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
Sheet Metal Workers'
International Association, Local 235
Mr James Moffat
Mr Robert Macintyre
International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 530
Mr Jack Dowding
International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction Council of
Ontario
Mr John Pender
Windsor Construction
Association
Mr Robert Troup
International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 773
Mr Sam Riddick
Mr Matthew
Mitro
United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Ontario Provincial Council
Mr Byron Black
Essex and Kent
Counties Building and Construction Trades Council
Mr Dick Pearn
Mechanical
Contractors Association of Windsor
Mr Richard Haller
Mr Dan Slote; Mr
Chris Slote
International
Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental
and Reinforcing Ironworkers, Local 700
Mr Greg Michaluk
Windsor Electrical
Contractors' Association
Mr Franco Favaro
Windsor Sheet Metal
Contractors Association
Mr Brad Vollmer
Mr Mark Haller
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 David Christopherson (Hamilton West / -Ouest ND)
Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair L)
Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale PC)
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke Centre / -Centre PC)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Susan Sourial
Staff / Personnel
Mr Avrum Fenson, research officer, Research and Information
Services
The committee met at
1002 in the Mackenzie Hall, Windsor.
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): I call the meeting to order. Good morning,
ladies and gentlemen. This is a standing committee on justice and
social policy meeting to discuss Bill 69, An Act to amend the
Labour Relations Act, 1995 in relation to the construction
industry. Each delegation or group has 20 minutes to make their
presentations, which will include any time left over that we may
have for questions from committee.
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
LOCAL 235
The Chair:
The first delegation this morning is Mr Robert Macintyre, Mr
James Moffat and Mr Pettipas of the Sheet Metal Workers'
International Association. Good morning, gentlemen.
Mr James
Moffat: Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members.
It's good to see your smiling faces again. To my left is the
business manager of the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers'
Conference and to my far left is the business manager of Local
235 of the sheet metal workers and roofers in the Windsor area.
Robbie will be doing the presentation on behalf of his local
union members with the local spin on how this bill is going to
dramatically affect the members and their families in this
area.
Mr Robert
Macintyre: Good morning, committee members. My name is
Rob Macintyre. I'm the business manager of the Sheet Metal
Workers' International Association, Local 235. My local
represents over 240 sheet metal workers and roofers who live and
work in the Windsor and Chatham areas. I am here today to voice
my local's opposition to Bill 69 and what it will do to workers
in Ontario in general and to workers in Windsor and Chatham in
particular.
I am here today not to
endorse this bill but to tell this committee that it is a
terrible bill and ask you to seriously consider the damage it
will cause to Windsor and Chatham and to the people who live in
these cities. Our first preference is that Bill 69 be withdrawn
in its entirety and not replaced with the repeal of section
1(4).
We oppose the bill because it
will hurt all workers and unions in Ontario for the following
reasons.
First, Bill 69 is a race to
the bottom. This bill is about reducing the wages of all workers.
There is no doubt about that. In one address to the building
trades unions, the Minister of Labour asked, "Why should a worker
in Wawa make the same amount of money as a worker in Toronto?"
Ask the people of Wawa if their workers should have their wages
cut. We agree with our conference when it says that once
unionized workers' wages are reduced to the non-union level, the
non-union wages will in turn be reduced even more. This in
inevitable. Wages then will go down and down and down.
Bill 69 is not necessary, as
ICI collective agreements today ensure that our companies are
competitive. Our sheet metal collective agreement presently
contains separate local appendices to allow for local unions to
agree to changes in wages where necessary. For example, my local
union members, Local 235, have voted to use the amending clause
to make our contractors more competitive in the smaller markets
through a minor construction agreement. But this was voted on by
the membership and not legislated by government.
Second, Bill 69 is an attack
on our hiring hall and encourages favouritism and discrimination.
Section 163.5 of Bill 69 will destroy my hiring hall by allowing
employers to pick and choose. It allows employers to import up to
40% of the workers needed for a project from outside Windsor.
This means that 40% of the jobs in Windsor, which should be given
to people who live and work and raise their families in Windsor,
will go to workers from outside the area, workers who would
rather work in their own home towns but who will be forced to
travel by their employers. It allows employers to name-hire up to
60% of the remaining 60% of the workers needed. Together, this
gives employers the right to name-hire up to 76% of the workers
needed. This is shameful.
The hiring hall is the heart and soul of my union.
It is the protection my members need to make sure that workers go
to work based on how long they were unemployed. This makes sure
that every worker gets a chance to work. No one would dare say
that this is not fair, except this government. It wants to take
that away and give companies the right to pick the same people
over and over again. This guarantees that many people would not
work. And who will get picked? The company favourites. Who will
get ignored? The members of Local 235 who were previously on
workers' compensation. Do they not have a right to work? Who will
be ignored? The older members of Local 235. Do they not have the
right to work?
The worst part about this is
that it is not necessary. It is not necessary because all our
members are either certified journeymen with five years of
apprenticeship or registered apprentices supervised by
journeymen. It is not necessary because article 25.1 of our sheet
metal collective agreement requires me to supply our contractors
with qualified workers. Therefore, a company can already reject a
worker who is not qualified. In the last 25 years we have never
had a grievance with respect to this issue. Why? Because we
always supply qualified workers.
Bill 69 is an attack on free
collective bargaining. The members of Local 235 have elected me
to represent them in their dealings with their employers. They
have elected me to negotiate decent wages, welfare benefits and
pension plans on their behalf. They are being betrayed by this
government. If Bill 69 passes, they will have a union but no
right to have a say in their working lives.
Instead of democracy, Bill 69
says it is big government in Toronto and big employers from
Toronto who will decide who works in Windsor and how much Windsor
workers will receive. It is big government and big employers who
will decide where Windsor workers will work, when they work and
whether or not they get a pension.
While this bill attacks all
workers in Ontario, it especially hurts workers outside Toronto
for the following reasons:
First, subsection 163.5(1)
will allow employers to employ up to 40% of the total number of
employees required for a project from anywhere in Ontario.
Second, the government is
attempting to allow large general contractors, such as Ellis-Don
and Vanbots Construction, to operate non-union for some work, but
only outside Toronto.
Third, section 163.2 enables
companies from Toronto to seek reductions in wages and benefits
in communities throughout Ontario. Thus, Toronto employers will
be able to gut our Windsor collective agreements which were
negotiated by local unions and local contractor associations.
What does this mean for
Windsor and its workers? It means unemployment and poverty. Many
workers in Windsor stand to lose their jobs-jobs with good wages
which support themselves and their families. This will occur for
two different reasons.
First, allowing employers to
employ up to 40% of the total number of employees required for a
project from anywhere in Ontario means that up to 40% of
unionized workers in Windsor will lose their jobs. We have a lot
of outside contractors, mostly from Toronto, working in Windsor.
Right now they have to use our members. If Bill 69 is passed,
these companies will not employ Windsor workers for Windsor jobs.
Instead, they will force their own employees to travel to
Windsor. Bill 69 says to Windsor workers that we do not have a
right to work in the very town where we live and raise our
families.
1010
The following projects in
Windsor were done by sheet metal contractors from outside
Windsor: Casino Windsor, Windsor Art Gallery, Chrysler minivan
plant, many of the six Ford plants, the co-gen plant. If Bill 69
had been passed, 40% of Windsor workers would not have worked on
those projects.
The Minister of Labour has
stated that the collective agreement requirement to pay
accommodation and travel is protection for workers and ensures
that the 40% rule will not be abused by employers. This is not
true. Rather, Bill 69 contains a very big loophole. We have
received a legal opinion which states that subsection 163.4(4)
removes that protection by allowing arbitrators to amend
collective agreements with respect to accommodation and
travel.
As I said earlier, Bill 69,
section 160, if changed, will allow big Toronto-based general
contractors to decertify from the sheet metal workers' union and
the other non-civil trade unions, but only outside Toronto.
Therefore, the government wants Ellis-Don to be union in Toronto
but not in Windsor.
If this occurs, Windsor
workers will lose out again. Our members have worked on many
projects of these large general contractors and are to work on
many of the future jobs about to start, such as the Chrysler
large van plant, two major Ford expansions and Chrysler
headquarters. When these jobs finally arrive, our 50 presently
unemployed members, some of whom have not worked since September
1999, will be forced through legislation by this government to
stand on the sidewalk and watch their Windsor jobs being done by
outside workers. This is not a very healthy environment for this
government to create. This most definitely will force these
members to social assistance. We ask this government not to turn
its back on the people of Windsor in favour of this special
interest group.
