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
Ontario Federation of
Labour
Mr Wayne Samuelson
Ontario Coalition for
Fair Labour Laws
Mr Steve Coleman
Residential Alliance of
Building Trade Unions
Mr John Marchand
Mr Louie Petricca
International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers (AFL-CIO-CLC);
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Local
128
Mr Michael Church
Mr Ed Power
International Union of
Operating Engineers
Mr Michael Gallagher
General Contractors'
Association of Hamilton
Mr Stephen McArthur
Association of
Unionized General Contractors of Ontario
Mr Geoffrey Smith
Ontario Home
Builders' Association; Durham Region Home Builders'
Association
Mr Murray Koebel
Mr Brian Collins
Electrical
Contractors' Association of Ontario
Mr Eryl Roberts
Quadracon Electrical
Contracting and Construction Management
Mr Leonard Feldt
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)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale PC)
Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt ND)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Mr Avrum Fenson, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at 1531 in room 151.
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 (Ms Marilyn
Mushinski): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This
is a continuation of the standing committee on justice and social
policy meetings to discuss Bill 69, An Act to amend the Labour
Relations Act, 1995 in relation to the construction industry.
Delegations, witnesses, have
10 minutes. If you wrap up early, we can have some questions from
committee members. I should tell you that I will be fairly strict
in maintaining the 10-minute rule so that we can keep to the
schedule, which is due to complete at 6 o'clock this evening.
Members of the committee, I
believe it's agreed that if there is time for questions of
witnesses, we will split the time if it's more than two or three
minutes, but if there's only a minute or two, we'll allow just
one member and we will rotate as we go through.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF LABOUR
The Chair:
The first delegation is Mr Wayne Samuelson and Chris Schenk from
the Ontario Federation of Labour. Good afternoon.
Mr Wayne
Samuelson: Thank you very much. Ten minutes is a short
time. I'm tempted to speak real fast, but what I'll do is try and
zero in on a couple of issues. With me is Chris Schenk, who is
director of research at the OFL. The OFL, of course, is an
umbrella organization representing 650,000 workers in the
province.
This piece of legislation
requires a great deal of debate. Unfortunately, the process that
is in place doesn't allow for a lot of that. One might assume
that on the surface this is legislation that directly impacts on
the construction sector and that other people shouldn't worry
about it.
In my limited time, I want to
focus on three issues.
This legislation, I should
tell you, was discussed at our executive board last week.
The first issue is the 45-day
strike period; the second issue is the whole issue of
arbitration, which you've incorporated in the ICI sector; and
then a few minutes on why it's clear the government is doing
this.
First of all, the 45-day
strike period: In my conversations and from what I can see, this
is nothing more than a rescheduling issue for employers. What
they'll clearly have to do is look around that 45-day period,
that June 15 deadline, every few years, and schedule their
construction around that.
On the surface some may think
that this is fine, that they'll get settlements, that they'll go
to arbitration and everything will be fine. Let me assure you
that history has shown us that these kinds of pieces of
legislation do not resolve all the conflicts. In effect, what
you're doing is eliminating the right to strike, and in doing
that-trust me-you will not solve all the problems. What happens,
and it has happened historically, is that tensions build,
frustrations build, employers often become greedy, and issues
such as health and safety, fundamental work rule issues, often
don't get dealt with in the process.
Trust me, as I said earlier,
when they aren't dealt with, you can pass all the laws you want
but workers will make their own decisions with their feet. You
should know that you can't force anyone to work when it's unsafe
or when they're not being treated fairly by their employer.
The issue of compulsory
arbitration: On the surface, compulsory arbitration appears to be
fair to many people, and in many respects it was somewhat fair up
until the Tories got involved. You need just to look at the
health care sector, where for years those workers didn't have the
right to strike but instead had a binding arbitration system.
What this government did-it was unheard of in this country-was
they actually destroyed an arbitration system that had been in
place for decades because they didn't like some of the
decisions.
What they did was they tossed
out the list that had been approved by both sides, that each side
had confidence in. They appointed a group of retired judges, went
so far as to bring them into the Ministry of Labour and interview
them and, in short, created nothing short of chaos in the whole
hospital sector. The issue is now before the courts, as a matter of fact. In
Divisional Court a judge has some pretty nasty words to say. The
result also is outrageous fees, to where arbitrators are actually
charging the parties to read the Ontario Labour Relations Act. So
I should say to you that if you think that somehow you can put in
this system and all the problems will go away, you need to look a
little further.
Let me talk a little bit
about the underlying reason we're here today. I think, friends,
it's the golden rule, which is: He who has the gold makes the
rule. Many of you will sit here and see lots of people coming up
here representing various businesses and you'll say, "Well, I'm
glad they could come." But I suspect there's some Tory bagman
somewhere who sees loads of dough when these people come up.
I was absolutely shocked-I
should tell you this-when I took this list I received at 1:30
this afternoon and gave it to one of my staff and asked her to go
through the contributions to the Tories of the business groups
that were coming here over the next two days. I should tell
you-this is just looking at provincial elections and
by-elections-that while you may see people sitting here, what
you're actually seeing is over $75,000 in contributions to the
Conservative Party. That's just ones we quickly had a chance to
look at. I can imagine, although it has been reported, that the
contributions from the business community are quite
phenomenal.
You can't run a government
where people who donate lots of money have special access to the
people who make decisions in the Premier's office, which has been
documented right through this government, and then have
legislation that people have confidence in or feel like they're
being consulted on.
So we have a strange
situation, but all too common, where legislation is drafted by
the people who contribute lots of money to this party. It goes
through the Premier's office and then we find workers in the
position of having to bargain-if you can believe that-so they
don't get the very worst. It leads to bad public policy. I think
that the Tories, certainly on this committee, should have to
answer for this.
I think you should, first of
all, know how much money you're getting from everybody who shows
up here. I'm sure you'll ask them, just to clear that up. But you
should also know that it creates a clear impression out there
that decisions are being made not necessarily in the interests of
workers and communities but with incredible amounts of pressure
from those people who write cheques to your political party.
I'll stop now so there's time
for questions. I hope there will be.
The Chair:
Yes, there's close to four minutes.
Mr
Samuelson: Perfect.
The Chair:
We'll try to get through one question for each.
1540
Mr Carl DeFaria
(Mississauga East): Madam Chair, on a point of order: I
take exception to the comment that the decisions we are making
here are based on contributions to our party. As a matter of
fact, the labourers' union, Local 183, made a lot of
contributions to members of our party. We are obviously not
biased toward business or the unions.
Mr David
Christopherson (Hamilton West): That's not a point of
order.
Mr DeFaria:
I think it's a point of order.
Mr
Samuelson: I think the big question is, what's your
point?
Mr DeFaria:
What's your point? If the unions made contributions to our party,
I don't see why you think that competition would be based on-
The Chair:
Mr DeFaria, that's not a point of order, and I would suggest-
Interjection.
The Chair:
Mr DeFaria, first of all that's not a point of order, and I would
suggest that if you have a point, if you stop taking too much
time you may be able to have a question.
Mr Rick Bartolucci
(Sudbury): It should be clearly understood with any
deputation that comes before us that the person who is making
that deputation has a right under the democracy and freedom of
Ontario to say anything he or she wishes.
You share some of the
concern, certainly, that we share on the opposition side. I'd
like you to outline just how justice for workers is injured in
the arbitration process the way it's defined now.
Mr
Samuelson: There are a whole bunch of questions that
need to be resolved about this arbitration, but let me deal with
the principle. I have no confidence in the ability of this
government, based on what I've seen in how they've operated, in
their providing an arbitration system that people can have
confidence in. We were this far from an illegal strike by over
50,000 workers in the hospital sector. We have someone who
presided over an arbitration system who a judge in a Divisional
Court found to have done just a terrible job. People have no
understanding of the system. So the fear is that if in fact the
people who want changes, want workers to work for less, don't get
the decision out of impartial arbitrators, they will pressure the
government to put in the same kind of regime they have in the
hospital sector, which has caused nothing but chaos. You have
building frustrations in that whole sector of the economy simply
because the government, in their wisdom, didn't like an impartial
system and they wanted to influence it.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you, Wayne, for your presentation.
On the issue of the 45-day strike limitation, it would seem to me
this government had better move off that issue big time or the
deal they've got may indeed unravel. I refer to a letter signed
by John Cartwright-members will remember John presented yesterday
and I believe he's here in the audience today-dated May 12 and
addressed to the minister. I'm going to read it in part and then
ask for a response from the president of the OFL.
"Dear Minister Stockwell:
"I have received numerous phone calls from
affiliates regarding your remarks to the Legislature about the
position of myself and this council on Bill 69"-that being the
Construction Trades Council. "I find it unfortunate that you
would misrepresent that position during the second reading
debate.
"This council has
consistently rejected your proposed restriction of the right to
strike in the residential sector to a 45- or 46-day time period.
You note that I was in attendance at all of the meetings held
between the government and industry stakeholders. In fact, I was
the only person involved directly in both residential and ICI
discussions. Certainly I and every other labour representative
were there-agreeing to concessions-because of the very real
threat of the repeal of section 1(4) or similar amendments.
"We agreed to a number of
significant concessions, some of which are now found in Bill 69.
But at no time did our affiliates or myself agree to the 45-day
window."
It would seem to me, based on
this and based on your assertion, that the government had better
realize that the labour movement is taking this issue very
seriously. Wayne, do you want to just expand and try to get the
attention of the government that they risk their entire bill over
this issue, from what I can see?
Mr
Samuelson: First of all, I think to impose the whole
limit in the long term does you a lot more harm. But in terms of
the 45 days versus 90 days that has been suggested, my
understanding was that it has less of an impact on all those
fundamental issues that build up inside workplaces if there is
some ability to put pressure on employers so that ultimately
there's a balancing act and people can work out some kind of a
deal. I have seen a copy of John's letter. I think he makes it
pretty clear. I guess the question for the government to decide
is, if this is a road they're determined to go down, why wouldn't
they at least make it so that there is some bargaining power,
some way to resolve all these frustrations that build up?
Mr Raminder Gill
(Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Mr Samuelson, a
couple of quick questions. Do you think the 1998 rotating strikes
in the residential sector were fair to Ontarians?
Mr
Samuelson: You know something, my friend, in a
democracy, whether it's here or in Poland or anywhere else in the
world, sometimes there are work stoppages. It doesn't happen a
lot. It happens in less than 3% of all collective agreements. If
the answer in your opinion to this one set of strikes is to bring
in some kind of legislation that attacks the fundamental rights
of workers, then I say to you that you're wrong and that in fact
you will create more problems, as we've seen in this country and
in countries around the world, when you continually constrain
people. What you're doing is giving an incredible amount of
leverage to employers. I think it's pretty simplistic to look at
one simple strike.
Mr Gill: Do
you think that was fair to Ontarians, the rotating strike?
Mr
Samuelson: You know what I think is fair? I think what's
fair is having fundamental democratic rights, which include the
right to strike in the free countries around the world.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Samuelson.
Interjection: Another question?
The Chair:
No more questions. Sorry, we're out of time.
ONTARIO COALITION FOR FAIR LABOUR LAWS
The Chair:
Mr Coleman, Mr Smith and Mr Eon from the Coalition for Fair
Labour Laws.
