the government means
that, then they should outlaw unions and eliminate the minimum
wage. There has to be some limit on the contractors' use of this
provision. Surely it can't be good for the economy to reduce the
wage of over 100,000 tradespeople to 12 or 15 bucks an hour. It's
not just companies that spend money in Ontario. You can't ignore
the social problems that would flow from turning Ontario into a
low-wage ghetto.
We propose that the
employers be required to prove that they are suffering a
significant competitive disadvantage.
The final point I want to
touch on is the type of person we want to arbitrate disputes over
competitive disadvantage. Under the bill, as drafted, the
government gets to pick who the arbitrator will be. It's unfair
and could lead to total anarchy in the industry if the government
chooses people who are not neutral or have no experience in the
construction industry.
We support the amendment
being proposed by the sheet metal workers that the list of
arbitrators under Bill 69 consist of arbitrators who have
had experience in arbitrating disputes in the construction
industry and who are on the Ministry of Labour's approved list of
arbitrators-preferably put forward by labour and management.
I'd like to thank you once
again for your time and I hope you will act on our proposals.
Now I spoke late this
morning to our counterpart, our employers' association, Mr Bill
Jemison of the Ontario Erectors Association, and he wrote me a
letter. It won't take me very long; I'd like to read it to you.
It's addressed to me and it says:
"I have written this letter
as a result of our discussions this morning relative to Bill
69.
"Unfortunately I will not
be able to join you at the hearing today as I must attend a
long-standing appointment that I cannot change at this late
date.
"My views on the subject we discussed, `the
mobility issue,' do not appear to be in conflict with that which
you discussed on the telephone.
"I believe the current
collective agreement between this association and the Ironworkers
local unions gives the employers the mobility they require to
successfully man their jobs. These conditions have been in place
for many years and were arrived at through the collective
bargaining process. A quick perusal of Bill 69 would lead one to
believe that our collective agreement was used as a model for the
proposed legislation with respect to the mobility numbers.
"Unfortunately, Aaron, I do
not have enough time to comment on other aspects of the
bill."
It's signed by William
Jemison, president of the Ontario Erectors Association,
representing our major group of contractors. That's my
submission.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Murphy. Would you be prepared to give us a copy so
that I could distribute that to all the members?
Mr Murphy:
I certain could.
The Chair:
Great. Thanks very much.
We have about four minutes
for questions. That was a nice, brief presentation. We'll go to
the government members.
Mr
Beaubien: You mentioned that mobility has been
negotiated in your agreement for a number of years. For how many
years?
Mr Murphy:
As long as I can remember, so it goes back at least-
Mr
Beaubien: So it's been an ongoing process?
Mr Murphy:
It's been an ongoing process.
Mr
Beaubien: The mobility clause has worked very well for
your workers?
Mr Murphy:
We think so.
1730
Mr
Beaubien: You mentioned that it would not work very well
for other trades. Why is that?
Mr Murphy:
In the ironworker sector-we'll leave the rod sector alone because
they're all pretty well equal; you're either a rodman or you're
not a rodman-we have various skills in our local union. We have
structural steel erectors, machinery movers, mechanical-type
people. They're a varied group. A 50-50 hiring hall allows a
specific contractor to order the kind of person he needs, with
the balance coming from us. Does that answer your question?
Mr
Beaubien: Again, I find it difficult to believe that it
works for the Ironworkers. I know with the Bluewater Bridge, when
it was twinned, that a lot of the Ironworkers came across from
the different locals in the province. But I find it difficult to
swallow that it would not work with other trades. What's the
rationale behind that?
Mr Murphy:
First of all, there are only six locals in Ontario and the same
contractors-the bulk of them-I think come from Toronto. They have
a 40% provision. Most of them don't go that far with it. They're
mainly concerned with having general foremen, key personnel. If
one particular area has full employment and another doesn't,
we're sensitive to that. We allow contractors to move people up
to 40%. Does that answer your question?
Mr
Beaubien: Yes.
Mr
Bartolucci: I have to tell you I have trouble with the
mobility issue, the naming issue, because I'm from northern
Ontario and I see an inherent weakness. It's going to deny the
people in the north the opportunity to work in the construction
industry.
Having said that, I want to
go back to-because I think this is very critical for fairness in
the industry-the final offer selection the way it's written in
the bill, where you can have more than one final offer. Can you
outline what some of the problems are going to be with that?