Second, if there are jobs
left over for Windsor workers, they will be at low-end, non-union
rates, with little or no benefits and pensions. As our members
lose their jobs or are lucky enough to work at lower wages, this
will have a terrible effect on the town of Windsor as it will see
a reduction in taxes paid to the city and a reduction in spending
generally. This will mean less money for public services and
support for local merchants and charities.
To lessen the damage which
will be caused to Windsor and other smaller communities outside
Toronto, we request that you seriously consider the damage which
will be caused to smaller
communities, including communities which this committee
represents.
In closing, I would like to
state that contrary to statements made out there that the
building trades are somewhat in agreement with this bill rather
than removal of subsection 1(4), let the committee be aware that
our Essex and Kent building trades are opposed to the positions
taken by the provincial building trades.
Interruption.
The Chair:
Ladies and gentlemen, I would remind everyone that the rules of
committee are exactly the same as the rules of the House, which
means that we do not and will not tolerate any demonstration of
any kind. It's not fair to members of committee and it is not
fair to the delegates. I would ask you please not to
demonstrate.
Thank you, Mr Macintyre.
Mr
Macintyre: Thank you. For the sake of the people of
Windsor and Chatham, we urge you to listen to what we have said
and withdraw Bill 69.
The Chair:
We have time for one question from each party. We'll start with
Mr Duncan.
Mr Dwight Duncan
(Windsor-St Clair): Thank you, Mr Macintyre, for your
presentation. To those in attendance today, I want to note that
it's most unusual to have only one government member at a
committee hearing. I think it speaks volumes about listening and
not listening.
Just one question I wanted to
come back to: Could you again review for me how this harms
communities like ours, versus Toronto, and the sections of the
act so that I make sure I understand that, just quickly? Because
when we vote against it we want to make sure we make these points
in the Legislature as well as here in committee, that it hurts
places like Windsor, as opposed to places like Toronto. Can you
just go over that again for me?
Mr
Macintyre: I think it's very simple and very basic: The
more unemployed you have in a community, the more are driven on
to the community's social assistance, which the communities are
responsible for. Those people have less spending power, spending
money. Their mortgages are at risk. They may have to move
down-
Mr Duncan:
If I can, Mr Macintyre, just to be clear, I want to come back to
the section of the act that you referenced in your presentation
and how it biases against Windsor, and that's because Toronto
will be treated differently than Windsor? Am I understanding you
properly, that within Toronto the same rules won't apply, so
we're setting up two standards?
Mr
Macintyre: If you're making reference to the collective
agreements that exist with some major contractors that presently
exist throughout Ontario, Windsor includeed, all of a sudden
being eliminated for everybody except Toronto, that puts Windsor
at a complete disadvantage in wage earnings. Is that the area
that you're referring to?
The Chair:
Mr Christopherson.
Mr David
Christopherson (Hamilton West): Thank you for your
presentation. You've touched on all the key issues that we're
extremely concerned about. Let me say at the outset, to be fair,
that there was an agreement prior to heading out on committee
that we would have what we're calling a truncated committee. I
just want to be fair. The reason there aren't as many government
members is because we agreed ahead of time that in order to
accommodate the fact that this is constituency week, government
and Liberals could have fewer people here, and that was accepted,
just to be fair. Having said that, now let me rip into them. I
think that's fair too, ripping into them. It's an awful bill.
The fact is that you make a
statement on page 1: "This bill is about reducing the wages of
all workers." You say right there, "There is no doubt about
that." Absolutely, that's what's going on with Bill 69 and
virtually every other piece of labour legislation that this
government has amended, touched or brought in. They're hurting
workers and you have every right to be here to protest that fact
on behalf of your members. I applaud you for doing it.
The question I want to ask
you is related to your comments on page 4. We hear the minister
and the government and the contractors coming forward saying they
need this flexibility because they need to make sure that when
they go to the hiring halls they're getting people who are
qualified. Of course, the argument is that if someone's not
qualified, you don't send them out of the union hall. I found it
particularly interesting that you say that in this area in the
last 25 years you've never had a grievance from a contractor or
an employer on this issue, that you've always been able to match
up the skills required with the skills that your member can
deliver. Can you just expand on that, please, because that's
really important.
Mr
Macintyre: That's correct. I would even venture a guess
and be pretty confident that there's never been a grievance even
outside of Windsor, throughout Ontario. So you can expand that
for the whole province of Ontario, as far as sheet metal workers
go.
Generally speaking, when a
contractor calls for members-we have somewhat of a unique
situation because we also fabricate the stuff that we install, so
we have fabrication shops. Some people are more skilled at
fabricating in the shops, so they get that fabricator. A lot of
times some members can weld and some can't, so if they request a
welder we send them out a welder, if that's the request.
Sometimes they play games with that and ask everybody to be a
welder when they only have two welding machines on site, but
that's basically the nuts and bolts of it, that they get the
people. I must say that we've done some major projects in this
community, and this community is thriving. The auto industry
keeps on investing in this community. We get those jobs done and
we get those plants built and we keep them running. It's always
done by the skills of those workers in all trades.
1020
Mr
Christopherson: That's an excellent point to make. Thank
you so much.
Mr Raminder Gill
(Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): Thanks to the
presenters for coming here. It is indeed my pleasure to be here
to listen to all of you and hopefully bring in some of these
changes if we need them.
Just to have a little more knowledge about the
trade, is it true that if people can't find unionized jobs within
your own local, perhaps, they have the democratic right to go and
work non-union?
Mr
Macintyre: I would say yes, they would have the
democratic right. Anybody can make their choice at any particular
time. But that being said, that unionized member in our local
union would put his membership in jeopardy because in our
international constitution that member is not allowed to work for
a contractor that is not a signatory to the collective agreement.
Within our collective agreement with the contractors, outside of
our constitution, it is also a violation to the collective
agreement for any worker to work with a non-union contractor.
Conversely, a contractor could file a grievance with respect to
that. If they knew of any union member working non-union, they
could file a grievance on that particular member against the
union.
The Chair:
Thank you for your presentation this morning, Mr Macintyre.
Mr
Macintyre: If the members in the audience only respond
as the House responds, as you've watched on TV, I'm sure that's
following the rules.
Interruption.
The Chair:
Members of the committee, the House has also been cleared when
people applaud in the galleries. I would again remind you-I know
this is a sensitive issue for each of you. This is the fifth day
of hearings and we've not had any demonstrations and I have not
had to adjourn the meeting because of that, but I will have no
hesitation in doing that if this continues.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL 530
The Chair:
The next presenter is Mr Jack Dowding, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local 530.
Mr Jack
Dowding: Good morning. My name is Jack Dowding. I'm the
business manager for IBEW Local 530 in Sarnia, Ontario.
We represent approximately
400 electricians, linemen and apprentices in the industrial,
commercial, institutional, maintenance, power, communications and
utility construction sectors in Lambton county, also known in the
Labour Relations Act as board area 2. The bulk of our membership
is employed through signatory employers within the petrochemical
industry whose hourly employees' wages, by their own admission,
meet or exceed ours. So we've managed to stay in touch with
industry in Sarnia.
For the past three years, the
Sarnia building trades to which my local is affiliated have been
harassed and harangued and finally, through the effects of Bill
31, manoeuvred into a five-year industrial project labour
agreement which will cut my members' wage package by about 13% of
its value. Two successive deputy ministers of labour assured us
through these proceedings that with the successful implementation
of a project labour agreement, or PLA, in the Sarnia area, all
the pressure for further amendments to the Labour Relations Act
would become unnecessary. So what am I doing here today? I'm
telling you that I don't believe this government is going to stop
with the amendments put forth in this bill.
I believe the Ontario
Coalition for Fair Labour Laws will continue to lobby for the
elimination of section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, thereby
allowing double-breasting. As a matter of fact, the Electrical
Contractors Association of Ontario has told our provincial
bargaining agent, the IBEW-CCO, that they have every intention of
pursuing this continued lobby for double-breasting with this
government if the general contractors are allowed out of their
collective agreements outside of board area 8.
I don't agree with their goal
of double-breasting but who can blame them for being upset with
the treatment of the general contractors? On one hand, the
government wants the electrical-mechanical employer and employee
bargaining agents to participate in mandatory market recovery. On
the other hand, because the president of Ellis-Don, a huge
general construction company, raised awareness and big dollars
for this government's last election campaign by chairing a lobby
of this special-interest group of these affected contractors
called "Liberals for Mike Harris," he and they are not expected,
nor required, to experiment in market recovery. Why? Why are the
Big Eight, as these general contractors are referred to, not
being treated like the rest of the contractors in the
construction industry? I'll leave you to draw your own
conclusions.