Mr Steve
Coleman: Thank you, Madam Chair, and good afternoon. My
name is Steve Coleman. I'm executive vice-president of the
Mechanical Contractors Association of Ontario. I am here today to
represent the interests of the Ontario Coalition for Fair Labour
Laws. Joining me is Geoff Smith, who is president and chief
executive officer of Ellis-Don; and Barrie Eon, who is executive
director of the Ontario Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Contractors Association.
Some of you may be familiar
with the coalition. It is made up of a broad base of players in
the industrial, commercial and institutional, or ICI,
construction sector. It includes the Association of Unionized
General Contractors of Ontario, the Electrical Contractors
Association of Ontario, the Mechanical Contractors Association of
Ontario, the Association of Millwrighting Contractors of Ontario,
the Ontario Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors
Association and the Environmental Sheet Metal
Association-Toronto. All of these organizations, which represent
more than 1,000 large and small Ontario businesses and employ
about 100,000 Ontarians at any given time, came together to form
the coalition in the early fall of 1999.
In the four years prior to
1999, many of these organizations and their members had been
trying to achieve reform independently but with little success.
Ultimately, we determined that a unified front could help us
advocate more successfully for long-overdue changes to Ontario's
construction labour laws. As members of the fully unionized
construction industry, we were all suffering from a common and
increasingly serious problem: our inability to compete on a level
playing field with the growing number of non-union companies
doing business in Ontario.
I want to say at the outset
that coalition members have enjoyed long and excellent
relationships with unionized labour. In recent years, however,
the relationship with the building trades unions has become more
strained as union bosses have refused to negotiate more
competitive collective agreements to reflect a more competitive
marketplace. It's not surprising, really. After all, these unions
have a lock on the fully unionized employers. Under the current
labour laws, they know we can't do business without them. That
has given the unions the freedom to maintain high wage rates and
the kinds of unproductive
and restrictive labour practices that prevent coalition members
from being able to compete with non-union competitors.
1550
Further, their ability to
weather a strike is greatly enhanced by the ability of their
members to work for non-union firms during a strike. This gives
them incredible power at the bargaining table.
So as a united front with a
common competitiveness problem, we had to develop a united
position on labour law reform, one that would shake the unions
out of complacency and force them to bargain responsibly.
After a review of the options
and a lot of debate, the coalition agreed that the only way to
make the ICI industry truly competitive was to break the unions'
unfair monopoly on collective bargaining power. We decided the
most effective way to do that was by exempting the construction
industry from section 1(4) of the Ontario Labour Relations
Act.
Let me explain. Section 1(4)
was passed in 1971 and was originally introduced to prevent
employers from frustrating the legitimate attempts of unions to
bargain first collective agreements following certification. As
such, it prohibited a unionized employer, their relatives and
senior managers from ever setting up a parallel non-union
business.
Much has changed in Ontario
since 1971. While the original intent of the legislation is still
valid, it's unlikely the original drafters could have foreseen
the kind of wide-open economy we have in the year 2000. Today,
instead of serving as a necessary protection, this law gives big
unions an unfair advantage by letting them escape the imperative
we all face: to keep pace with a changing marketplace. By ending
the prohibition on double-breasting or the ability to set up
non-union businesses, the coalition believed that the unions
would finally wake up and smell the proverbial coffee and be
properly incented to negotiate fairly and responsibly.
Experience in other
jurisdictions, notably Alberta and New Brunswick, shows that the
right to double-breast is often enough to make the unions more
competitive. In fact, two coalition members, Ellis-Don and Black
and McDonald, have never exercised their right to double-breast
in these markets; they've simply never had to.
To reinforce this point, it's
somewhat ironic that in Alberta, where double-breasting is
allowed, union market share is at 30% and rising rapidly, while
in BC, which has a relatively strong anti-double-breasting
provision, union market share is at 15% and dropping like a
stone.
It's no secret that the
prevailing wisdom out there among unionists is that an attempt to
end 1(4) is an attempt to bust the unions. The coalition would
argue just the opposite. We believe that by becoming more
competitive, the building trade unions have the best possible
means of ensuring their own survival and institutional growth.
The natural extrapolation is that if they don't become
competitive, the employers will be forced out of business because
they can't compete with their non-union peers. Unionized labour
will no longer have a captive group of employers to work for, and
the building trade unions will no longer have a reason for
being.
In any event, over the course
of the Ministry of Labour-sponsored mediation on Bill 69, which
took place during December and January, the coalition did not
have a great deal of success in selling our views on 1(4) to
either ministry officials or labour representatives. In fact,
there was a broad refusal to even consider our proposal, on the
apparent basis that the unions were not prepared to discuss it.
Even when we offered a significant compromise, we didn't get a
fair hearing. Our compromise was to abandon our call for an
exemption to 1(4) and to suggest the addition of a new section to
the act. Our proposal specifically was to preserve the important
employee and union protections that exist in section 1(4), fairly
balance the bargaining power of unionized employers and
employees, maintain about 80% of the jurisprudence associated
with the current law, make Ontario's labour laws competitive with
those of our key competing jurisdictions and allow for the
tightly limited right to double-breast, but only where there is
no transfer of work or contracts between the two companies, and
only if there is not interchange of on-site employees.
The right to double-breast
is, by the way, already held by both non-union companies and by
unionized workers themselves. In certain circumstances, this
helps non-union companies in their efforts to deal with
labour-supply issues. Unionized workers by the thousands exercise
their right to double-breast or work non-union jobs every day in
Ontario. Their unions even encourage this selective
double-breasting, especially if the extra income helps their
members weather a strike against a fully unionized company.
We've given you this
background today to demonstrate that the coalition had high hopes
for construction labour law reform, not only because such reform
is critical to our viability but also because we believed it
could play an important role in preserving Ontario jobs and
investment and in keeping made-in-Ontario companies working in
Ontario.
Our response to the bill
proposed by the Minister of Labour in this context is one of
disappointment. In the main, we are disappointed that this
government failed to seize the opportunity to do the right thing
and act definitively to restore fairness to the collective
bargaining process. Instead, in Bill 69 we have a piece of
legislation that only marginally improves the status quo for
employers. Enhanced labour mobility and name-hire opportunities
will help some subcontractor groups but will be of little use to
others. The legislated vehicle for relief from the building trade
agreements contained in section 160 of the legislation adds up to
a blatant oversight of universal management rights and a granting
of further unilateral power to the unions. Certainly we'll be
monitoring the proposed arbitration system carefully. While we
are concerned that the process may be unwieldy, costly and unduly
time-consuming, we are nonetheless committed to doing everything
possible to make it work.
The coalition looks forward
to playing a leading role in the significant review of the
legislation that the minister has committed to for the fall of 2001. We'll
need to evaluate the success of the bill carefully. If it becomes
clear that the bill has failed to make the industry competitive,
the coalition will once again be advocating for more significant
labour law reform.
On behalf of the coalition, I
thank you for taking the time to listen to us. We read it to get
it all in. If there are any questions, we'd be pleased.
The Chair: I
don't think so. You've taken your full 10 minutes, Mr Coleman, so
there isn't any time for questions.
RESIDENTIAL ALLIANCE OF BUILDING TRADE UNIONS
The Chair:
Next on the list is Mr John Marchand and Mr Petricca, Residential
Alliance of Building Trade Unions.
Mr John
Marchand: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee
members. My name is John Marchand, and I'm the executive director
of the Residential Alliance of Building Trade Unions. With me is
Louie Petricca, who is the president of the alliance. I'm going
to make this short for questions.
The Residential Alliance of
Building Trade Unions consists of six trade unions covering work
in the residential market, including shingling and siding on
houses, trim work, flooring, drywall, insulation, light- and
heavy-gauge metal studding, metal door frames, complete heating,
ventilation and air conditioning, plumbing, electrical and the
construction and service of all elevators and lifts. As you can
see, the members of the alliance perform a vast majority of the
work in high-rise and low-rise residential construction
sectors.
The alliance was formed to
bring stability and coordination to Ontario's residential market.
To obtain this stability, the residential alliance has created
partnerships with many of the industry stakeholders, such as the
GTHBA and many of our contractor groups. For this reason, we were
very optimistic when this government initiated talks to address
the residential sector and many of its issues back in October
1999. Many issues were discussed, and a consensus by all parties
was reached on some of these issues, which are not included in
this legislation. In our brief are the points that we feel are
either not covered by Bill 69 or are not agreed to by our
group.
The key issue of a strike
window period of 46 days does not sit well with this group. As a
matter of principle, the alliance opposes any restriction on the
right to strike. We believe that any legislation which impacts
negatively on workers' rights to utilize economic sanctions is
contrary to fundamental principles embodied in both domestic and
international law and convenants.
The legislation provides for
a strike window of 46 days. In our view, a 46-day window is too
narrow. We believe that a 46-day window will simply chill the
bargaining process, inevitably resulting in arbitration. As we
all know, the best form of settlement is a negotiated settlement.
A 75-day window, in our estimation, ensures a meaningful right to
strike and, consequently, limits the damage to the negotiating
process that is inherent in legislative regimes where resort to
economic power is curtailed.
We were told at the time of
the talks by the minister's mediators that this process was based
on consensus. The points where consensus was reached are not
included in this legislation.
1600
First off, consensus was
reached to start negotiations 120 days prior to the expiry date
of the collective agreement, and this is not included in this
legislation. Secondly, on this matter there was also consensus on
a mediator being appointed at the start of the negotiations.
The next issue there was
consensus on was a facilitation forum. This forum was to be a
ministry-sponsored forum to run on a continuing and frequent
basis. This forum was to bring to the table all the stakeholders
in the residential sector to exchange information and concerns
within this sector prior to negotiations. This forum alone would
significantly improve the overall labour relations climate and
make for effective and expeditious bargaining.
The next area of concern
within this legislation is the geographic area it covers. This
legislation does not fully capture the entire housing market
identified in the various discussions between the ministry and
the stakeholders. By excluding areas in this legislation,
building trade unions and the workers they represent will be
subject to different legislation schemes premised on the location
of the residential projects. This matter will lead to prolonged
strikes in some areas and restricted strikes in others. If this
government is concerned about the negative effects of a prolonged
strike on the home-buying public, this government should realize
that homes are also purchased outside the four areas mentioned in
this legislation.
Another area this
legislation does not address is the process in place after the
collective agreement has expired. In both scenarios, whether or
not a strike or lockout occurs or a return-to-work has been
imposed, the legislation fails to impose the normal statutory
freeze.
In the alliance's view, the
oversight should be corrected. The legislation should provide
that upon the expiry of the collective agreement, all of the
terms and conditions of the expired collective agreement should
immediately become applicable and should continue until the
arbitrated settlement comes into force.
The Residential Alliance of
Building Trade Unions is committed to supporting and ensuring a
continuing viable and vibrant residential construction industry
in the GTA. We ask that the legislation be amended to incorporate
the principles and proposals set out in this submission.
I thank you for your
time.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Marchand. We have time for questions.
Mr
Christopherson: How much time do I have?
The Chair:
We have about four minutes.
Mr Christopherson: Divided by
three?
The Chair:
Yes.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you for your presentation. You're
not the first one to suggest that what's in the bill is not
necessarily what was agreed to at the table. You see the minister
here. He has maintained that he has the support of the major
affiliates in terms of supporting this bill because this is what
was hammered out at the table. As an observer, I'm having some
difficulty understanding exactly where we are. We've got yourself
and some others saying there are things in here that weren't
agreed to. John Cartwright, for instance, talked about the 45
days, that that's not what was agreed to. There are demands for
amendments that the union is saying are absolutely critical if
they're going to reflect an industry-led or an industry-designed
solution. Can you help me understand where we are in terms of the
bill, the commitments you say were made and the minister says are
contained in the bill? Exactly where are we heading with this
thing vis-à-vis the support the minister claims exists for
Bill 69?