Mr Murphy:
What a question.
The Chair:
You have about 30 seconds in which to answer it. Sorry.
Mr Gary
White: It's a difficult question to answer in terms of
the Ironworkers' union. I think the troublesome point is who the
arbitrator would be and how it was selected. The union would
obviously be concerned with who would be selected, where and
when. The Ironworkers, in enabling their collective agreements in
the past, have not had to experience that.
I think this will touch on
where the arbitrator would come into this. We see that areas such
as mobility were discussed. One thing that isn't abused in the
Ironworkers' collective agreement is the 40% ratio, which goes
from area to area. Our collective agreement-the local area in
which the work is to be performed, they enforce those benefits
and accommodation and what not. It's not likely that an employer
would bring, if it's a large job, the full complement of people
to the area to perform the work, because it would be more costly.
But an arbitrator could, if he's not used to the construction
industry, arbitrarily rule insignificant.
Mr
Christopherson: You've already heard this afternoon a
couple of presenters say that even if the government ignores the
well-thought-out and reasonable recommendations that the various
unions make and rams Bill 69 through as it is, it won't work.
It's not going to work, notwithstanding the minister still
maintaining that everybody in this room wanted Bill 69. He still
thinks and says publicly that he never threatened anybody with
1(4) and that every one of you wanted Bill 69 because it's going
to make for better legislation for your workers. That's what
we're dealing with here. Notwithstanding that, do you think Bill
69 will work as it is now printed, just in a practical,
day-to-day sort of way?
Mr Murphy:
No, I don't think it will. We have certain clauses in our
agreement that were won at the bargaining table. They benefit
both the employer and the unions. We're happy with the mobility
clauses, hiring hall practices and so on. All these things were
negotiated. If our employers wanted something beyond that, I'm
sure they would have asked for it. I can't speak for the other
trades. I can only speak for my own union. But we are happy with
what we've got and we don't see any need to disrupt it.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Murphy and Mr White.
ONTARIO PIPE TRADES COUNCIL
The Chair:
Mr Neil McCormick, Ontario Pipe Trades Council.
Mr Neil
McCormick: Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Neil
McCormick. I'm the business manager of the Ontario Pipe Trades
Council. The council is an association of 17 united association
local unions and 15,000 members made up of plumbers,
steamfitters, welders, refrigeration mechanics, sprinkler fitters
and apprentices throughout the province of Ontario.
The Ontario Pipe Trades
Council endorses this bill in principle, but several concerns are
raised as a result of Bill 69 and its effect on specific areas of
our affiliated unions and the council as a whole.
Subsection 151(1), regional
employers' organizations: We would care to see clarification of
this subsection and subsequent parameters on who would represent.
We feel this subsection is too broad-based and leaves room for
application by individuals who do not represent specific
interests of the industry. Without any parameters on this
specific provision of the bill, are we open to being represented
by the steel industry in Hamilton, the mine industry up north or
the car industry in Oshawa because they can't compete in other
areas of the country or throughout North America? Second to that,
are we also not at risk? I might also say that this specific part
of the bill asks more questions that it does give answers. Can we
not also be represented by someone who has an association with a
rival union that does our work who is not affiliated to our
parent body, AFL-CIO?
Section 150.1: We agree
with the brief in its entirety submitted by the Toronto-Central
Ontario Construction Trades Council and the residential unions
alliance.
Subsection 163.5(1): We
would request language to reinforce ratios with regard to 50-50
of selection of employees as occurs in most of our local union
appendices as a maximum ratio. The current 50-50 ratios stabilize
the employment climate in our local unions and address
contractors' concerns for the ability to hire a specialized
workforce and the local unions' concerns in allowing all members
to access work despite minor impediments.
I question the rationale of
increasing it to 60-40. Most of the local unions around the
province have a parochial climate, if you will. They like to look
after their own areas, especially in some of the outlying areas,
some of the northern cities such as Sudbury. They like to see
their people rotate through the list, and anything above 50-50
does not allow for that. What we're talking about here are people
who may not have a knowledge of contractors, who may not have a
knowledge throughout the industry, such as an apprentice first
coming out of his time. He needs to access that work the same as
anybody else and he does so with a 50-50 name hire.
We also sense some alarm at
the mobility provisions of 40% for specific isolated areas of the
province when members live in an economically sensitive
environment that may be overpowered by a transient workforce and
therefore displaced from their only means of viable employment
due to their isolation. We're asking for a lowering of that 40%.