I would now like to read you
a letter I wrote at the request of one of our members. He is
currently going through divorce proceedings, and with Bill 69
being such a hot topic locally, his lawyer was aware of but not
familiar with the possible effects of Bill 69 and requested he
get this letter from me. This is also a snapshot of my view on
some of the effects of Bill 69.
"Dear Sir and Brother:
"Re: Bill 69
"Last month, Bill 69 was
introduced in the provincial Legislature. According to the
Minister of Labour, this bill is intended to lower the cost of
construction in Ontario. As you might guess, ostensibly this bill
provides a mechanism to seriously reduce wages and conditions in
our industry. It will also target, I believe, our older members,
or anyone who has ever had a lost-time injury on the job. Let me
explain.
"Bill 69 alters our
collective agreement in a variety of ways:
"(1) It allows an employer to
bring 40% of his/her employees from outside of our area, in this
case Sarnia-Lambton. Previously, only one supervisor was allowed
according to our collective agreement. This will favour,
obviously, the `steady' employees of a firm who tend to be
younger, and, occasionally, family members and so forth. This is
an impediment to employment to anyone on a local out-of-work
list.
"(2) 0f the 60% remaining
employees to be hired for a job, the employer has the right to
now hire 60% of these by
name, or out of sequence from our list. This action will favour
roughly the same employee group as referenced in point (1).
"(3) Beginning May 1, 2000, a
mandatory market recovery program will be introduced and adhered
to. Its application is identical to arbitration in professional
baseball. Example: A signatory employer believes that to be
competitive on a commercial project, he should he able to pay his
employees $15 per hour as this is his perception of what his
non-union competitor is paying his employees.
"The union then puts forth
their opinion of what the competing non-union employer is paying
these same employees, say, in this case, $25 per hour. If labour
and management cannot agree on a compromise position, a
government-appointed arbitrator would then have binding `final
offer selection': either labour or management's position.
"To summarize:
"Example 1: A project in
Sarnia in the industrial sector (not requiring market recovery
provisions) requires 100 employees. Forty will now come from
away, 36 will be name-hired, leaving only 24 employees hired in
our traditional method: from the top of our list.
"Example 2: On a mandatory
market recovery project, an electrician could be making one third
the wages he is making now. This amount, however, might vary. An
employer is entitled to the low offer made by `final offer
selection' for the life of the agreement, unless he decides to
approach the arbitrator for an even lower wage package, which he
is allowed to do.
"How does this bill impact on
our members? It will definitely reduce the employment prospects
for our older, infirm or partially disabled workers. It will also
affect anyone willing to stand up for himself or his fellow
workers on safety or a basic human dignity issue.
"Having served as your
apprentice and, later, your partner, I can say that we approached
the trade the same way. A job would come up, you then go to work.
This job could be in Sarnia, Windsor, Detroit, anywhere. We do a
good day's work, maybe some overtime pay as well, and when the
job is complete, we're laid off and on to the next one. This work
history description covers about one third of our membership.
Now, with the predicted effects of Bill 69, fairness and equality
will give way to cronyism and desperation.
"I wish I had better news for
you as you enter the final year of your career.
Fraternally yours...."
1030
I stated earlier that I don't
believe the government is going to stop at Bill 69. My suspicion
is substantiated by the government-imposed review of the
progress, if you will, of this legislation at the end of December
2001. I believe that the mandatory market recovery portion of
Bill 69 is flawed and cumbersome for the same reasons included in
the 28-page brief submitted to you by the provincial building
trades. I also believe, in my more cynical moments, that there
are many contractors who have a genuine interest in the failure
of this market recovery program, especially if its failure would
mean that they would get double-breasting as a result of the
18-month review. This will become one of management's arguments
for further amendments at that time. Labour will be unhappy with
the obvious concessions that will be required through mandatory
market recovery, and I believe there will be open hostility in
the field over the invasion of our hiring hall procedures as
well. So what better reason for further amendments to the Labour
Relations Act? Both labour and management are unhappy. It will
make great press.
Since construction is an
esoteric business-and regardless of what anyone says, if you
don't work in it, you don't understand it. The passage of Bill 22
in the mid-1970s-I think it was 1978-lent itself as a good
example of this. Although no real parallel exists in the
industrial sector, let me use this example of the absurdity of
the mobility and name-hire aspects of Bill 69. A plant manager at
the Ford engine plant here in Windsor wants to staff a new
assembly line and they require 100 people to do it. He decides to
bring in 20 employees from Ford Talbotville, 20 more from Ford
Oakville, and then, because of a previous plant closure locally,
he contacts the local CAW union office for some more help. The
employer is told that yes, there are unemployed, trained workers
available, but they must be hired by seniority. The plant manager
says: "Stuff it. I've got Bill 69 and I'm hiring the 36 people
with the least seniority. Then you can send me your top 24." I
don't think this would fly in Motown, not with the autoworkers
and not with anyone else. Construction is the same way.
You heard my letter to an
older member. What I didn't tell him exactly was that possibly
he, and certainly others, will not be able to earn a living or
finish their careers in the construction industry. You've also
heard me say how bad the effects of Bill 69 will be overall and
how I believe that, with the repeal of section 1(4), inevitably
it will be worse. As you know, the construction employee
bargaining agents from the province have agreed, with some
exceptions and certainly some reservations, to the principle of
Bill 69. But if there is a competitiveness problem with a
non-union, let's forget any type of new legislation and focus on
the existing. The Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act
covers all matters pertaining to apprenticeship; for example, job
duties, ratio of apprentices to journeymen etc. The Occupational
Health and Safety Act covers the use of qualified, licensed
individuals to perform certain tasks in the workplace, such as
electrical work. The laws resulting from these two acts are not
being enforced. There is some confusion as to what ministry
polices what, but primarily the problems are (1) not enough
enforcement officers, and (2) reluctance on their part to act
upon these violations.
I accompanied a Ministry of
Labour enforcement officer to an institutional job site in Sarnia
a few years ago. I observed several teenagers stringing
electrical cables on this school site. When they saw the blue
hard hat of the MOL
officer, they dropped their electrical equipment and picked up
some brooms. No doubt they'd been coached. I later discovered
that none of them was a registered apprentice for any trade and
two of them were on work experience from high school. They
weren't being paid at all and, as a matter of fact, my tax
dollars were paying their WSIB premiums so they could work for
free. These are real competitiveness issues.
So, in conclusion, please
discard Bill 69. Do not eliminate section 1(4) and do enforce the
laws of the province already on the books. We can compete with
anyone on a level playing field due primarily to our pride, as
well as our education, skill and training. Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Dowding. We have time for one question from each
member.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you very much for your
presentation this morning. You of course raised the issue of the
process of going to an arbitrator. The sections affected are
163.2, 163.3, l63.4 and 163.5. Earlier I had discussions with the
minister about whether or not 163.5 was going to allow amendments
to some of the things that are supposedly saved from being
changed by this law in terms of your collective agreement. Today
they still haven't got an answer, although we have had a number
of unions come forward with their own legal opinion that the 40%
and the 60% are not the ceiling, and indeed that may be the
floor. By virtue of your raising that, I have a question. I guess
I'd go through you, Chair, if I could, to the minister or to the
PA, whoever is doing this. Have you got a position with regard to
what your legal people are saying?
Hon Chris Stockwell
(Minister of Labour): Do we allow questions here?
The Chair:
Mr Gill, I believe that question was asked last week.
Mr Gill:
Yes. The policy people are still trying to get back to us. I
don't have an answer.
Mr
Christopherson: This is nonsense, you know. Chair,
thanks.
The Chair:
OK. Well, if-
Mr
Christopherson: I got my answer, and it's that answer
that ought to scare the hell out of everybody in this room. The
assurance initially was that 163.5-which says, "Every provincial
agreement shall be deemed to include the following
provisions...." That's where it outlines what is supposed to be
the ceiling of 40% and 60%. That is not going to happen. It's not
going to be protected. If it were, both the parliamentary
assistant and the minister would be pounding the table, saying:
"Christopherson, you're off the wall on this. It's very well
protected." The fact that it has now been the better part of two
or three weeks tells me that they're dragging their heels, hiding
behind this answer of, "We've got to look into policy."