Mr
Marchand: I'm not sure. That's a very broad question
you're asking me. As the situation goes, the forum we had was on
a consensus basis. We went over many things. Some groups agreed,
some groups didn't agree, but on issues that we thought were
relevant, that we considered there was-and some issues weren't in
the legislation. I speak for a group of six. There are other
issues. There are ICI issues that are involved. I can only speak
for the residential issues themselves.
As far as the residential
alliance is concerned, a 45-day strike window is not enough. It
doesn't help negotiations. We don't see it helping negotiations.
We don't see it bringing things to closure. As far as the
standpoint goes, the other issues of jurisdiction, to be honest
with you I don't think it was ever really discussed. I think
everyone in the room was talking about the areas they had
themselves already.
Mr
Christopherson: Where are we if there is no amendment to
the current 45 days outlined in the bill?
Mr Louie
Petricca: Basically, in the residential sector, as was
noted in the past, the workers are not afraid to go on wildcat
strikes, which makes it a lot harder for unions to control. If
there isn't a reasonable length of time for proper negotiations
to take place, I think wildcat strikes would only increase, not
decrease.
Mr
Christopherson: Which of course is the antithesis of
what the Minister claims will be the result of passing Bill 69 in
its present form?
Mr
Petricca: Correct.
Mr Gill:
Madam Chair, I know time was taken up unfairly by another member.
Perhaps we'll keep that in mind next time.
Mr Marchand, I think it was
great, your presentation was good. One of the things you
mentioned was that perhaps 45 days are not enough for a strike
period; perhaps, you suggested, the negotiations should start 120
days earlier. I think that's a fair comment. I think we may bring
that out as an amendment if all parties agree. We are attuned to
that.
You also mentioned bringing
stakeholders together, that perhaps we should have had something
in the bill. We believe that to bring stakeholders together we
don't need legislation. I think that's an inherent part of this
negotiation or any other negotiation. So we sort of commend you
on bringing that up.
I want to make a comment on
one of the speakers earlier, but at the same time it pertains
here. Some of the union members use this so-called
double-breasting in their own way. I've had many people come to
me, very good workers, who've said, "Sometimes I work union,
sometimes I work non-union." Just as a consideration for
everyone, I think that's happening.
Mr
Petricca: Just to comment on that one, we were involved
in one of the longer strikes back in 1998. We charged more of our
members, the ones who dared to work non-union. We reprimand these
people. We take action accordingly to ensure that we do what we
are there to do, and we're not afraid to discipline our members
if they choose to work non-union. If they're union, they've got
to work union; if they're non-union, they work non-union. We have
no problem with that.
Mr
Bartolucci: There will be amendments to the 45-day
window. Trust me when I say that. We will be putting forth an
amendment and I'm sure the third party will as well.
Very quickly, are you in
agreement then that the regulatory power of the Lieutenant
Governor, with regard to the arbitration process, is frightening
at best, and should that be with the Minister of Labour?
Mr
Petricca: The arbitration settlement should be spelled
out in the legislation in a way that everybody is clear as to
exactly what takes place, and not have surprises after
arbitration is rendered. The arbitration process should be
spelled out properly in the legislation.
Mr
Bartolucci: Thank you.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS
(AFL-CIO-CLC); INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, LOCAL
128
The Chair:
The next speakers are Mr Power and Mr Church, the International
Brotherhood of Boilermakers. Please proceed.
Mr Michael
Church: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Mr Minister,
honourable members. I will make some brief comments and I'll be
followed by Mr Power, who will be happy to answer any questions
any member of the committee might have.
We have prepared for you an
extensive written brief. It's in front of you, hopefully. It's
about 15 pages and it has appendices attached to it which we
leave for your review later.
I'm going to be making
three major points in a few moments, but first a small point. To
appreciate the contents of the brief filed on behalf of the
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, and its Local 128 in
Ontario, you have to read the beginning, with the greatest
respect, so you
understand the particular and unique nature of the Boilermakers
in Ontario, the Boilermakers' craft and the type of industry the
Boilermakers operate in.
1610
I can tell you that this
brief is on behalf of the International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers and its Local 128. Virtually every single member of
the union in Ontario and this local work in the sector of the
industry that will be affected by the bill in question. In fact,
virtually all of them are construction Boilermakers who work in
the industrial sector, and therefore the bill affects them very
dramatically. It will affect every one of them. The lodge itself
is Lodge 128. It is a province-wide lodge. It is a construction
lodge. Therefore, virtually every member will be adversely
affected by the bill on the points that I'm going to be
discussing in a moment.
The Boilermakers are in a
bit of a different position than many of their brothers and
sisters in the construction industry. Some 99% of boilermaker
work is done by members of this union in the province, and it's
virtually all unionized work. The effect of that is that the
Boilermakers do all of the work in question, and you don't have
the same concerns-with the greatest respect-that are present for
some of the other building trades unions. There's no whipsawing
or economic warfare between union and non-union in this area.
I've set out in the brief
the International's relationship with the Boilermakers in Ontario
and the local itself, Boilermakers 128. It is a very specialized
trade. Speaking in numbers, it is a smaller trade than many of
the other trades. The type of work they do is nuclear power
plants, fixing boilers, welding. They are tested virtually every
time they step on a job in terms of welding. They do a lot of
shutdown work-blast furnaces in places like Hamilton, and
shutdown work at Sarnia's Chemical Valley, that sort of thing.
The trade at this point in time is experiencing shortages in
finding people to enter the trade, which will impact upon a few
comments I have later in the brief. You can see in the brief
also, the local itself has spent a considerable amount of time,
money and effort in the last few years to try to train and
upgrade its workforce.
A couple of also unique
points: The Boilermakers' collective agreement, applicable in
Ontario and most of the other provinces-the Boilermakers' union
represents Boilermakers in nine out of 10 provinces-is a national
collective agreement. The national collective agreement also
doubles for the provincial collective agreement. That has an
important impact in this case. The impact of the bill will
adversely affect a national collective agreement.
In terms of the employers,
the employers are represented by the Boilermakers' Contractors
Association of Ontario and the parent, the Boilermakers'
Contractors Association. There are contractors' associations for
the Boilermakers in every other province. As far as we are aware,
there has never been any complaint to this government, or any
lobbying on behalf of any boilermaker contractor association or
the parent, about a need for any amendment to the labour laws
vis-à-vis the Boilermakers-not one complaint by one
contractor, by one employer, by one association. That's because
there aren't the same problems facing the Boilermakers and their
contractors that face other members of organized labour and the
other employers.
To continue on: The issues
of concern to the Boilermakers are threefold. The first two
issues are the specific provisions in the new legislation which
allow for either employers or employer associations or
arbitrators to change the collective agreement. If that is
allowed to apply to the Boilermakers, it will change the national
collective agreement. It will disadvantage Boilermakers in
Ontario against their brothers and sisters throughout Canada. It
will also change provisions in the national collective agreement
which apply to national trust plans, health plans, health and
welfare plans, pension plans, etc, if the compensation packages
which fund those plans are changed in Ontario, because it is one
national collective agreement.
The Boilermakers are also
concerned that the word "significant" to describe the legal test
of competitive disadvantage was taken out of the proposed bill,
Bill 69. We are concerned that it would limit the ability of an
arbitrator to take into account a significant competitive
disadvantage. We think that should still be on the table.
I'd just like to say that
the Boilermakers' collective agreement has an enabling clause.
The enabling clause has been used extensively by the
Boilermakers' Contractors Association and the members and the
employers. It has never once been turned down by the Boilermakers
in Ontario. There has been no complaint. Every time that the
contractors have needed to use the enabling clause and triggered
it, it has been agreed to by the union. Surely the union must get
some credit for that. It does not need to go to final and binding
automatic arbitration. It is a very workable enabling system that
the Boilermakers have used with their contractors. They do
virtually all of the work. Once the clause is triggered,
everybody gets the same considerations; everybody's on an equal
footing.
Last, in terms of the
hiring hall, we are concerned about the hiring hall provisions,
section 163.5 of Bill 69. The reason we are concerned is again
because of the particular nature of the craft. The Boilermakers
have a series of hiring halls in Ontario. They're located, not
coincidentally, in many of the areas you would expect: Hamilton,
where there are steel mill shutdowns all the time; Sarnia, the
chemical plants; Thunder Bay; Sudbury, in the mining towns; that
sort of thing.
The limitation on the
ability of the hiring hall to continue in force will have both a
short-term and long-term adverse effect on the Boilermakers,
because it will limit the ability of people who are new to the
profession to work in the profession. They're usually the younger
tradespeople. They don't always work. The work has to be spread
out. If the work is not spread out, if it's only the same group
of employees who will be continually hired by the employers,
those employees will get older through the years and the newer people will
leave the profession. They won't be trained. There's a shortage
right now. It will get worse and worse. If they can't find work,
if the work can't be shared, there will be no Boilermakers. There
are no non-union boilermakers to speak of. And if there are no
boilermakers, the province will lose those people who have
special abilities, and I've just given you an example: welding on
nuclear boilers and the reactors and that sort of thing. The
shortage will get worse.
I'm not sure how much time
I have, but I'll leave the brief with you, and I'll encourage the
members to ask Mr Power any questions.
The Chair:
Thank you. There's about three minutes, so if we limit questions
to one minute each from each party.
Mr Marcel Beaubien
(Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): You mentioned that new people
or younger people will leave the trade. What is the average age
of your workforce at the moment under the present agreement?
Mr Ed
Power: Currently, it's somewhere around 43 or 44 years
of age.
Mr
Beaubien: That's not too young, is it?
Mr Power:
Not really, no.
Mr
Beaubien: So to say that the present agreement is really
going to impact on that-we already have a problem existing with
an aging construction workforce. That would be a fair
statement?
Mr Power:
I think you'd probably find that true with all trades. We're all
bringing them in now, of course. You have to remember that we
went through a pretty rough time about four or five years ago
when it was difficult to bring new people into the trade. Now
that the economy has turned around a little bit, certainly we've
doubled up on the apprenticeship efforts and what have you.
Mr
Bartolucci: And it will only get worse in the naming, as
it is spelled out in the legislation now. But I have another
question. You're unique. The Boilermakers are unique. You have
national agreement. You said that anything that happens in
Ontario has a ripple effect nationally. Could you expand on that
only so briefly-I understand-and what the solution for the
Boilermakers would be?
Mr Power:
I guess most of the changes that you're talking about in the
legislation fall under what we call the master portion of the
collective agreement, which has a national application. There is,
of course, a provincial appendix which deals with the wages,
travel times, subsistence allowances and what have you. But in
any case, most of the other stuff that's contained in this
legislation has to deal with the master portion of the national
agreement. I guess that's going to be a problem for all the
parties. You'll have to sit down to see how they're going to deal
with that.
Mr
Bartolucci: And the solution specifically to the
Boilermakers would be?
Mr Power:
Exempt.
Mr
Christopherson: You raised the issue of 163.5 as it
pertains to 163.2 and the concern that the hiring hall
provisions, traditions will be affected. Again, I would ask the
parliamentary assistant if we have that legal opinion yet.