I think what the contractors were looking for initially was some
sense that they could bring people who were key to their
organization, key to their company, who could come in, set up and
make sure that the job was run effectively. We are in a very
specialized environment now in our industry and we understand
that. We also, I might add, have addressed it for a number of
years. Most of the locals do allow mobility in that regard, even
when it's not in the collective agreement. But 40% is
unreasonable. It may be reasonable in the southern areas, but in
some of the outlying areas of the north, where people concentrate
in one area and look to that area to sustain their domicile and
their standard of living, they may be affected and probably will
be affected in some cases by this. It's no secret that some of
the contractors that do some of the specialized work we're
getting into more and more are based in the large centres and not
in the Timminses, the Kapuskasings and the Chathams of this
world, and so therefore we feel there may be some damage to the
sensitive areas of the province.
We would also strongly
reinforce for the above provisions with respect to ratios that
the rules of procedure in dispatch halls be adhered to. What I am
saying by that is that we don't see and hear in this bill that
there's any assurance that the dispatch requirements, the travel
car requirements, as in the UA, will be adhered to so that we can
have control on who's coming and going in our industry and
therefore retain some sense of control over the people who are
therefore hired.
I've kept my submission
brief. I didn't want to touch on some of the areas so that I
could allow for more questions, as some of my predecessors have
not.
1740
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr McCormick. There are about four minutes for
questions.
Mr
Bartolucci: Thank you very much, Neil, for your
presentation and for understanding the industry outside of
district 8. You're right; we have 17.3% of our population in the
region of Sudbury below the poverty line. We have an unemployment
rate that is 2% above the provincial average and several
percentage points above the federal average. The construction
industry in Sudbury for a long time has been anything less than
active, to be polite. You suggested that the 40% mobility rule
should be altered for areas such as Timmins and Chatham, those
areas outside of district 8. What would you suggest that
percentage be?
Mr
McCormick: I would think somewhere in the neighbourhood
of 20%. That would address the contractors' concerns and also it
would ensure that the union puts people to work.
Mr
Bartolucci: Very good. I know I've only got a second or
so. Neil, the hiring hall practices are really the seniority of
the construction industry. The audience understands this, but for
some of us here around this table, can you explain why there has
to be as much flexibility with the hiring hall practices for
the viability of the industry outside of district 8?
Mr
McCormick: Prior to my election as business manager of
the province of Ontario, I was the business manager of Hamilton,
Ontario, and I can tell you from my own personal experience that
it can get horrific at times. We have no seniority. We have no
call-back rights, and some of the members of the local union, who
may not know the contract they can call on to get involved in
this name-hire provision, look to the list to get hired. In the
experience I had in Hamilton, we had times where we used to make
light of some of the statistics that came out of the government,
some of the unemployment statistics of 8% and 9%, because we were
up in 40% and 50%. So when you were on that list, you might be
there upwards of a year. Now, with this section of the bill
coming forward, that may also be in jeopardy-you're there for a
year, you're waiting for one job, and at the last minute somebody
else from out of town comes in and takes it.
That's the fear we have
with it. We know we can't alter that section in its entirety, but
we're asking for some relief on those numbers.
Mr
Christopherson: Neil, good to see you again. Thanks for
your presentation. I'm going to start getting this clear, where
there's time, from labour leaders. Was there ever any doubt in
your mind that the government sincerely was threatening to remove
1(4) if you didn't go to the bargaining table?
Mr
McCormick: I never heard that statement, but we all knew
it was true.
Mr
Christopherson: The way the minister frames it is, "I
can't get into their heads." That's his quote. I need to know
with certainty that there was absolutely no doubt in anybody's
mind, because certainly that's the way it's been conveyed to me
in every discussion I've had with any one of you in this
room.
Mr
McCormick: I can't speak for everybody in back of me,
and other people who aren't represented here, but I can't
remember anybody I have met yet who didn't think that was the
case.
Mr
Christopherson: Good. Thanks. You mentioned the issue of
mobility and talked about the fact that you'd like to see the 40%
changed. I raised the issue earlier about 163.5 and whether or
not that actually protects the minimum the minister is talking
about having in place now in terms of the 40% and 60% of the
remaining. If it comes down that every legal advice you get says
this thing is now subject to an arbitrator's ruling, just as we
heard an earlier legal opinion that benefits are on the table as
a result of what's here, where does that leave you? What does the
minister need to hear from you about that clause if an arbitrator
can change the 40% and the 60% in a way that's further
detrimental to your members?