I would suggest that every
labour leader in this room understand that this 40% and this 60%
is not going to be the limit, that that can be changed by the
arbitrator, as can your wages, your benefits, things that affect
the ratio of journeypeople to apprentices. Everything is on the
line, the entire collective agreement, by virtue of 163.5 not
being a guarantee of what you're going to have at the end of the
day in your collective agreement.
I don't know whether your
union or local has had that legal advice, but based on what I'm
hearing here in my experience, you ought to be very frightened
that your collective agreement can be further gutted beyond what
assurances this bill says you're going to have.
The Chair:
Mr Dowding, I'm not sure if that was a question, but you can
certainly respond.
Mr
Dowding: I'm not either, but it was an excellent
response. I have had that legal opinion, David. As far as I'm
concerned, this bill throws our collective agreement in the
shredder anyway, and if we have any semblance of dignity or a
livable wage, it'll be a coincidence.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you. It was an excellent
presentation.
Mr Gill:
Especially in Sarnia with the petrochemical industry, as you
know, right across the border they can set up the shop anywhere
they like. They can do the refining on both sides of the border.
I think you referred to Bill 31 and the collective agreements
that you went through. Doesn't it actually protect the workers in
the sense that they have more jobs to do? Didn't that actually
kick-start the petrochemical industry-building?
Mr
Dowding: I'm not following your line of questioning.
Mr Gill:
Did that not bring about several billion dollars in construction
start-ups?
Mr
Dowding: As a result of Bill 31?
Mr Gill:
As a result of the agreements you had with the contractors?
Mr
Dowding: Project labour agreement?
Mr Gill:
Yes.
Mr
Dowding: No. With the exception of some shutdown work,
probably all the trades are operating between 30% and 50%
unemployment. We think Bill 31 was something they managed to
wrangle. They stressed it was urgent. There was a huge time
factor and virtually nothing has happened as a result of it. One
small project that had already begun, probably when we were
speaking with you up at the Sault Ste Marie building trades, was
already on the go before the project labour agreement was signed.
There has been virtually no activity; some rumours, yes, but
we've yet to see project labour agreements bear fruit in
Sarnia.
Mr Gill:
One of the things the Big Eight have certainly shown-
The Chair:
I'm sorry, but I did say one question each. We're running out of
time.
Mr Duncan:
Back to section 163.5. Is it your view that the 76% from outside
an area would be a ceiling or is it your view that the 60-40 is
just a floor and that it could go higher than that?
Mr
Dowding: I think that's the minimum. That's my view of
it.
Mr Duncan:
So you think it could actually go higher. Our numbers say and one
of the previous presenters talked about 76%. Do you think it could go
higher than that?
Mr
Dowding: I think it's possible it could, yes.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Dowding.
1040
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
CONSTRUCTION COUNCIL OF ONTARIO
The Chair:
The next presenter is Mr John Pender, secretary-treasurer,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction
Council of Ontario. Good morning, Mr Pender.
Mr John
Pender: Good morning, Madam Chair, Minister Stockwell,
committee members. My name is John Pender. As you said, I'm the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction
Council of Ontario executive secretary-treasurer.
The International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction Council of
Ontario, the IBEW-CCO, is the legislated bargaining agent for the
industrial, commercial and institutional segments of the
electrical trade in the province of Ontario. We represent
approximately 14,000 unionized electricians, apprentice
electricians, linemen, linemen apprentices and communications
electricians in 13 local unions across Ontario.
The IBEW-CCO wants to make
it abundantly clear that from the very beginning of the industry
talks, which commenced in December 1999, support for any changes
to the Ontario Labour Relations Act by our organization hinged on
the understanding that all contractors, whether they be general
or subtrade, will remain bound to their collective agreements and
subsection 1(4) of the act would remain intact.
The IBEW-CCO has been
cautiously supportive of these invasive and potentially
destructive changes being put forward under Bill 69 for only one
reason. Hanging over our collective heads is the threat that the
alternative will be the employers' position. I quote from the
employers' brief, the Ontario Coalition for Fair Labour Laws,
dated December 1999: "The desirable solution is for the
government amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act to exempt ICI
construction companies from section 1(4) of the act."
The effect of this change
would be allow double-breasting. The Ontario Coalition for Fair
Labour Laws and certain employer groups have stated that the
current method of province-wide bargaining places them at a
competitive disadvantage in some regions or sectors of the
province, which may result in unionized contractors being
unsuccessful when bidding against non-union companies. These
employers are of the belief "that improving and modernizing
construction labour relations requires changing labour laws so
that there is a fair balance of power between the employers and
unions in the ICI sector, and from this change will flow
collective agreements which will allow unionized companies to
compete with non-unionized ones."
The employers are telling
you that province-wide bargaining is the reason we are in this
state of non-competitiveness. Yet everybody in this room knows,
or should know, that province-wide bargaining is the result of an
intense lobby in the late 1970s of the government of the day by
construction employer groups, not unlike the groups that are
lobbying for change today. The system of bargaining that was a
panacea to the woes of the construction industry then is now the
cause of their financial demise in the marketplace of today.
So I caution this committee
to not accept everything that the employers have put forward to
them as being the only solutions. I would like to refer to the
bill and give you our perspective, a union perspective, that
takes into consideration our fears and our concerns.
Subsections 163.5(1) and
(2): Mandatory default hiring hall provisions allow employers
mobility up to 40% of the total number of employees from any
local or locals in the province required for a project anywhere
in Ontario. I've heard the discussion this morning, whether it's
a ceiling or whether it's a minimum. It seems like it's up for
grabs. I will talk about the arbitration process a little later.
The employer basically will be allowed to select or name-hire 60%
of the employees from local unions in whose geographic
jurisdiction the work is performed. For example, in Windsor on a
job requiring 100 electricians, 40 electricians could come from
one local or a combination of locals in the province. Local 773
Windsor would supply 60 electricians, of whom 60%, or 36, would
be name-hired from their out-of-work list. In total, the employer
can name-hire 76 out of the possible 100, or if you have 10
employees on a job, they could have 7.6%. I guess that's
one-sixth of a person.
The view of the IBEW-CCO is
that this process gives the employer the right to name-hire the
same individuals for all their projects across the province and
results in an unfair advantage of some members over others. It
will create two economic levels in the province among the
workers-the haves and the have-nots. It will pit member against
member, local against local. It will create an imbalance in
hiring within the province. Smaller communities and smaller
locals will suffer the most.
I give you an analogy here
of a local that is-and we have one. Sudbury, for instance, is
probably suffering about 40% unemployment. How do you think the
members of that geographic area are going to react? How will
older members, members who have been injured, members who have
taken on roles of steward, health and safety representatives fare
in this selective hiring process? Our opinion is very
straightforward: These individuals will be blackballed and
subsequently they'll become a subclass who will never be selected
by an employer. The end result will be a system of hiring that's
based on favouritism and nepotism rather than a fair and
equitable distribution of job opportunities voted on and approved
by local union members.
Section 163.2: This section
gives the employers the right to seek amendments to virtually
every clause in our collective agreements, save statutorily
regulated holidays and
hours of work. Employers can seek exemption from wages, overtime,
shift differentials, benefits-our benefit packages, which means
health and welfare and pensions-travel, room-and-board allowance,
requirements respecting the ratio of apprentices employee by an
employer, a provincial employer bargaining association-and
there's a lot of discussion we'd like to have on this at some
point.
In a designated regional
employers' association, the bargaining agency may apply for
amendments for all work anywhere in Ontario providing at least
some of their members carry on business in that particular
geographic area. For example, a Toronto contractors' association
may apply for amendments to any local union appendix in the
province provided that some of its members perform work in that
area.
The view of the IBEW-CCO is
that this section severely undermines the collective bargaining
process. Employers will have no incentive to bargain in good
faith as they have an avenue to seek changes to the collective
agreement outside of negotiations. In effect, this section of
Bill 69 renders the collective bargaining process
meaningless.
Members of the committee, I
implore you to look at this section with great care. I suggest to
you the ramifications of an impotent bargaining process will set
in motion an era of labour unrest unprecedented in this province
since the 1970s. There will be strike after strike after strike.
The end result will be an industry in chaos, the very thing that
nobody in this room wants.
Section 160.1: This section
allows unions to voluntarily abandon their bargaining rights for
all or part of the province with respect to an employer.