Mr Gill:
No, not yet.
Mr
Christopherson: Do you know when we're going to have
it?
Mr Gill:
Before the end of the meeting, I'll get back to you on that.
Mr
Christopherson: OK. Good, because if the minister
recognizes that 163.5 does not in any way guarantee even the
modest formula that's been negotiated, then I've got to believe
that this whole thing's going to break wide open. In effect, if
you can go after all the things outlined in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5 of subsection 163.2(4), that's just about the whole
ballgame right there. There's not much left. And if that formula
again is busted open and then they go so high as 100% name-hire,
all those protections that I would think were traded off at the
bargaining table as part of the negotiation are going to cause
this thing to implode. I gather you're raising the same concern
we have about whether or not the 40% and 60%, as modest as they
are, are floors as opposed to ceilings.
Mr Power:
Yes. We probably share the same concern. Probably the biggest
concern that we have insofar as the name-hire business is
concerned is trying to keep people in the trade when the work
picture isn't quite as rosy as it is right now. We all know of
course that contractors have their favourite people and keep
moving them around from job to job. There are only so many
man-hours we can share among them. If the guys can't make a
living at the trade, they're not going to stay with the trade.
Once you get another little bit of a boom that goes on, there
aren't going to be the people there to be able to satisfy the
concerns the owners have with respect to fixing their plants.
The Chair:
Thank you.
Interjection.
Mr Church:
That's the point.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Power, Mr Church.
1620
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
The Chair:
Mr Gallagher, Mr O'Neil and Mr Barnes, International Union of
Operating Engineers.
Mr Michael
Gallagher: I will try and be brief. It may be the first
time in history I've actually kept to five or six minutes when
I'm speaking, but I'll do my best.
My name is Mike Gallagher.
I'm the business manager of the International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 793, a province-wide organization. With me is
Gary O'Neil, who's the president of our organization; Ken Lew,
our labour relations manager; and Ben Barnes, our legal counsel.
You have received copies of our brief. I will be making some
observations and hopefully there will be enough time for you to ask any of us
some questions. If there is time on some technical points, I'd
ask Ben Barnes to address some of the problems we see with the
bill as it is currently drafted.
The International Union of
Operating Engineers is a province-wide local. We recently added
Nunavik as a territory. We have in excess of 8,000 members in
Ontario, working in all sectors of the construction industry, but
also industrial and municipal bargaining units, for example, in
Renfrew, Port Elgin and New Tecumseth, to name a few. We employ
members who operate cranes, bulldozers, graders, backhoes,
excavators and similar equipment, and surveyors. Since about 1995
we've enjoyed a very strong employment picture in most sectors
and areas of the province, with a few exceptions. In northern
Ontario employment has not been as strong because of the lack of
spending by all levels of government on infrastructure and low
prices in the steel and mining industries.
Our membership has
province-wide mobility and many of our members travel outside the
province for work, if they wish, not only in Canada but outside
Canada. We have over the years negotiated a province-wide,
all-sectors agreement, and area road builders, sewer and water
main, province-wide pipeline and power sectors agreements, all of
which have wage schedules for each area of the province to
address local area concerns.
Our provincial agreement
also includes steel erection, mechanical, crane rental,
excavating, foundation piling, and surveyors, as I said. On
occasion in the past, we have enabled our provincial agreement to
obtain work when an employer and the employer bargaining agency
can demonstrate a significant disadvantage due to the lack of
union bidders on a project of large economic value to an area.
We've done this in the past in most areas for general
contractors, such as PCL and Ellis-Don, at least one of which
makes up the group, the so-called Ontario Coalition for Fair
Labour Laws. As an example, in Sarnia we enabled the Bluewater
Bridge project on which Ellis-Don was a successful bidder.
In our view, Bills 7, 31
and this bill are unnecessary and have the impact of eliminating
the level playing field to the employers' favour and adding a
degree of complicating negotiations. Despite this fact we will
support Bill 69 in principle, provided that the government
does not further tilt the balance in favour of employers by
further anti-union amendments, and in particular, subsection 1(4)
and section 69 of the act. We encourage the government not to
make any further one-sided amendments to the Labour Relations Act
and point out that every free democratic nation on earth also has
a characteristic of a free-trade union movement governed by fair
rules.
Local 793 members alone
have made multi-million-dollar contributions to a pension plan
which is now in excess of $900 million, training trust funds and
benefit plans over the years. This has benefited the industry by
providing a stable, highly skilled workforce in an industry which
is subject to uneven employment.
The Labour Relations Act
should only be amended, in our view, when true consultation among
industry stakeholders takes place and absent any threats, implied
or overt, by the government to either labour or management. The
Labour Relations Act should not be a political football or
manipulated by ideological forces within any government but
should function to protect working people and their families and
also be fair to employers.
We recommend that the
government reinstate automatic certification when a union can
demonstrate gross employer misconduct and unfair labour practices
during an organizing drive. We've had members threatened and
fired during organizing drives, and currently the non-union
employer is rewarded rather than penalized. A simple revote does
not remedy these violations.
We also recommend the
reinstatement of an expedited hearing at the Ontario Labour
Relations Board when an employee is fired during an organizing
drive. This is only fair to the employee, who likely supports a
family and has a mortgage and has only exercised his legal, human
right to belong to a trade union organization. This is an
injustice we would seek this government to correct.
Bill 31 and Bill 69 serve
to undermine province-wide bargaining, which, when put in place
in the late 1970s, brought an unprecedented period of stability
to the construction industry by lowering the incidence of
strikes, which happened much more frequently prior to that.
Undermining province-wide bargaining will potentially bring back
increased work stoppages, which is not good for any of the
stakeholders.
We also recommend that the
wording of the act include "significant competitive disadvantage"
in an employer application if they are seeking to enable in a
particular area of the provincial agreement.
Bill 69 goes too far. The
language on "related successor employer" in the bill is
unnecessary, since key man and blood relationship are important
considerations for board panels but are not the only
consideration in a related employer application.
In the residential sector
in Toronto we are opposed to the limitation on the right to
strike to 45 days. This will diminish the seriousness of
negotiations and may lead to either useless strikes or lockouts
followed by lengthy and costly arbitrations where neither side
may approve of the arbitration's award. Only true negotiations
followed by a settlement are likely to be respected or
honoured.
We recommend that the
45-day window be eliminated in the bill and allow all agreements
to be three years and expire at the same time but retain the
right to strike and lockout.
Those are my observations
and comments. Some of them are repeated in the brief you have
before you; some are added.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Gallagher. We have about two minutes. Mr
Bartolucci, we'll see how it goes.
Mr
Bartolucci: I'll be very brief. Thank you, Mr Gallagher,
for an excellent presentation. With regard to amendments, you
suggest that the government delete designated regional employers' organizations
from the legislation. Can you just expand on that very
briefly?
Mr
Gallagher: I think it's very unwise to add an uncertain
and unknown component to province-wide bargaining, which is
basically a very simple concept and has served the industry very
well. By adding new regional employer associations, I think
you're going to create a lot of mistrust in the bargaining
process and the possibility of additional final offers being put
in at the last minute, as we've said in our brief. It may have
some other unforeseen-I think that really we should continue to
deal with the employer bargaining agency. With Local 793, for
example, when we're bargaining, we know who we're bargaining
with. We're bargaining with the employer bargaining agency, and
they are made up of a number of general contractors' associations
around the province, for example, the Sarnia Construction
Association, the general contractors' section in Toronto, Sudbury
and Thunder Bay and all the various areas of construction
associations.
I don't think we should put
an element of mistrust in there where the whole process might be
derailed or blindsided by another group that has a minimum
involvement, except that they've been appointed, as I understand
it, by the Lieutenant Governor, the way the current bill is
worded.
1630
Mr
Christopherson: You've mentioned the designated regional
employer organizations; the absence of the word "significant,"
which in my understanding was a part of the negotiations, and
most of the labour leaders who left the meetings understood that
"significant" was going to be in there; and the 45-day issue.
Let me say on the word
"significant" that I did have a chance to talk to the minister
briefly about it, and his position is that there was difficulty
in getting a legal definition of "significant" that would
work.
I suggest to all who are
listening that those who have lawyers and legal firms on retainer
take a stab at this. If we can show reasonable language that
defines "significant," it would seem to me there's no argument
left for the government to say they can't put "significant" back
in. I think we all appreciate the absence of it makes a huge
difference in terms of the threshold that the arbitrator has to
cross.
Let me ask you very
point-blank, without the amendments that you've raised here, the
key amendments, particularly those that were part of the
consensus and negotiations as you recall them, even if Bill 69 is
imposed the way it is, can it work or are we going to be headed
into more difficulties on the construction front with labour and
employers than before Bill 69 was even in place?
Mr
Gallagher: It can't work the way it's worded right now,
in my opinion. Maybe it can be made to work if a number of the
amendments that have been suggested both by the provincial
building trades and some of the others and ourselves are made.
There is a possibility that it will work but there's no guarantee
of that either.
GENERAL CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION OF HAMILTON
The Chair:
Next we have Mr McArthur.
Mr Stephen
McArthur: My name is Stephen McArthur. I'm counsel for
the General Contractors' Association of Hamilton. Thank you for
the opportunity to make a presentation today. I recognize that
you've heard a number of points repeatedly, particularly in the
most recent submissions from Mr Gallagher. I'll keep my
submissions brief, but I do want to say, in response to the
question from Mr Bartolucci, that I would take some issue with
the submission with respect to the designated regional employers'
organization. I think the submission from my friend Mr Gallagher
was that these organizations are somehow going to be strangers to
the process. I can assure all members of the committee that that
is not the case.
In fact, traditionally
across the province the employer bargaining agency itself is made
up of a number of local associations, Hamilton happening to be
one of them, and there are others from across the province. It is
common; in fact, it probably would be atypical if there weren't
some local component to the provincial negotiations. For
instance, virtually every provincial agreement in the ICI sector
has a local appendix. Quite frankly, I think my friends in the
employer bargaining from the rest of the province would be
surprised if I let them negotiate the Hamilton appendix. That
already takes place. My friend Mr Gallagher indicates that
somehow that would be a strange component to the process; that is
in fact not the case. That's what already happens and that's what
works.
There are a few points I
want to address specifically. I think the consensus that should
be taken from our submission with respect to the bill is that
while we are inclined to have some sympathy and would have been
perhaps more supportive of the legislation if it had reflected
some of the concerns that Mr Smith from the coalition raised
earlier, if this is the bill, then we believe that it could be
supported with some changes and with some amendments. In fact, I
think with those amendments the bill could perhaps be made to
work in some reasonable way.
First of all, I know Mr
Christopherson alluded earlier to negotiations or discussions
that had taken place at the table and perhaps some agreements
reached elsewhere. Section 160.1, which permits at this point
essentially a form of voluntary abandonment on the face of the
document, is somewhat problematic to the extent that it doesn't
do two things. One, it doesn't provide for a specific mechanism
for ensuring that abandonment is a finding that would be made, if
necessary, by the Ontario Labour Relations Board; that is,
essentially it provides on its face for something that already
exists, for a trade union to voluntarily abandon its bargaining
rights, to agree that they have been abandoned.