Mr
McCormick: I can only speak for our trade, but I think
we need some relief on that; in the neighbourhood of 50-50, like
I've stated, and it needs to be entrenched in that bill so there
can't be any tinkering with it. We've all talked about this
industry-based solution. We've all talked about the co-operation
of the two parties. There needs to be that co-operation, and with
any tinkering upwards you're not going to get that co-operation.
As a matter of fact, you'll find a lot of people who are
unco-operative.
The Chair:
Sorry, Mr Christopherson. There is one more question from the
government side, and we have just about 30 seconds left.
Mr
Christopherson: God forbid we should take time to
reflect on this.
Mr
Beaubien: Thank you for your presentation. Someone
mentioned in the previous presentation that we've seen the damage
by removing section 1(4) in Alberta, yet over the years you've
had many employees represented by your local work in Alberta. Can
you explain that to me?
Mr
McCormick: The people who have worked there haven't had
a raise in 15 years, for one thing. We had a presentation by the
business manager of Edmonton, and he says that right now the only
reason our people are working and their bill, whatever it is that
is the equivalent of our 1(4), isn't in place is because of the
boom they have out there right now. They're talking in the
neighbourhood of $30 billion over the next 10 years. With that,
they have no fear of it, but he says they know those people all
have shell companies waiting to go once the boom is finished.
Mr
Beaubien: But they've taken advantage. Furthermore, a
quick question-
The Chair:
The 30 seconds is up.
Mr
Beaubien: That's OK.
The Chair:
Sorry. I did specify that, Mr Beaubien. Thank you very much, Mr
McCormick.
EASTERN CONSTRUCTION
The Chair:
The final presenter of the evening is Mr Ed O'Neil, Eastern
Construction.
Mr Ed
O'Neil: My name is Ed O'Neil, and I'm president of
Eastern Construction. I'm here to discuss why additional labour
law reform is needed.
Our company started
business in Windsor in 1951. We have worked in every province of
Canada for 50 years, but our focus in head office has always been
in Ontario. We are now faced with the reality of being forced out
of our own province. In 1956, we expanded our operation into the
Toronto market and we signed the Toronto building trades
agreement. That agreement bound us to six civil
trades-carpenters, labourers etc-that we employ directly. We have
no problem with these six agreements. The agreement also required
us to subcontract to union subtrades. The agreement could be
terminated on 60 days' notice. Non-union was not a factor in
those days, and we considered the voluntary agreement as just a
requirement for doing business in the Toronto area.
In 1978, province-wide
bargaining came into effect. Then the labour board ruled that we
were bound to 24 trades throughout Ontario, including 18 trades
where we have never employed their workers and have never been
certified by the unions.
Some 288 companies were caught in this situation. There are only
eight of us still left.
1750
Any company which started
in Ontario after 1980 or moved in from other areas-right now, we
have competitors from Quebec, Alberta, England and the United
States. If they came here after 1980, they have from zero to
eight agreements. The eight companies like us who are committed
to 24 agreements are losing our market share. Unfortunately, it's
penalizing the oldest Ontario companies.
Let me give you a current
example. Chatham hospital is out for tender. It is a $40-million
project, closing on May 24. The owner and design team invited
seven mechanical contractors, two of which were non-union. They
also invited six electrical companies, two of which were
non-union. Five union mechanical and four union electrical have
decided not to bid. We now have no union mechanicals and one
union electrical. Eastern and another company, Ellis-Don, cannot
bid since we cannot work with non-union subtrades. Thus, two of
the largest, most competitive general contractors are eliminated
from the bidding, and it's very possible the province will end up
paying more for this hospital. If this job goes completely
non-union, I don't see where it helps anybody in this room. This
is not a singular example; it happens monthly.
We have spent considerable
time over the past few months discussing our problem with the
minister and his staff. We believe the building trade unions have
committed to terminate agreements other than the six civil trades
outside the Toronto area. We believe the Minister of Labour was
also in favour of that position, but it does not appear in Bill
69. We believe this amendment should be added to reflect the
position of the unions, the government and other contractors.