The view of the IBEW-CCO is
that this section of Bill 69 was created to allow the
general contractors, with the union's blessing, to abandon their
labour agreements. For the record, I want to state unequivocally
that the IBEW-CCO will not voluntarily be releasing any
contractor or general contractor from the existing collective
agreements under which they currently operate. Further, we must
clearly state our objection to any government action that will
release general contractors from signed collective agreements,
whether it's inside board area 8 or across the province. Taking
this direction would put the Ontario government in the position
of nullifying existing signed collective agreements and we do not
believe this is the correct role for any government.
Section 163.2: This section
gives employers, and I would think that includes the general
contractors, the right to seek amendments in our collective
agreements. Members of the committee, the general contractors
should have to demonstrate a significant competitive
disadvantage. They should not be treated any differently than any
other employer. They have petitioned this committee,
representative after representative, that they should be treated
specially, that they should be allowed out of their labour
agreements with the unions. They say they are uncompetitive.
There's a process in this bill that every contractor is going to
have the opportunity to use and that process is an arbitration
process. If this bill does go through, the general contractors
that want out of this thing should have to go through the same
process.
1050
Section 163.3 deals with a
very complicated arbitration process. For the applications both
parties, the union and the employer, are entitled to put forward
a final offer with respect to provisions of the collective
agreement the employer association wants to amend, along with
written submissions. But we're hearing more and more about the
regional employer's organization. We're hearing that there could
be more than one brief submitted to an arbitrator; it could be
multiple. We really think this is a cumbersome thing; we think
this process is doomed to failure. The appointed arbitrator is
not required to hold an oral or electronic hearing unless he or
she feels it's necessary to resolve an issue arising out of the
submissions. The only relevant factor the arbitrator is to
consider as far as we're concerned is not whether the employers'
organization members-they just have to demonstrate-if they say,
"We're at a competitive disadvantage," does that mean they're
paying too much pension to an electrician or to a sheet metal
worker and maybe if we knock the pension benefits down we can be
more competitive because the non-union people don't do that?
The arbitrator wants to
determine if there is a competitive disadvantage, and if so,
determine whether that competitive disadvantage would be removed
if the collective agreement were amended in accordance with the
employer's application. He'll only take one. It'll be baseball
arbitration, so he's going to either select ours or he's going to
select the employer's. I don't know whether he's going to select
one of three briefs from the employers or one brief.
The view of the IBEW is
that this section is designed to force unions to make
concessions. There's no stipulated criteria as to what
constitutes a competitive disadvantage. Therefore, any or all
clauses in the collective agreement will be susceptible to
arbitration. The issue of selection of an arbitrator is also of
grave concern to our organization. If an arbitrator is not agreed
to by the parties, either party may make a written request to the
minister to appoint an arbitrator. Should an employer
organization purposely not agree to an arbitrator for whatever
reason, the minister shall appoint. This raises an issue of an
arbitrator's experience specifically in the construction
industry, and their qualifications.
What further taints the
process is an apparent disdain for current arbitrators, basically
asserting that they are biased in favour of the unions. You have
heard this stuff at this table also.
The process outlined in the
section of Bill 69 will be costly and time-consuming for both the
employer and the unions and will require industry studies, briefs
and experts such as economists. There can be no doubt as to what
this arbitration process will do. By design, it will lower the
wages and conditions of the union construction worker in one form
or another. That part of the arbitration process is obvious.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr
Pender. We have time for questions.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Thanks for coming. I appreciate the
input.
The question that begs to
be asked is, if this truly is Armageddon and the whole process
breaks down, in those collective agreements in certain trades in
the construction industry that have enabling, that have mobility,
that have these kinds of clauses incorporated and in fact used,
why hasn't Armageddon taken place in those trades?
Mr Pender:
I speak for the IBEW. Our system is based on 13 local unions. You
have some provincial locals in this province that are completely
different from our set-up. They have provincial mobility with
their members, who can work here and there. We were never set up
like that. We have 13 pension plans, 13 health and welfare
systems. If you want to talk about, say, mobility, how is that
going to affect pension plans in Windsor? Say we have a job of
some significance down here, because they do have fairly large
projects, 100 people. If the mobility was used to the maximum the
way it is written right now and there's a potential for name-hire
of 76 people out of that 100, by having that kind of selection
process, the pension, health and welfare in Windsor won't take in
the money that it would if they were supplying the manpower to
that job the way the system is set up now. The benefits will not
go to that local. Say the contractor is from Toronto; those
benefits will go back to Toronto for 40 people.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: It's got to be more than a pension issue. You
could work that out, frankly, internally and determine exactly
where the work was done and applications could be made. It's got
to be more than a pension issue. These people have been working
under these collective agreements for a number of years. They
have enabling, they have mobility. They've been using it very
advantageously. The best argument you have is it's a pension
issue?
Mr Pender:
I'll tell you, pension is a huge thing to our people.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: I'm not saying it's not.
Mr Pender:
It's health and welfare benefits. Our plans are based on
contributions from the people working in the industry. If you cut
the number of people working in the industry by 30% or 40%, tell
me how that affects the pension plan for a member. If it's a
defined contribution or if it's a defined benefit plan, it
affects that guy's end result in his pension in the long term.
Those are things that concern us terribly. The last few years,
with this economy being in the toilet the way it was, we've seen
our work situation just drop right off, from 1989, almost 45%. In
1995, things finally bottomed and people started to go back to
work. A lot of people lost a lot of their benefits, pension,
contributions and everything. This looks to me like it's a very
important issue.
Mr Duncan:
At the beginning of your presentation, Mr Pender, you referenced
again the discussion around 163.5. I just want to make sure I
understand your position. Is it your position that the 60-40 is a
floor or a ceiling?
Mr Pender:
That's a matter of conjecture here. I'm just taking it at face
value and my take is it's 60-40. Whether the arbitrator can do
something about that or not is yet to be seen, and it is in fact
going to be an arbitrary decision. That's going to raise our
concerns even more.
Mr Duncan:
One other question, if I might. You also made a comment, and I
think I got it down properly, that, "Labour unrest will be the
result and it will be-
Mr Pender:
Province-wide bargaining was put in place in the mid-1970s. The
contractors were concerned about the number of strikes around the
province. Like Windsor would be on strike for a while; they'd get
something settled. London would go on strike; they'd get it
settled. It would whipsaw around the province. So their cure-all
with this was: "Let's have provincial bargaining. We'll bargain
at one table, all the locals, all the trades at one time every
three years. That will solve the problem." Now, the situation is
that province-wide bargaining is not working. It has made us
uncompetitive because they're saying we can't deal with issues.
Some of them are saying that. I'm not saying I agree with them on
it, but some of them are saying that.
And yes, it will lead-say
an arbitrator comes in here and guts the collective agreement on
the job, drops the wages by five, six bucks an hour, the whole
nine yards, increases apprentice ratios so that journeymen aren't
on the job, hours of work, shift premiums etc. What are these
guys going to think about that? They're not going to think too
highly of it. When their contracts come open for negotiation
again, there are going to be tough negotiations.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you for your presentation, John.
It's good to see you again.
First of all, the minister
and the parliamentary assistant have raised on many occasions
this business that some of the trades already have a high degree
of mobility so why is this such a huge problem? As the minister
has just said, why is Armageddon facing us? Somebody earlier
said, if you don't work in this industry, you don't understand
it, and I think there is a lot to that. No matter how much we all
try to grapple with it, it's a very complex part of our economy
in the province.
But from what I've been
able to root out, different trades require different mobility.
Depending on the trade itself, that can have a big impact on
whether or not you have a high degree of mobility or a low
degree. Whether there are strict rules around taking from the
list at the hiring hall or a little bit of flexibility really
does depend in large part on the kind of trade that you're
performing.
Also, it's my experience,
having sat at the bargaining table for years myself on the
industrial side of things, that often you trade things in
negotiations in a different way depending on the makeup of your
membership, whether they want a little more money here, a little
more money there, you want language around grievance procedures.
You trade off. To isolate one part of a provincial agreement and
say: "There, they've got that, so therefore everybody else should have this as their
maximum; this is now what it's going to be," is not fair, because
it doesn't take into account all the years of negotiation where
other things may have been traded off. I really don't think
that's an argument that holds when the government says, "This
justifies why we can make these changes, because some of these
trades already have some of these rules." It just doesn't
wash.