Clearly, to the extent that
there have been discussions outside of this room and outside of
the Legislature with respect to what may or may not be the case,
there are a substantial
number of contractors across the province who are similarly
situated to those who perhaps played a more prominent role in
discussions around the negotiations. It's crystal clear that, to
the extent any contractors are permitted to take advantage of
that clause-and clearly there are a number of other contractors
who are similarly situated and must also be afforded the exact
same opportunity-the amendment we propose is set out in our
submission, in that it would treat similarly situated contractors
in a similar, in fact identical fashion.
The next point I wanted to
touch on was this question of the designated regional employers
organizations. I've touched on it in part in my response to Mr
Gallagher's submission. I think there are a couple of things that
can be taken from it. First, there exists across the province, as
I alluded to earlier, a number of associations that already have
not just expertise but substantial relationships with the local
unions, the affiliated bargaining agents with which they deal on
a regular basis, both in terms of provincial bargaining every
three years, and also on a day-to-day relationship that we've
developed. I know certainly in Hamilton that is the case with Mr
Mancinelli and others from the various civil trades.
I think to that extent not
only does it make sense that the local associations continue in
that role, but that they should be defined as the designated
regional employer organizations because they have the expertise
and the relationship and, I think, a substantial understanding of
the difficulties faced locally.
The bill, through sections
163.2(1) and (2), provides for an amending process. My friend Mr
Christopherson indicated earlier some concern with these five
grounds being essentially the levers for opening, perhaps
reopening entirely, provincial bargaining. With respect, I don't
believe that's entirely the case, if in fact the focus of the
bill is on addressing competitive disadvantage, which is clearly
the case, faced currently by unionized general contractors in the
ICI sector.
There are two points that I
think need to be addressed with respect to this portion of the
bill. First, there should be added, at least in my submission,
one further provision that would be open to local amendment and
that would be provisions in respect of subcontracting under the
ICI agreements. It is often the case, and I know my friends from
the union side would agree, that there are times when a unionized
subcontractor in a particular area-in some cases narrow, in some
cases broader-is simply not available, or worse, where there is
only one available. In those circumstances, the costs incurred
become substantial. Either the contractor finds himself faced
with no opportunity to provide for a unionized subcontractor
because none exists, or he is forced to look at a price that is
simply unattainable because there's only one. I think to that
extent it would make good sense that a sixth area of amendment be
added to the bill, that being a provision for addressing
subcontracting clauses.
Second, I think it also
would be fruitful, given the potential impact on a local basis,
that the provisions in section 163.2 not be set out as the only
areas. While those five, and in my submission, six, areas should
be available to the parties to negotiate, provision should be
left within that section of the bill that if there are other
areas, they may also be subject to negotiation and discussion. So
those are a couple of points in that respect.
The interest arbitration
component that's been added to the bill, the enabling process and
ultimately the arbitration process-I think it's been touched on
earlier that initially there is some attraction to that-appears
to be a way, particularly with final offer selection, that some
intractable circumstances may be addressed. To that extent, I
think we are supportive.
There are a couple of
points that I think the committee needs to consider. First, the
experience in this province with interest arbitration is not
good. To the extent that interest arbitration is a function of
other pieces of legislation, like the fire department and the
police service, the history over the last two years in the most
recent amendments to those statutes, particularly with respect to
direction to arbitrators in respect of local economic conditions,
consideration of ability-to-pay issues-I think the experience has
been abysmal.
To that extent, it seems to
me that Bill 69 would be improved if there were a substantial
direction to arbitrators that this is not merely something for
them to consider; it is in fact something that must be considered
and applied, leaving aside concerns around significant
competitive disadvantage, that issues of economics and the
circumstances around competitive disadvantage are matters which
they are required to redress through their submission, so that
we're not left in a circumstance which I believe and would submit
still is the case with police and fire, where in fact the
government's direction has largely been, with respect,
ignored.
1640
Another matter that stems
from that is that the arbitrators ultimately become the
adjudicators under this bill. This is not, in my submission,
simply a labour relations matter, notwithstanding the crowd you
have in front of you. Fundamentally, these are issues of
economics, and it would seem to me that it would be both prudent
and appropriate for the government, in appointing the panel of
arbitrators, to take those matters into account and, with all due
respect, that the same old faces not be part of this process,
that the government look for, obtain, seek out and appoint
arbitrators who are well versed and well able to deal with the
economics of the circumstance, both from an employer and a trade
union point of view.
The last issue I want to
raise deals directly with provincial bargaining. Provincial
bargaining, obviously, in its introduction in 1978 through 1980,
was introduced as a way of dealing with circumstances of whipsaw,
where various areas of the province were effectively used as
leverage against others. It's my concern that enabling panels on
arbitration decisions may very well lead to that same result or a
similar result if in fact it is open to a trade union to say at
the provincial bargaining, "We don't need to address your
economic concerns here; we can address them through local enabling or some sort
of arbitration."
It seems to me that would
allow parties to avoid the real issues at provincial bargaining
where they really need to be addressed. To that extent, our
submission is that it ought to be a provision of the bill that it
is bad faith on the part of a trade union, or indeed an employer,
to fail to deal with, or to essentially defer to enabling, any of
the economic issues that are raised at provincial bargaining.
I believe I'm out of time.
Thank you for your time.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr McArthur. There is no time for questions
unfortunately, committee.
ASSOCIATION OF UNIONIZED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF
ONTARIO
The Chair:
The Association of Unionized General Contractors of Ontario: Mr
Geoffrey Smith, Mr Morrow, Mr Kummar and Mr Bifolchi.
Mr Geoffrey
Smith: Thank you very much. I'll start right in, if
that's OK.
My name is Geoffrey Smith
and I'm with a company called Ellis-Don. But I am here, in
effect, representing eight general contractors. I know that's not
a large number, but let me tell you, if my group had been here in
1982, we would have been 288 strong. The fact is, because of a
strange twist, almost a legal aberration, in our view, there are
only eight of us left in business. The rest have either gone
bankrupt or been forced out of business and have just given up
working. The reason for this is that approximately 30 years ago,
in the 1960s and some in the 1950s, these general contractors
signed an agreement in Toronto in order to hire men-and of course
they were men then-from the trade unions. That was back when the
entire industry was unionized and it was a reasonable and
rational thing to do. Much later, in fact around 1990, the
Ontario Labour Relations Board twisted this agreement and
interpreted it in such a way as to require these companies to be
fully unionized, to employ only union subcontractors, wall to
wall, across the entire province.
I want to be clear about
this. These contractors are now bound by 18 unions, even though
they have never been certified by these unions, even though they
have never voluntarily recognized these unions and even though
they have never employed at any time a single member of these
trade unions. The result, as I've said, is that we used to be
approximately 300 strong and there are eight of us left.
I am here today to ask you
for relief. Outside the greater Toronto area there is no work to
be had by this group. Ellis-Don used to be a province-wide
contractor. We are now confined almost exclusively to Toronto.
Inside the greater Toronto area there is a boom happening right
now, and I'll grant you it has given us a temporary reprieve, but
when it's finished, so are we. We are in desperate straits.
That's not hyperbole; that's the way it is.
I want to tell you that no
other general contractors in the province have this problem. Some
will be here before you with legitimate competitive grievances.
Are they serious competitive problems that these contractors
have? Absolutely. Does this legislation go anywhere near where
it's necessary to address these grievances? With respect, I tell
you that it does not. But do their problems compare to our
problems? The answer is no. That's why there are only eight of us
left.
Likewise, you will hear
from some subcontracting associations that want to, and will tell
you that they need to, have the mere eight of us continue to be
bound exclusively to them in order for them to survive and
prosper. Some of these fellows are friends of mine, but I have to
tell you, we disagree on that point. What they are asking for is
a one-way monopoly. These subcontractors are free, and should be
free, to bid to non-union general contractors. They can
participate side by each with non-union subcontractors. They can
make themselves competitive under this legislation's mechanism
and they would never give up these rights. Ask them when they
appear before you if they would ever give up the right to
participate in the non-union sector, and their answer will be
that they never would. But of course they have an exclusive
monopoly with us-it's a one-way monopoly-and who would blame
them? They want to maintain it.
It's been heard before, and
I'll just briefly reiterate, that the union members can also
double-breast. In a strike they can go work for non-union
members, and when there's no union work they can go work for
non-union contractors. I'm not criticizing these working men. To
be clear, they don't have any choice. They work union when they
can and they work non-union when they have to, but they are in
effect double-breasting. Everybody in this province is
double-breasting to some extent, except the eight of us, and
that's why we're going broke one by one.
The new legislation does
not work for us. Our clients want us to get prices from all of
the subcontractors available. When we're limited to about 10% of
the market, as we are in London and Kitchener, the London Health
Sciences Centre is spending $150 million and Ellis-Don is not
invited to the table. In many markets down in Chatham and
Kitchener and London and around Ottawa, we can't even get union
prices. I can tell you, there's a hospital that's $30 million in
Chatham that's out for tender right now. There are no electrical
prices that we can use. There are no mechanical prices that we
can use. We rolled up the plans today and sent them back. We were
actually hoping for relief earlier; that's why we held on to them
so long, but the timing is against us. Even if the trade
contractors make themselves competitive with the mechanism
contained in this legislation, for us they not only have to be
competitive but every single one has to be low on any given
tender. If there's a single non-union trade that's low on that
day, we can't carry them and we're out of the picture. It really
is a difficult situation.
I can honestly say, and I think it would be broadly
accepted, that many of the trade unions agree that we're in
difficulty and they have offered in the past to give us relief
from this working trade agreement outside board area 8. We have
been trying to reach an agreement with them and continue to try
and reach an agreement with them as of today, but there are three
or four holdouts and of course they need unanimous support and
it's very difficult to get.
I am here today on behalf
of the eight of us to ask you for an amendment to this
legislation to exempt us, to free us from this working trade
agreement. It has killed 300 of our compatriots, and on behalf of
the last eight we are asking for a last-minute reprieve. I have
to tell you that I'm hopeful and confident that this committee
will give us that required amendment to allow us to keep
working.
Those are my comments. I'm
not sure where we are for time.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Smith. We have about four minutes so there should
be enough time for questions around the table.
Mr
Beaubien: This is a very complex issue. I certainly
sympathize with some of the points that you've raised today with
regard to a union worker being able to double-breast somewhere
else. A person has to make a living. That's the problem we're
facing and that's the dilemma that this government is facing. I
hear on the other side that this is too restrictive. I hear from
your side that it's not restrictive enough, that we should go
further.
If we look at what happened
in 1997, I think there was some proposal put on the table during
the discussion on Bill 31. I know that your organization or
representatives from the eight general wanted us to go further
with the legislation. We took a middle-of-the-road approach and
maybe it wasn't perfect, as Mr Samuelson said in his opening
statement, and does not solve everything. But somehow between the
unions, the general contractors and the government, we must be
able to find a middle-of-the-road solution somewhere.
1650
It's not going to satisfy
the criteria 100% on either side, but somehow there's got to be
something, somewhere. I look at my workers in the
Lambton-Kent-Middlesex area who haven't had the opportunity to
work locally. They've had to travel out of province, out of the
district to make a living. That also is not fair for them. How do
we resolve this? I hear from you, "That's not enough." I hear
from the other side, "It's not enough." How do we resolve this
thing? It's a complex issue.