The issue is simply
fairness. Why should the oldest, largest Ontario contractors be
forced out of their own province? If this happens, the cost of
building construction in Ontario will certainly not go down.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr O'Neil. There's about three and a half minutes for
questions, starting with Mr Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you very much for your
presentation, sir. Your last sentence in your presentation is,
"If this happens, the cost of building construction in Ontario
will certainly not go down." It struck me as soon as you said
that that it stands opposed or in juxtaposition with most of the
labour leaders who have come forward and said that the ultimate
end result of Bill 69 is to lower wages, lower benefits, lower
transportation costs, accommodation etc. It seems to me you're
going to win either way, that things aren't going to go up,
because wages aren't going to go up; the arbitrators can't do
that. Everything in this bill is going to force things down. With
great respect, I have difficulty understanding how you lose.
Mr O'Neil:
Part of it is that this bill will likely force some of the eight
of us to form companies in other provinces. The province will
lose some of the most competitive general contractors here. That
doesn't help. The wages etc you refer to, they're all part of a
very involved arbitration process. It has never been tried. It
looks very costly, very complicated, and I doubt very much it
will ever work. I doubt very much if wages are going to go down,
but our problem basically is that we're up against non-union
companies that have come here since 1980.
Mr
Christopherson: Yes, I understand that, and I can
understand your dilemma. If your goal is not to lower the wages
of the workers-and I haven't heard you make that statement; I'd
be surprised if you did. But if that's not your purpose, let me
ask you hypothetically, if everybody out there was unionized,
would that correct the whole problem of competitiveness and
non-competitiveness? If everybody is getting paid the same rate
and your competition has to pay that same rate across the board,
does that not eliminate all the things that are in Bill 69?
Mr O'Neil:
If every general contractor and every subtrade were union in
Ontario, we would not have any problems.
Mr
Christopherson: Is it possible that the government sort
of went in the wrong direction? Rather than putting the screws to
the workers through Bill 69, maybe what they should have done was
make organizing a whole lot easier and, in some cases, mandate
organizing. All these workers would get more money, you wouldn't
have a problem in terms of your situation and then we could go on
to a real healthy construction industry.
The Chair:
Could you please be brief, Mr O'Neil. There are questions from
other members of committee. Did you want to answer that
question?
Mr O'Neil:
I'm sorry. Was that a question?
Mr
Christopherson: A rhetorical question-how's
that?-although it happens to be a position I believe in.
The Chair:
That's the best question I've heard all day.
Mr O'Neil:
It sounded like a speech.
Mr
Christopherson: Everything I say sounds like a
speech.
Mr
Beaubien: Let me ask you a question as an employer. We
can talk about competitiveness, but why is it that certain unions
are afraid to compete with other unions represented by different
groups on the same job site? Forget about non-union trades. We've
got a case in Sarnia right now where we have a sheet metal
operation-refrigeration, cooling and heating-who belongs to
another union, a Christian labour union. But because the unions
are signatory to the contractor that is building this
development, this particular individual cannot compete. So I ask,
why is it that unions are so afraid to compete with other unions?
Let's forget about the non-union aspect. Have you got any
comments to that?
Mr O'Neil:
Not really. No, I don't.
Mr
Beaubien: But that is a fact.
Interruption.
Mr
Beaubien: I will remember that. I hope you don't
forget.
The Chair:
We have time for one last question.
Mr
Bartolucci: Mr O'Neil, thank you for your presentation.
I'd love to spend some time talking about what Mr Beaubien just
finished saying. We would have some fun with it. You are a member, obviously, of the
Ontario Coalition for Fair Labour Laws. Correct?
Mr O'Neil:
Yes.
Mr
Bartolucci: You're saying that Bill 69 isn't fair to
you. We've been hearing today from every other presenter that
Bill 69 really isn't fair to unions. I'm lucky to get this on the
record: In your estimation, whom is this bill most unfair to: to
you, that this legislation will allow wages to be driven down, or
to unions that will have to bear the brunt? We all know that a
worker's wages are a business's expenses. To which group is this
legislation most unfair?
Mr O'Neil:
It's unfair to us because it will drive us out of the province.
Again, I don't see where wages are going to drop. I don't believe
this arbitration procedure will cause wages to drop.
The Chair:
I'd like to close by thanking all of you for your patience this
afternoon. Again I apologize for the delay in getting started,
but I'm very pleased with the level of commitment you made to
understanding the procedures of committee; I appreciate that.
This committee is adjourned
until 3:30 tomorrow afternoon.