1100
I want to come back to this
business of the 40% and 60%. Again I want to emphasize that I
think it's extremely important to note that the government is
not, after almost three weeks of having all their bureaucrats and
legal people look at it, prepared to come forward and say that
the 60% and the 40% is the worst that can happen to you. They've
removed the word "significant" from talking about competitive
disadvantage. The minister says they can't get a legal definition
of "significant" that works. I find that hard to believe, I
really do. You can always find some language that everyone agrees
with. You can make a notation in the preamble about intentions. I
think it really is meant to leave this thing wide open.
I've got to tell you, if
that's true, then paragraph 3 in subsection 163.2(4), which says
you can make amendments to "restrictions on an employer's ability
to select employees who are members of the affiliated bargaining
agent," tells me that an employer can go in and make an argument
to an arbitrator that the 40% leaves them with a competitive
disadvantage, that the 60% leaves them with a competitive
disadvantage, and if they're successful, you don't have a
provincial agreement. You really don't have a provincial
agreement if the other things they can go after are wages,
overtime, benefits, travel and accommodation, the ratio with
journeypeople and you lose your seniority rights in the union
hall. What the hell is left after that? Absolutely nothing. You
know what? I don't think the government would have a problem with
that at all. It's something I think you ought to be very focused
on. We're going to be seeking, at the very least, some
significant amendments in that regard to at least hold them off
to where they say they are in terms of the damage being done. I
don't think so. I think that once we start getting precedent on
this and jurisprudence, we're going to find that those collective
agreements are just ripped wide open.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Pender.
WINDSOR CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
The next speaker is Mr Jim Lyons, executive director of the
Windsor Construction Association. Good morning, Mr Lyons.
Mr Robert
Troup: Mr Lyons couldn't be here today, unfortunately.
My name is Robert Troup. I've been asked at the last minute to
come and speak here today since Mr Lyons couldn't be here. I'm
the past president of the Windsor Construction Association. I'm
the president of Trojan Interior Contracting, a long-established
company which has been in business for three generations in this
area. I'm the president of the Windsor Wall and Ceiling
Contractors Association. I'm the chairman of the industry fund
for the Windsor Construction Association, which takes in all the
benefits for the fellow trades. I'm a director of the Acoustical
Association of Ontario, a trustee for the benefits plan for the
carpenters' Local 494, and I'm also a trustee for the apprentice
council for the Essex county area.
We sent this bill out to
our members when we received it a few weeks back. Unfortunately,
we couldn't meet the last time you were in town here. I guess
there was a mix-up of times and dates. I was in Toronto and
couldn't do both at once. I really can't speak to the facts of
every little issue that is in this bill. All I can tell you is
that we sent this out and received very little feedback from our
members. Maybe they don't understand what's involved here or how
much it really changes our contracts as they are today.
The contractors I deal
with, which is basically the carpenters' union, finishing trades
and civil trades, have enjoyed a very good relationship with the
labourers' unions in this area. We probably enjoy a 90% union
base here. We've had very good relations, targeting projects,
working on different projects together, to ensure that our union
people are working. Our unions here have worked hard on training
programs, giving us a skilled base to work with, and we've
enjoyed working together.
One of the sections that
bothers us is section 1(4). If that was ever removed, that would
basically wipe out the unionized subcontractors-which I
am-as they're known today. It would make the field wide open. It
really doesn't, that I can read, say what's going to happen to
unionized contractors if they open up double-breasting or if
non-union companies could just open up all over the place with no
section that they can go back on to say that there was a union
contractor before. We would be basically wiped out virtually
within months.
I know there was a
submission by McArthur Vereschagin, the lawyers, and that was
sent on May 17 by the Hamilton association. We've looked at some
of that stuff.
The other thing is
mobilization. I can only speak as a contractor in this area. We
would certainly want to protect our people who live here, eat
here, buy their groceries and spend their money here. We'd like
to see our people employed instead of-we run into problems with
large contractors coming into town and basically coming in with a
large force which would make it difficult for our people to
work.
That's basically all I have
to say. Unfortunately, I wish I was more prepared today, but I
was only put in this position this morning.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Troup.
Mr Duncan:
Thanks, Bob, for your presentation. We've had a fairly healthy
five years down here. Would that be a fair characterization?
Mr Troup:
Yes, we have.
Mr Duncan: We, historically in
this community under the existing regime, have had very good
labour relations. Did I understand you correctly in your comments
there?
Mr Troup:
What I can comment to, extremely good relations.
Mr Duncan:
As you know, the government has not moved on section 1(4)
directly, but I wanted to explore with you a little bit more-you
indicated you didn't have a lot of feedback from your members.
Your members are mostly small subcontractors locally. Would that
be accurate?
Mr Troup:
It's a mix of subcontractors, contractors and suppliers.
Mr Duncan:
I noted in the presentation before you, and I don't know if you
were here, Mr Pender from the Ontario council of the IBEW
indicated that he foresaw increasing labour unrest as a result of
these changes. You've indicated we've had fairly stable labour
relations in your sector now for a number of years. Would your
members be concerned about that? Would they be concerned about a
legislated antagonism that's being put in? There was fear of
greater labour unrest.
Mr Troup:
Nobody wants labour unrest. I think we would all like to go to
work every day and collect a cheque. I'm sure nobody wants to be
standing on the lines. That group is a different group than what
I deal with, and their needs could be different than what mine
are. This is such a large change. It's basically the largest
change we've ever had since the provincial negotiations were put
together, and I think it's going to cause some difficulties.
Mr Duncan:
It's going to cause some difficulties. Thank you very much.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you very much for your
presentation. You did state that generally your association was
in favour of the bill?
Mr Troup:
All we do is put it out to everybody, and there was no response.
I would say that at this point there has been no response or no
feedback pertaining to it.
1110
Mr
Christopherson: To pick up on submissions that we've had
here and in other communities that indeed there will be major
labour unrest, that there are enough disgruntled locals and
communities who are refusing to accept the premise of Bill 69,
that there are going to be major problems, is it fair-well, let
me just ask you straight out. If your members knew directly that
there was the real possibility of major labour unrest as a result
of this being imposed and all the changes that are contained in
here, do you think they would pay a little more attention and be
a little more concerned about it, or is it your sense that they
would like the changes so much, because they do benefit
management, that they'd be prepared to withstand that? Your own
opinion on that would be helpful.
Mr Troup:
This will be my opinion. I can't speak for the rest of the
province or say what's going to happen in the rest of the
province. I can speak to this area. I think that our local BAs,
the presidents of the unions we deal with and the contractors in
this area have always enjoyed a good relationship. The way it
looks to me, this bill is basically turning everything back to
local negotiations again, other than a few things that would be
in the provincial agreement. I think in this area, with the
relationship we have, we're not going to have that many problems,
and I don't see it changing much.
Mr
Christopherson: If I could point it out to you, though,
one of the things that will likely happen is that both employers
somewhere and unions somewhere are going to spend a ton of money
on legal fees in terms of going through this whole arbitration
process, and as there are decisions made and precedents set in
terms of what an arbitrator can do, the kind of measures they
were prepared to take in the context of the competitive
disadvantage that's being put forward by the employer, those
decisions will have impacts on every single community by virtue
of local arbitration processes that take place.
I have to tell you I'm a
little fearful that your members, who think they can continue to
enjoy this excellent relationship and be isolated from the rest
of the province, are going to be very shocked to find out that
there are things going on across Ontario that have a major impact
here. In terms of labour unrest, if it happens in other
communities, and we also have good relationships in some of those
communities, I've got to tell you that it's inevitable that
you're going to face the same sort of thing here. What's going to
happen is that you won't be in a very strong position to go to
the government to say, "Do something about it," because when you
had your chance to come forward you said: "Well, we don't have a
lot to say. We're going to let it go by."
I would strongly urge you
to point out to your members that Windsor will be no more
isolated from this than my own community of Hamilton, or Sudbury
or anywhere else in the province, and that nobody in the
construction industry has the luxury of saying, "Bill 69 doesn't
affect me." Where you've got good relations, I think even
employers have a lot to lose, maybe even more so than in other
areas where you've got an existing antagonistic relationship
anyway. I would urge you and your members to be very clear on the
implications for your community, because I think a lot of that
serenity that you may feel you have now is going to get blown
apart if there are problems elsewhere in Ontario.
Thank you very much for
coming today.
Mr Gill:
Just a brief statement; no questions, Mr Troup. Thank you for
being here on short notice. I'd certainly like to thank the
audience here. They've taken the time to take part in this
democratic process. I think it's good to be here.