Mr Smith:
It is a difficult issue, I'll grant you, and what makes it more
difficult and in my view nearly impossible is that to come to an
agreement-and we have worked very hard to come towards some kind
of agreement or middle ground-you need almost unanimous support
for an agreement on the trade union side, which is very difficult
to get, and you have to bring together the different interests of
the trade contractors, the general contractors and different
groups, which is also difficult. To bring them all together is
nearly impossible.
With respect to the
legislative amendment we are here asking for from you today, we
are, we think, as close as we can get to general agreement that
it is fair, reasonable and just. But can you get absolutely
everybody to sign on? It seems to be difficult. We've worked very
hard at it.
I guess my bottom-line
answer to the question is, you get people as close as you can and
then the government has to make a decision.
Mr
Bartolucci: I have a very quick comment and then a
question. I've done a lot of reading on this and it's my
understanding that in 1997 the building trades provided an option
that was a solution, but it wasn't the building trades that opted
out, it was your group that opted out. That's some reading I've
been doing, whether that's true or not.
I think everybody around
this table is concerned about this piece of legislation. If you,
as one of the general contractors who clearly want to get rid of
1(4), are saying this is not workable legislation, and if in fact
we haven't heard from many of the building trades or the trades
that have said it's going to be workable legislation, Mr Smith, I
want to know who is the loser and who is the winner in this
legislation. Every legislation has a winner and a loser. In your
opinion, who wins most in this legislation?
Mr Smith:
I'll answer your question in a second, but let me just address
your comment. You're right about what happened in 1997. There's
never been any question about it. It was not the generals who
pulled out, it was one of the trade employers' side, the
electrical contractors' association, that pulled out, and then
the electrical union pulled out immediately thereafter, which
just enforces the point I was making earlier: It is extremely
difficult to bring everybody together and get a unanimous
agreement, which is what is required.
Who's the winner and who's
the loser? We are clearly losers in this deal. We were looking
for relief from this agreement and the legislation as written
today does not provide for it. It depends on your value system.
We were looking for substantial relief to level the playing field
and to provide incentives to help us get competitive. That didn't
happen.
The trade unions didn't
like it. I believe they were substantially the winners because
they were able to avoid coming to grips with those
competitiveness problems.
There is a mechanism and we
have to see how it works, but the mechanism does not work for the
generals, and I'm telling you, sir, with respect, we are the
clear losers here.
Mr
Christopherson: There are a number of issues the unions
have raised and have said that if there were amendments to them,
there's a possibility they think Bill 69 might work, that it's
worth at least a shot rather than allowing the government to fire
off 1(4), which obviously the unions don't want for a whole host
of reasons. Some of those issues are around the word
"significant," in terms of competitive disadvantage, the 45 days,
some issues around the process of the arbitration.
In your opinion, is it
worth the government looking and listening to the unions in terms
of these specific issues
if it means it gives Bill 69 at least a shot, bearing in mind
that the unions say that, as is, 69 just plain won't work on a
day-to-day basis in your very complex industry?
Mr Smith:
There's nothing in Bill 69 as it's written that gives us any
relief or any ability to compete as generals. If it doesn't work
for the unions and somehow it died, it would leave us in the same
horrible position we're left with if it passes as it's currently
proposed.
If there are improvements
that can be made-I'm not that familiar with the 45 days, but I
think that's only residential and it's not a market that we
participate in. I'd have to agree with the comment made with
respect to the word "significant." You're either competitive and
you can get low and bid on work or you can't. If you're 5% low,
if you're 5% off the mark, and you say, "That's not significant,"
you're still not there. So with respect, sir, I'd have to
disagree with that. There's been lots of talking. I'm always
prepared to talk, so I don't want to foreclose on that.
The Chair:
Thank you for coming.
ONTARIO HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
DURHAM REGION HOME BUILDERS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
The next speakers are Mr Brent Easson, Mr Hocker and Mr Koebel
from the Ontario Home Builders' Association.
While you're coming up, I
would just ask members of the audience, you've been very patient
and I appreciate it, but if you have cell phones, would you turn
them off. They can be disruptive to proceedings.
Mr Murray
Koebel: Good afternoon. My name is Murray Koebel. I'm
here with Brian Collins from the Durham Region Home Builders'
Association. I'm here as the immediate past-president of the
Ontario Home Builders' Association. I'm also a past president of
the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association, and I sit on the
board of directors of the Ontario New Home Warranty Program. For
what's it's worth, I'm also a resident of Etobicoke.
I'm a practitioner in the
greater Toronto area. I'm a residential builder operating in this
marketplace. I'm familiar with the strikes and related matters
affecting the housing industry, and that's what I'm here
specifically to talk about.
The Ontario Home Builders'
Association represents approximately 3,400 member companies
across Ontario, including builders, contractors, trades,
suppliers, professionals and others.
One of the main purposes of
our presentation today is to state that we strongly support the
notion of a 45- or 46-day strike clause or provision for our
industry, followed by mandatory arbitration.
Unionized contractors and
builders have, in our opinion, been put at a disadvantage through
an outdated collective bargaining system that has not been
responsive to the changing environment in our industry, and the
residential industry specifically. Unionized contractors and
subcontractors are subject to common province-wide agreements or
district agreements with trade unions which can create instances
where there are competitive disadvantages with non-unionized
contractors. This legislation, we feel, will level the playing
field and help increase competition, which is always a benefit to
the consumer and the home buyer.
What happened during the
summer of 1998 was that the protracted, many months of strikes on
a sort of stacked basis crippled the home building industry,
especially within the greater Toronto area. With six consecutive
strikes by various trades throughout the prime summer building
season, our industry literally ground to a halt. This meant no
new homes were being built. Manufacturers and suppliers and other
affected people were forced to lay off their workers. Home buyers
in particular, the public, were burdened with additional cost
delays and serious inconvenience, which is a prime motivator for
our purposes here.
We are reliant upon a host
of different trades to construct homes, and the system in place
created a situation where I don't think anyone really benefited;
I think everyone suffered. By passing these amendments in the
bill, all construction trade agreements would expire at the same
time and allow for a maximum strike period of roughly six weeks,
after which binding arbitration would be utilized to resolve the
disputes. This creates a situation in which the home buyer will
have a more certain level of clarity and confidence in the home
buying process, and home buying, as you know, is a major industry
in this province.
The home building industry
is a major contributor to the Ontario economy and this amendment
will bring a greater amount of stability to everyone involved,
including the unions, employers, employees, manufacturers,
suppliers, and especially the new home buyer.
I've got some other facts
here. First of all, we support the inclusion of an amendment to
include Durham region and Simcoe county in the agreement and I
think Brian will say a few words on that.
The proposed amendment
would not make sense to this whole piece of legislation unless
there was a clear consumer benefit that was demonstrated, and I
think that's what this will do with this 45- or 46-day strike
clause in particular.
1700
Our industry is nothing
like other regular manufacturing operations or facilities such as
an automobile plant or a shoe factory or anything of that nature.
The residential construction industry consists of approximately
4,500 to 5,000 registered builders that are registered at the
Ontario home warranty program. The industry will build close to
70,000 units this year in the province, and about half of that
will be in the GTA. The problem is centred, for the most part, in
the urban areas. However, the non-unionized sections of the
industry watch the wage settlements that occur and use them as a
benchmark for labour costs in their jurisdictions or in their
municipalities.
A typical new home or condo project has about 35 to
40 trades involved of one skill level or another. In the GTA,
roughly half the trades are unionized, and it's a growing sector,
the unionized sector, especially where large-scale building
operations take place. It's especially prevalent in high-rise
condos, but low-rise residential construction has been
increasingly unionized over the last five or six years in
particular.
Our construction work is
primarily done in the field, so to speak, other than some
manufactured components which are generally applied, so we've got
lots of varying weather conditions. Strikes, depending on the
weather conditions, also can have varying effects.
The potential stacking of
strikes, which really is the notion of one strike occurring after
another after each one is individually or progressively settled,
whether created inadvertently or otherwise, creates a devastating
impact on the consumer and on the companies involved. Stacking
also hurts workers in other unions or other non-unionized workers
who may not be on strike but are held off of job sites, either to
respect other unions' picket lines or just by the inability to be
able to cross lines. One can easily see the devastating effect of
this stacking if it were to spread to other urban areas outside
of the GTA.
On behalf of our 3,400
members of the Ontario Home Builders' Association, I'd like to
thank you again for this opportunity. I welcome any questions,
but I think Brian would like to make his presentation first.
Mr Brian
Collins: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee
members. My name is Brian Collins, president of Durham Region
Home Builders' Association.
Murray has mentioned a lot
of the points that we would have brought up, so we did not
include them. Durham Region Home Builders' Association has been
representing the residential construction industry in Durham
region since 1952. We have approximately 150 member companies
with approximately 4,500 employees, including builders,
renovators, professionals, suppliers, manufacturers and
contractors.
The legislation before you,
we feel, will be a huge step in stopping the uncertainty for both
builders and purchasers. Our association does support it. We
support the intent of the legislation to avoid stacking of
strikes and agree with the idea of the 45-day strike period, as
this protects many of our members and customers. There is,
however, one geographical area that Durham Region Home Builders'
Association would like to see added, and that is Durham region.
It is a large part of the building industry area within the GTA,
and our association feels strongly that we would be at great risk
should we not be included as part of this legislation's
geographic coverage area.
Although the Durham region
is mostly a non-union sector, during the last round of strikes in
1998, Durham region was targeted at both union and non-union
sites. We felt its effects throughout the various municipalities,
from the city of Pickering in the west to the municipality of
Clarington in the east. Therefore, we recommend that this
legislation be amended to include Durham region.
I thank you for allowing us
to present our views.
The Chair:
Mr Koebel and Mr Collins, I see that you're both down for 10
minutes each, so I take it you've combined your presentation in
order to speed things up a little.
Mr Koebel:
Yes.
The Chair:
OK, then, we'll go to questions. We have about five minutes.
Mr
Bartolucci: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your
submission. I understand where you're coming from. I don't agree
entirely with what you're saying, but that's fine.
You've heard from other
presenters today, and certainly yesterday, and you'll be aware
that there's much concern in the industry from unions with regard
to the 45-day strike rule. You said it was an archaic system of
negotiating and bargaining. The reality is, though, from a
personal observation as one who worked as a labourer in the
industry, unions have no more power than they had 80 years ago.
The only right a union has is to withdraw its services to fight
for better working conditions or better wages. That's not
archaic; I think that's timeless. Would you clarify for me what
you mean by "an archaic system."
Mr Koebel:
Certainly. I think what we're really talking about in the
low-rise residential industry is that-and I'll make the
distinction once again from the auto plant. In the auto plant you
may have-and I'm not entirely sure, because I'm not in that
industry-but typically when I hear that there are strikes
there-and we recognize the right to strike and the right to
bargain and all the rest of that. But in the auto industry you
generally have two or maybe three unions that would blanket one
of these plants. In our industry we have about 15, and I
mentioned before that there are approximately 35 to 40 trades.
There's a tendency for more and more of them to be becoming
unionized, which is their right, and that's fine.
The problem for us is
where-and most of the contracts tend to expire more or less April
30 or May 1, depending on the wording. I've been building houses
for 25 years, and I can't tell you how many years-the last three
or four or five years, other than 1998, weren't quite as bad
because it was such tough times that I think there was a serious
co-operative level that was occurring between employers and
employees in terms of bargaining. Over many other years, pretty
well every year there were strikes. Half the trade unions were
negotiating one year and the other half were negotiating the
other year. About five or six years ago they all got on to the
three-year cycle, and I believe that was a benefit for everybody.
Of course, we're now at the end of the second year. We're just
beginning the third year of the three-year contract right now.
That's why we think it's important for this legislation to come
forward, so that by the time we all get to next spring, we all
know what we're facing.
The point is that we have
these 15 or so unions, all of whom have the right to strike,
which is fine, but what happens is when they go out one after the
other after the other,
it just gets to be a very long, drawn-out situation. That's what
makes it quite different than almost any other type of
manufacturing plant or anything else that has union structures in
it.
All we're saying is, the
effect of this legislation and this potentially negotiated 45- or
46-day strike clause would be that everyone goes out at the same
time; everyone is subject to the same kind of negotiation from
the same arbitrator. In other words, one guy doesn't get 5% and
4% and 3% increases, and the next guy says, "I think I'm a better
trade, so I want 6% and 5% and 9%," and this variety of different
structures that happen, one upscaling on the other and
brinkmanship and one-upmanship. We think there should be an
across-the-board settlement made. It should be done in an
organized fashion.
I think the consumer is the
ultimate beneficiary here. One way or the other, if the house
doesn't get built, we'll build it later. So it's not like the
work goes away. The union knows that and we know that. But the
ultimate group that's going to benefit really is the consumer by
not having to go through-especially in the summer months, which
is when we all want to be building. The trades really do want to
be building then, and so do we.
We believe that our
membership at OHBA blankets all of these groups. We have
unionized and non-unionized contractors, builders, professionals
and others that we blanket as our total membership. So I think we
have a unique voice.
I think one of your points
was that I mentioned the "archaic" legislation. It's archaic in
the sense that, relative to our industry-which, as I mentioned,
about five or six years ago became more and more unionized,
especially GTA-centred. Prior to that, when there were only very
few unions, it was mostly builders' labourers that were
unionized. Through that, agreements became extended whereby
builders have been required to hire other unionized trades, which
is fine if that's what the agreements are. But the whole stacking
effect is what becomes so unreasonable and affects the public so
badly. It affects everyone. Other workers who don't want to be on
strike or who aren't on strike end up going out also. It's a real
conundrum in the low-rise industry which I believe is unique.
1710
Ms Shelley Martel
(Nickel Belt): I should begin by saying that my
colleague Dave Christopherson, who is our critic for the Ministry
of Labour, had to leave. He has an event this evening, so he
apologizes that he will miss some of the other presentations.
Thank you for coming today.
I want to deal directly with the issue of the 45-day limit. I
heard you say very clearly to Mr Bartolucci that you do recognize
the right to strike, except I'd have to argue that under the
proposals that are before us, in essence that right has been
removed. I don't see where there's any incentive to negotiate or
to bargain in good faith if everyone knows that after 45 days you
can head out to the arbitrator.
Where is the right to
strike under the changes? What guarantees do we have that there
will be any really serious-maybe tough, but serious-negotiations
that will occur in this sector after this? It seems to me much
more likely that what you're going to see is everyone out for 45
days and then everyone to the arbitrator.
Mr Koebel:
That may be true. Hopefully the arbitration system that's set up
will be very fair. I think we want that, I think the unions want
that, and I think the public wants to see that that's the case. I
think that beyond 45 days it's severe enough that everyone ought
to have an incentive to settle. If they don't, then they're
probably at serious loggerheads and it would have been a really
bad year for all parties anyhow. It's probably best to go to an
arbitrator in a case like that.
I don't think it does take
away the right to strike, because the 45 days is still incentive
enough. I don't think the workers want to be out for 45 days.
They've got mortgages to pay, and the companies have interest
payments to make and homes to deliver and business to carry on.
So everyone has an incentive. Forty-five days is nasty enough,
and that could probably be extended to even 60 days by virtue of
the way the strikes begin to occur or maybe they're not announced
on the first day possible. We hope that minor abuses don't take
place. We think it's a reasonable number.
If someone said it had to
be two weeks longer to make it even more severe, then maybe
that's an answer worth considering. But we think that 45 or 46
days-I understand there's a recent change to make it 46 days-is a
reasonable number that also affects how the public is affected by
all of this. At the end of the day, who's paying all of our
bills? We're selling products that the public is buying. That's
who's paying the workers, that's who's paying the companies, and
that's the affected party.
Ms Martel:
You mentioned that you hoped the arbitration process-
The Chair:
Sorry, Ms Martel. We're running out of time and there's one
question from Mr Beaubien.
Mr
Beaubien: Thank you for your presentation. First of all,
let me thank you for saying-you're probably one of the few groups
in the past day and a half that's said this-that you can live
with this agreement almost 100%. That's kind of good news to
hear.
You mentioned in your
presentation that you have anywhere from 30 to 40 different
unions to deal with. I would imagine that it must be difficult at
times to coordinate all these groups, and yet you seem to be able
to live with Bill 69. We heard from the eight general contractors
that they don't seem to have the same ability to live with this
agreement. What's different here?
Mr Koebel:
We're aware of their desire. It's not part of our presentation
today, but we have a letter on record supporting their position,
supporting the removal of subsection 1(4), which is the right to
double-breast. It's probably not as big an issue for us in the
low-rise residential. Our issue is more concerned with the
public. If I may correct one little point that you made there, we
have about 35 or 40
trades; only about half of them are unionized.
Mr
Beaubien: But you have union and non-union-
Mr Koebel:
We have union and non-union, both contractors and builders,
within our membership lists, so some of our members are able to
operate, some aren't. For example, at the present time concrete
drivers are out on strike, and it affects non-union companies as
well, even though they don't have any specific collective
bargaining agreement with the union.
Our industry works pretty
much on the total basis of contracting out to subcontractors and
subtrades. So when you mention about our being able to organize
and manage the relationship with these 35 or 40 trades, it's by
virtue of the effect of contracting out. We would hire concrete
forming companies or roofing companies, and they're the ones that
really have the specific direct agreements. We're almost an
indirectly affected party, the OHBA membership, the builder
sector. Some of our members are directly affected, but many are
indirectly affected by the effects of these strikes, especially
manufacturers and others. If someone's making kitchen cabinets
but there's no home being built to put the cabinets in, they have
to lay off too. Even though it's only temporary, there's still an
effect that happens.
Once again, we are unique
in that we're not a single plant where there's a single picket
line. There are hundreds and hundreds of sites across the GTA
and, of course, across the province.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Koebel. Thank you, Mr Collins.
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION OF
ONTARIO
The Chair:
Mr Eryl Roberts and Mr Scott Thompson are presenting the
Electrical Contractors' Association of Ontario. Good afternoon,
gentlemen.
Mr Eryl
Roberts: Good afternoon. My name is Eryl Roberts. I'm
the executive vice-president, Electrical Contractors' Association
of Ontario and the secretary for the Electrical Trade Bargaining
Agency of ECAO, the designated employer bargaining agency under
the act. With me today is Scott Thompson of Hicks Morley, counsel
for the ECAO and the Electrical Trade Bargaining Agency.
The Electrical Contractors'
Association of Ontario represents approximately 700 electrical
contractors in the province who employ up to 13,000 electricians.
The Electrical Trade Bargaining Agency, as I've mentioned, is the
designated employer bargaining agency under the act, representing
our unionized employers in bargaining with the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. The IBEW-CCO is the designated
employee bargaining agency under the Labour Relations Act. They
represent the electricians, electrician apprentices, lineworkers
and lineworker apprentices with whom we negotiate.
The members of ECAO
generate over 14 million work hours of employment annually in the
unionized ICI sector of the construction industry and, according
to the figures of the Ontario Construction Secretariat, are the
largest membership group of the ICI sector. The ECAO has also
been a member of the Coalition for Fair Labour Laws and supports
the coalition in its efforts to achieve legislative change.
Although the coalition has not achieved all of its goals through
Bill 69, the ECAO does support the government and its current
legislative initiative as a first step in the direction of
enhancing the competitiveness of the unionized construction
industry.
The ECAO supports the
government's initiatives on hiring and mobility. One of the major
competitive barriers for unionized construction is the union
hiring hall and its administration. Frequently the tradespeople
referred to a contractor through the hiring hall do not have the
qualifications to do the job. The traditional hiring hall refers
workers to contractors based on the length of time the worker has
been unemployed, without regard to the worker's specific skills,
suitability for the available work or previous work history, on
the theory that all tradespeople within a trade are equally
qualified.
Contractors are frustrated
by the inability of the hiring hall to meet their need for
tradespeople with the appropriate skill sets to perform the
available work. The government's initiative is intended to
address these concerns by providing contractors with the right to
select up to 60% of the employees it will employ each time the
contractor goes to the hiring hall, which will allow the
contractor to match the appropriate skill sets of the employees
to the work to be performed. There are numerous competitive
advantages to this legislative initiative. Most importantly, this
initiative will encourage unionized workers to obtain the skills
and additional certifications needed to perform the available
work and will reward the initiative of those unionized workers
who obtain those skills and additional certifications.
1720
In a joint survey of 13,000
IBEW members, the majority of respondents expressed
dissatisfaction with the current hiring hall system in which the
union controls who gets referred and the employer has no input
into who is selected. In addition, a survey of electrical
contractors revealed that many small contractors were reluctant
to seek new work opportunities that would require them to go to
the hiring hall for additional employees. This reluctance arises
from the concern that the quality of workforce they will obtain
from the hall is uncertain, which increases the risks associated
with tendering work in a new area. Having the right to select up
to 60% of the employees it will employ each time the contractor
goes to the hiring hall, which will allow the contractor to match
the appropriate skill sets of the employees to the work to be
performed, will significantly reduce risks associated with
tendering new work and increase the work opportunities for both
unionized contractors and unionized workers. The ECAO supports
the government's initiative to address these concerns.
In our experience, a second
major competitive barrier for unionized contractors is the fact
that they cannot transfer their core workforce from one
geographic area of the province to another. As a general rule,
unionized contractors moving from one geographic area to another
are only entitled to bring one or two of their existing
tradespeople to supervise an entire crew that must be taken from
the local hiring hall. This means that skilled workers who are
familiar with how a contractor operates cannot be transferred
from one jurisdiction to another. The government's initiative to
give contractors the right to select up to 40% of the employees
needed to perform a contract from outside of the local area in
which the contract is to be performed addresses this concern. A
contractor's business is only as good as the tradespeople the
contractor employs. Province-wide mobility is particularly
important when providing continuous service to provincial and
national clients where the expertise of the core workforce is
needed at client locations in various union jurisdictions across
the province. At the same time, the cost of transferring workers
from one location to another naturally limits the number of
workers who can be transferred economically.
The government's initiative
on local modifications to a provincial agreement provides an
avenue for contractors to address competitive barriers in local
markets that are preventing contractors from obtaining work in a
particular market or location. Our experience with market
recovery programs has demonstrated that they can be effective if
the participants have the necessary incentive to address the
concerns. The ECAO believes that the provisions of Bill 69, which
provide a mechanism for local modifications to a provincial
agreement, do provide the necessary incentives. The concept of a
designated regional employers' organization, however, needs to be
refined to ensure that there is only one designated regional
employers' organization for each affiliated bargaining agent and
that each designated regional employers' organization can only
seek local modifications in the jurisdiction of the affiliated
bargaining agent for which it is designated.