One of the things you
mentioned which I just want you to elaborate slightly on was that
since 1995 the industry has been doing better and there have been
more jobs.
Mr Troup:
Since the casinos were brought in in this area and with the
investment by the Big Three, the city of Windsor has enjoyed a
large increase in the workforce.
Mr Gill: By the way, 1995 was the
year Mike Harris was elected.
I'm not sure if you were
involved right from the start in this process. One of the things
the minister said on the very first day-the audience is here, and
I want to put it on the record because some of them have not been
there-in the first meeting was that the big contractors or
anybody-he was very clear that 1(4) may not be delivered to them.
I don't know whether you're aware of that, so I wanted to put it
on the record.
Mr Troup:
I'm aware of that.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Troup, for coming in this morning.
The next speaker is Mr Matt
Mitro, Up-Rite Door Ltd. Is Mr Mitro here?
Interjections.
Mr Duncan:
Madam Chair, while we're waiting, for the minister and my
colleagues, you're sitting in Mackenzie Hall, which was built by
Canada's first Liberal Prime Minister, Alexander Mackenzie, who,
interestingly, was a mason by profession and a bricklayer. This
was restored by the city of Windsor with some help from the
province of Ontario back before the darkness descended. It serves
as a community venue and we're very proud of it. I just thought
that while we're waiting I would share a little bit of the
history of this particular facility with you. It used to be our
courts as well.
Mr Gill:
It looks like Mr Mackenzie was a good mason.
Mr Duncan:
It's still standing all these years later.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL 773
The Chair:
It looks as if the next group is here, so we can switch the order
while we're waiting for Mr Mitro to arrive and go to Mr Sam
Riddick, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
773. Good morning, Mr Riddick.
Mr Sam
Riddick: Good morning, Madam Chair and committee. My
name is Sam Riddick. I'm the business manager for IBEW Local 773
here in Windsor. I come here today representing close to 500 men
and women who work in the electrical industry in our
community.
Our local union is opposed
to Bill 69, the Labour Relations Amendment Act, in its entirety.
This proposed legislation is the most offensive and invasive
attack on unionized construction workers that has ever been
introduced in our province.
Currently, the members of
IBEW Local 773 perform work under the terms and conditions of our
negotiated collective agreement. I've got a copy here. I would
like to hold this up for everyone to see. This is a document
that's been agreed to by ourselves as the union and by our
contractors. The contract is exactly what it says it is: It's an
agreement between the union and our employers. This agreement was
entered into freely by both parties and will remain in effect
until April 30, 2001. At that time, the IBEW and our signatory
contractors will negotiate a new collective agreement.
The provincial government
is prepared to introduce invasive legislation, Bill 69, that
would effectively render our negotiated collective agreements
meaningless. Bill 69 will provide a vehicle to change our
collective agreements without our membership having a vote to
ratify these changes. This is very important because the clauses
and the terms and conditions contained in this book were voted on
and approved by the membership of our union and the employer
groups that we deal with. It's a signed agreement.
1120
Following are a few of the
proposed changes that Bill 69 would allow for, and some of this
will be a little bit repetitive but I'll get through it here.
Mobility: Currently our
negotiated agreement allows for mobility of one electrical
representative. Bill 69 would allow employers up to 40% of the
total number of employees from any local or locals in the
province required for a project anywhere in Ontario.
Hiring hall: Currently, our
negotiated collective agreement allows employers to name-hire
foremen. Bill 69 would allow for employers to name-hire 60% of
the employees from the local union in whose geographic
jurisdiction the work is performed. We've heard the example
before, but I think it bears repeating: On a project in Windsor,
Ontario, requiring 100 electricians, 40 electricians could come
from any local in the province or a combination of locals. Local
773, our local union here in Windsor, would supply the next 60
electricians, and out of that 60, 60% of them would be name-hired
by the contractor from our out-of-work list. In total, the
employer would be able to basically name-hire 76 out of a
possible 100 electricians on the job site.
This process gives the
employer the right to name-hire the same individuals for many
projects across the province and results in an unfair advantage
of some members over others. It will create a couple of different
economic levels in our province. We've spoken about the haves and
the have-nots. It will be the people who have a job and those who
have not a job. This type of proposed hiring procedure will
create dissension among our ranks. It will pit members against
members and local unions against local unions. It will create an
imbalance in hiring across the province, and the smaller
communities and smaller locals will suffer the most.
It's very difficult to
imagine an area in the province that's been mired in
unemployment, they haven't had any work, and a company would
bring in 40% of the crew to do that job in that area and take
away jobs that people living in those communities would
traditionally perform. Imagine the effect it will have when the
local tradesmen are forced to sit at home and people from outside
of their communities are brought in to perform this work.
This legislation will
discriminate against older members, previously injured members,
people who have taken on the role of union stewards and people
who have been health and safety representatives. These people
will ultimately be
blackballed, and subsequently they will never be hired by an
employer. They won't be selected or name-hired in this
system.
The end result will be a
hiring system that's based on favouritism and nepotism. There
will an inequitable distribution of the job opportunities, as
opposed to the system that we currently employ that has indeed
been voted on and approved by the memberships of our local
unions.
There are also provisions
for modifying the collective agreement. Again, these are
conditions that we operate under and that have already been
agreed to by our employers and by the union. There are going to
be modifications or a provision to allow for modifications of
this document. It will allow the employers, through an extremely
complicated arbitration process, to seek amendments to wage
rates, overtime pay, shift work, benefits, travel pay, room and
board allowance, ratio of apprentices to journeymen and many more
things.
If nothing else, Bill 69
severely undermines the collective bargaining process in the
province of Ontario. Our employers will no longer have a reason
to bargain in good faith with us because there will be a
mechanism in place that will allow them to seek modifications to
our agreement at any time. Bill 69 will make the agreements we
have negotiated freely and in good faith with our contractors
meaningless.
The ramifications of a
bargaining system like this, as has been spoken to before, could
only create labour unrest, work stoppages and strikes. I believe
it will destabilize the construction industry potentially across
the province. The union members will be forced to take action to
win back the conditions and wages that they've worked for the
last 50 to 100 years to achieve.
There's also a section in
Bill 69 which would allow unions to voluntarily abandon their
bargaining rights for all or part of the province with respect to
an employer. This section of the legislation appears to have been
created to allow union general contractors to abandon their
labour agreements with the blessings of the unions. I'd like to
make it clear to the panel that our local union, 773 in Windsor,
will not voluntarily release any contractors or general
contractors from agreements we currently have with them. We
strongly object to any government action that would release
contractors from signed collective agreements.
I have reviewed just a few
of the proposals of Bill 69. Employer groups have approached the
government and asked them to address our collective bargaining
process in an attempt to address what they would put forward as a
competitive disadvantage, that they're at a disadvantage to
compete with other contractors.
I believe that under the
guise of the issue of market competitiveness, employer groups are
attempting to undermine our collective bargaining process and
embark on a well-orchestrated attempt at union-busting in
Ontario. This approach ignores any and all elements of management
responsibility for unsuccessful tendering and predictably
requires the union tradesman to bear the entire cost of
contractor mismanagement and/or disinterest in certain sectors of
construction work.
Employer groups will talk
about wanting to be able to bid work on a level playing field. As
trade unionists, we would agree wholeheartedly with that. We
would hope to elevate the standard of living of the unorganized
tradesmen to the current level of wages and conditions that we as
union members enjoy. On the other hand, Bill 69 will attempt to
level the playing field by lowering our wages and conditions.
Organized and unorganized contractors will immediately be thrust
into a race to the bottom. They'll be embarking on a bidding war
that will start a downward spiral. Union tradesmen and non-union
tradesmen will eventually see their wages lowered to a point
where it will be difficult for them to provide a decent standard
of living for their families.
In conclusion, I would like
to say that IBEW Local 773, Windsor, stands in opposition to Bill
69. Our local union is opposed to any legislation that would
serve to open up our negotiated agreements and undermine the
collective bargaining process we presently enjoy in our
province.
The Chair:
Thank you. Mr Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you for a very encompassing
presentation.
A couple of things: First
of all, I haven't yet mentioned today-and I think again it's
important to put everything in context and to be fair to the
provincial labour leaders who were in the position of being
forced to the bargaining table. This labour movement in Ontario
had a gun put to its head: "Either renegotiate this contract in a
way that we accept and that your employers accept or we will pull
section 1(4)."