The ETBA-the Electrical
Trade Bargaining Agency-is made up of 13 area electrical
contractors' associations which correspond with the geographical
jurisdiction of the 13 IBEW locals. And our organization, the
ETBA, would expect that they would be given priority designation
as local employers' organizations.
The ECAO believes that
legislative change should equally benefit and challenge all
participants in the unionized construction industry.
Interruption.
The Chair:
Excuse me. I have asked twice already. Please, if you would turn
off your cellphones in respect for the delegations, I would
appreciate it. Please continue.
Mr
Roberts: Thank you, Ms Mushinski.
However, there is one
aspect of Bill 69 that does not meet this test of balance, and
that is section 160.1, which gives the union, through its
designated employee bargaining agent, the right to abandon
bargaining rights for specific general contractors without the
agreement of those subcontractors who will be adversely affected
by the union's decision. The issue of abandonment raises grave
competitive challenges for those electrical subcontractors who
would be adversely affected by the decision. These challenges
will not be offset completely by the provisions of Bill 69 that
address hiring, mobility and the process for local modifications
to a provincial agreement.
It is estimated that those
electrical contractors who would be adversely affected by a
decision of the IBEW to abandon the bargaining rights do
approximately $100 million worth of work for these general
contractors in a year. This electrical construction work will be
placed at risk without the subcontractors' consent to, or
participation in, the decision to abandon. In this regard section
160.1, by not requiring the consent of both the employer and the
employee bargaining agents, expropriates without compensation the
existing rights of electrical contractors to do the work.
The ECAO strongly urges the
government to correct this inequity by amending the legislation
so that bargaining rights cannot be abandoned without the consent
of all the stakeholders who will be adversely affected.
Furthermore, any agreement to abandon bargaining rights should
not take effect until after the expiry of the provincial
agreement, so that affected subtrades have an opportunity to
address the competitive issues at the provincial bargaining table
and through the local modification procedure in Bill 69.
In summary, the ECAO
supports the government's legislative initiatives with respect to
hiring, mobility and the local modification procedures, all of
which will improve the competitiveness of ECAO and all other
unionized contractors. However, the ECAO objects to the ability
of a union to unilaterally release a general contractor from its
subcontracting obligations without the consent of the
subcontractors and urges the government to address this
concern.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Roberts. There's probably time for one quick
question.
Ms Martel:
I wanted to deal with the mobility provision, if I might. I'm
from Sudbury. It would probably be better if I were from a
community that's closer to Toronto as I make this example, but
let me tell you my concern. We have a major hospital project
underway. Even if the provincial government agrees to contract it
into smaller pieces, it's going to be very financially viable for
any number of companies. What's in it for workers in my community
if your firm can come and bring 40% of its workers from somewhere
else and 40% of the workers who might have been on that site
don't contribute to the community, aren't going to be fundraising
for the local share for that project etc? I recognize Sudbury is
farther away so you can say, "Well, we probably wouldn't in that
case." But if it was Toronto to Sarnia, Toronto to Chatham, for
example, that could well happen. What's in it for the workers in
those communities who lose the opportunity to work because
contractors are bringing their people with them?
Mr
Roberts: As I mentioned in the submission, mobility is
naturally limited by the cost of moving people. Electrical contractors, if granted the
kind of mobility provisions that are suggested under Bill 69,
will not be flooding any other local areas with out-of-town
workers and displacing those from the local area.
Second, I know many
electrical contractors who are based in the Sudbury area. They do
an awful lot of work outside the Sudbury jurisdiction as
well.
Ms Martel:
That's good.
Mr
Roberts: I would certainly expect that they would bring
their key employees out of Sudbury into Toronto or out of Sudbury
into Chalk River and benefit as well as anyone else. Everyone
thinks Toronto is the area that exports its contractors to the
rest of the province. Interestingly, in the Electrical
Contractors' Association it's Kitchener contractors who are the
most mobile and are in most of the areas. You know, it benefits
everybody; it's a two-way street. Certainly the more effective
and cost-efficient the contractors are, there'll be more benefit
not only to them but to the people they employ.
Mr
Bartolucci: I don't have time for a question, I
understand that, but I want a point of clarification on the
record. Earlier we talked about a solution that had happened in
the industry. In fact, if it had gone through, what we're going
through with Bill 69 would be a redundant exercise. Mr Smith said
that the unions had made concessions, the eight general
contractors had made concessions and were in agreement, but that
the electrical contractors scuttled the deal.
First of all, two points of
clarification: Did you scuttle it and why?
Mr
Roberts: The Electrical Contractors' Association was
involved in those discussions back in 1997 and did participate in
them. We were not the only subtrades that reacted negatively to
the end result of the process. The reason we withdrew our support
was that we were under the impression that all the benefit was
going to the general contractors and none was coming to the
unionized electrical contractors.
Some of the electrical
contractors who are members of, say, the Electrical Contractors'
Association of Toronto, the vast majority of their work is
performed for those general contractors. For us to simply
acquiesce to that kind of change, I would have turned a lot of my
good, long-time members from $10-million, $12-million successful
businesses into two-truck service operations overnight, and I
didn't think we were in the position to do that.
The Chair:
Thank you, gentlemen.
1730
QUADRACON ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING AND
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
The Chair:
Mr Leonard Feldt, Quadracon Electrical Contracting and
Construction Management.
Mr Leonard
Feldt: Madam Chair and members of the committee, I'd
like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
I've got a very
uncomfortable situation with regard to the Labour Relations Act
as it relates to my company, which is a small electrical
contracting company operating out of Toronto. The current
amendments to the act, as nice as they are, do not address a lot
of very serious situations and conditions that a lot of small and
medium-sized contractors face. It's nice for big contracting
associations to be able to stand here and tell you about their
members and what have you, but take it from a guy who's in the
trenches on the front line, I stand before a machine gun with
nothing.
We are a profitable,
mid-sized electrical contracting company and upon dismissal of a
poorly performing employee, we were issued with a notice of
certification on a Saturday, contrary to the laws of the Labour
Relations Board. A vote was ordered within five days, although
the application did not conform to Ontario Labour Relations Board
rules. We were told by the OLRB: "Go hire a lawyer. Otherwise,
you're unionized."
Our entire operations were
disrupted. A vote was ordered to be performed at our offices, on
our property, without our consent. The Ontario Labour Relations
Board never verified whether the union had the minimum 40%
cardholders, contrary to their own rules. On the day of voting,
any employee unknown by the union was challenged. Approximately
46 workers were challenged and eight were unopposed. To this day,
approximately six months later, the votes are still not counted.
After the vote, the union pulled their people from our company
and left our job sites undermanned.
We've incurred in excess of
half a million dollars in losses due to lost productivity, legal
expenses, vandalism and disruption. We're denied the right to be
compensated according to the current legislation. We're denied
unbiased decisions by the Ontario labour board, which worked hand
in hand with the union to help them obtain their objectives. The
current legislation gives all the rights to the union, but as an
employer we have none, contrary to the laws of this country. We
were systematically terrorized by the union, with the help of the
Ontario Labour Relations Board.
We're a mid-sized
contracting company who was nearly forced out of business through
financial burdens placed on us by others. This was done for no
other reason than to allow them to obtain their own personal
interests. If we ceased operations, these people would have
become a burden on society through UIC or welfare.
The problem with the
current laws, which has not been addressed by this bill, is that
there are no consequences for illegal applications or
manipulations of the system. There's no accountability for the
Labour Relations Board. The Labour Relations Board is not
independent but extremely biased. Owners have no rights to manage
their own businesses. Workers who do not want to be unionized are
denied basic human rights through harassment at home and at work.
We've had to report many instances to the police of very specific
union individuals coming on job sites and to people's homes and
literally chasing them down the street. Workers would be denied
the opportunity to
work if a certification were to be held: "If you're not with us,
goodbye."
No means of restitution for
costs incurred due to fraudulent applications or manipulation of
rules and procedures exists, no independent agency to verify if
rules and procedures are followed, no means of appeal to an
unbiased agency. Laws currently serve the interests of a special
group, inhibit competition and deter investment in this province
at the expense of society as a whole. Current laws discriminate
between unionized employers and non-unionized employers by
limiting where and whom they can work for or from.
I have a couple of
solutions. They're rather radical, but you're in a very difficult
situation. I think this government has begun a very important
process of addressing an issue which is like a time bomb ready to
go off. It will never go away; it's just a question of when it
will go off. I feel I have an answer to defuse this time
bomb.
Abolish the Labour
Relations Board and establish a labour court. Right now, the
Ontario Labour Relations Board is a bunch of political
appointees, which in itself creates your own problem. If you had
a labour court, such as you would have a criminal court, you
would have impartial adjudicators on the bench, not representing
side A or side B, but impartial.
Implementation of rules of
voting equal to provincial voting standards: We currently had
union representatives stand in front of a voting booth
intimidating workers as they passed before them. They decided
afterwards to determine who was allowed to vote and who wasn't.
There was no enumeration process as there is in the provincial
guidelines. They were allowed to do whatever they wanted and
afterwards they decided to question if it didn't suit their
purpose.
Give the right to establish
a collective agreement to the workers, not to a union. We're here
to represent the workers, not any business, not any union, not
any special interest group. The right to a collective agreement
belongs to the worker. The collective agreement shall be between
the individual employers and their individual employees. It's
their agreement-no provincial agreements, no multi-company
agreements by industry. You don't need all the electrical
contractors and all their workers to be subjected to the same
agreement when the guy in Toronto has different requirements from
the guy in Kitchener, North Bay or anywhere else.
Allow the use of
independent arbitrators instead of expensive lawyers and court
fees. Put time limits on applications: 60 days maximum from a
legal application to certification, if all rules are followed; a
45-day minimum. Right now, I'm in the position that, six months
later, no decision has been made. People can play whatever games
they want; there are no rules. They just make them up as they
go.
What would the effect of my
solution be? You'd promote competition for employees between
employers. This electrical contractor may have a better package
than that guy. The employees can move freely among whom they
want. It doesn't mean I'm forced to provide a guy with gold shoes
if I can't. If that guy can, let them go there. The strongest
will survive.
Promote competition for
work within any specific industry without discrimination. There's
no reason why a union guy can't compete with a non-union guy, as
long as everybody's taken care of. If his men are taken care of,
they'll be happy. It allows for specific issues to be addressed
between owners and employees, regardless of region, municipality
or industry. It promotes fairness and accountability in
implementation of rules and procedures. It allows an avenue of
dispute resolution by impartial and unbiased adjudicators,
reduces business and industry disruption and actually promotes
harmony, increases working conditions and provincial standards
without government intervention. Water will find its own level.
You don't have to push it there.
It effects the elimination
of animosity between unionized and non-unionized companies to
allow them to work in harmony in any industry. You may want to
call it double-breasting. I don't believe it to be. What I really
believe is, any worker has a right to the best possible working
conditions and wages that he can have with any given, specific
employer. If the employer is unable, he's unable. If another
employer is able, let him do it, let them go. But what we've got
right now is a problem and the problem affects everybody by
putting people out of business, intimidating them. Who really
wants to become a member of an organization that hires goons to
get members? I don't believe that's in anybody's best
interests.
I thank you for your
time.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Feldt. Actually you did take the full 10 minutes. I
appreciate your coming.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank
you for your time and your patience and the excellent level of
presentations this afternoon. This committee is adjourned until
3:30 tomorrow afternoon.