So in the context, we
always need to remember that the people at the bargaining table
were not faced with status quo versus, "Is Bill 69 good?" Let me
point out that on May 1 in the Legislature, after I said, "The
minister would have us believe, now that we're debating this
bill, that it's such a wonderful thing for the workers," the
parliamentary assistant, Mr Gill, said, "It's the best thing that
ever happened."
Let's recognize that
although the government wants to pretend that this is the best
thing that ever happened, this is not a choice between status quo
and Bill 69. This is a question of Bill 69 and all it contains or
the elimination of 1(4) and what that means for workers across
the province. I think it's fair to set that out, to show how we
got to this point.
1130
You outlined the six issues
on page 3-and I know I'm beginning to sound like a broken record,
but that's the only way you get messages through in politics: to
say it over and over and over. One of the things that is not
mentioned and needs to be-and I'm not chastising you for not
seeing it because it sort of came at us from a side view. But for
the benefit of those who are here today, on this whole business
of having the contracts amended, this is what it says; this is
the law as proposed:
"163.2(1) An employer bargaining agency," that's
the contractors, "that is a party to a provincial agreement," the
one you held up, "may apply to an affiliated bargaining agent,"
the union, "that is bound by that agreement to agree to
amendments to the agreement which would apply to any of the
following ... ." They go on to list things, including, in
163.2(4)3, "Restrictions on an employer's ability to select
employees who are members of the affiliated bargaining
agent."
Until we have the minister
say definitively that the legal interpretation is that the 40%
and 60% are absolute maximums, or he offers to amend the bill,
all this 40% and 60% that everybody sees as a nightmare is only
the beginning of the nightmare and it could get worse.
Something else that hasn't
been said since we've been here in Windsor and needs to be said
is about this business of changing the ratio of apprentices. This
business of changing the ratio in the context of a document that
talks about competitiveness is, in my mind, way out of line. The
whole issue of apprentices is the standard of professionalism
that has allowed our trades to be among the best in the world,
not just in Canada and not just in Ontario but in the world. If
we start watering that down based on competitive issues, we're
not only going to do damage to the income and quality of life of
your members, but it seems to me that we're going to do some
serious damage to the long-term professional standards of all of
the trades that we're all so proud of.
Am I seeing this correctly
in terms of the damage that can do to the long-term
professionalism of your trade?
Mr
Riddick: Absolutely. It speaks to the issue of leveling
the playing field that I touched on briefly.
As a union member, in
dealing with our union contractors we adhere to the provincial
legislated ratios of journeyman to apprentice. It's a sliding
scale; we could go through it. That's what we put out to the
workplaces and to the jobs.
We argue, and the point has
been brought up previously this morning, that if these laws were
enforced with a little more authority-this is not necessarily the
case that occurs on job sites that are being performed by
non-union people. Indeed there's a situation where people fudge,
to put it politely, on the apprenticeship ratios and rules.
Arguably, there's lots of work that's performed by one or two
tradesmen, six or seven people who are supposed to be registered
apprentices, but it's not policed with enough authority and with
enough zeal.
If indeed that were the
situation, it would serve to elevate the wages and the conditions
of the non-union people up to the union tradespeople in that they
would have to operate under the same guidelines. In essence,
instead of doing that, we're considering lowering the union
standard to make the level playing field. In doing so, people
will find that there will be more and more work performed by
people who don't have the qualifications of a journeyman
tradesperson, the experience and the expertise.
Applause.
The Chair:
Ladies and gentlemen, I would ask you again-I know there are some
new people here, but at the beginning I had said that the rules
that apply in the House also apply in this committee. I will not
tolerate any further outbursts. We'll have to clear the room. It
holds up the committee and it holds up the delegates, and it's
not fair on either. I would ask you, please, no further
demonstrations.
Mr Gill.
Mr Gill:
Thank you, Mr Riddick. How many members in your local?
Mr
Riddick: We have about 500 members.
Mr Gill:
How many of them might be on jobs today?
Mr
Riddick: Probably the majority, 450, 475.
Mr Gill:
This is basically the last day of hearings and one of the things
that has come up a few times in the hearings, which I would like
your comment on, are the generals saying to us that in certain
areas, sometimes they can't get a subcontractor who's unionized
to bid on a job; therefore they can't bid on a job. What is your
feedback or opinion on that? What should they do in that
case?
Mr
Riddick: That would be an unfortunate situation. I would
say, again, as being part of the union, it's not our business to
secure work. We don't have the expertise to bid and try for
projects and things like that.
I think that the general
contractors bid and are aggressive on jobs that they want, that
they would like to succeed on. I think by and large they
shouldn't have too much problem getting sub-trades to go along
with them to bid on the work.
Mr Gill:
They've certainly said there's a problem because some of them
don't bid and they say, "What can we do?"
Many times in my own
riding, people have come to me, if they can't get a job, when you
don't have enough work for people, and said, "If I can't get a
union job, then I go out and work non-union." Do you have any
comment on that?
Mr
Riddick: That wouldn't be the case, to the best of my
knowledge, in Windsor, Ontario. If people are members of our
union, Local 773 in Windsor and they're performing electrical
work for a non-union employer, they could be subject to charges
through our local union and ultimately risk being expelled from
the union.
Mr Duncan:
Thanks then very much for your presentation. The minister
referred earlier today to how there's already high mobility
within your sector in a lot of areas. A number of your members
have approached me and said: "Well, that may be the case and
we've negotiated tough collective agreements but our experience
is that the same people get chosen more often and it doesn't
really open the process. It excludes certain people, inevitably
those people who are activists in health and safety issues, comp
issues and other such things." Would that be the experience
you've had with your collective agreements?
Mr
Riddick: I would think that would be an accurate
description. If I could just comment briefly on that, it's been
brought up that some different trades have mobility across the province. There are
local unions-I believe there are some in the Toronto area-that
have 100% name-hire for allowing job solicitation and things like
that. There are different rules and parameters.
The problem I'm having with
all of this is that in those areas where unions have that type of
system, at some point in time in this scenario, their membership,
the people who have chosen to belong to these unions, who have
had the opportunity to vote and to ratify that type of system-it
will be a system that, for whatever reason, they've decided works
for them or is at least palatable to them. In this scenario, it
appears to me that there is not going to be an opportunity for
the local union membership to decide the direction of their local
union. It's going to be legislated by the government, or it
appears to be heading in that direction, and that's what I find
most distasteful about the whole situation. I could go on about
different things, but that's the thing, the ratification by vote
of members who have chosen by their own free will to be members
of a trade union in our province and to elect and establish and
negotiate agreements with the people that we deal with. That's
where the violation is, right there.
The Chair:
Thank you for coming this morning, Mr Riddick.
The next speaker is Mr Matt
Mitro, Up-Rite Door Ltd.
1140
MR MATT MITRO
Mr Matthew
Mitro: I direct your attention to the sheet that says
"Presentation." That's basically the text of the remarks I'll
make. I've also included a variety of packages that further
explain what brings me here today. I'll be as brief as possible
to try and get across the points that I believe need to be
made.
Ladies and gentlemen
present, my name is not Joe, but I am nonetheless a proud
Canadian and Ontarian. I am Matt Mitro. I'm the manager of
Up-Rite Door, a small business in Sarnia, Ontario. On behalf of
our company, I have been campaigning and lobbying to reform
labour law in Ontario for more than five years. This effort is
needed due to the present sorry state of labour law, its
interpretation and enforcement, especially as it pertains to the
Labour Relations Act of this province.
There are those who would
argue, including the present Minister of Labour, that this bill
in fact addresses the problems I have been identifying,
cataloguing, clarifying and proposing solutions for since the
present government came to power. As well, this government cannot
be said to have done nothing in the area of labour law reform,
but I hope to quickly identify here today that they are again
about to do something that is not going to realize their stated
goals and objectives. Just like previous Bills 40 and 31, to
name two, I submit that to continue tinkering using the above
legislation is clearly a Band-Aid solution, a Band-Aid that won't
stick, I might add.
Included in this package is
a sampling of my most recent correspondence to this government in
an effort to brief the third new Minister of Labour under this
government and to find out what direction would be taken under
his leadership. I've also included a prefaced chronology of the
events in our firm's history which bring me here today in an
attempt to stop the arcane and grossly unfair events from
plaguing our endeavors and those of other unsuspecting businesses
and their employees. Finally, I have included a copy of a labour
law reform paper that I circulated throughout the government in
February. It was written to aid the process of understanding and
to show what I, my family and colleagues believe to be some of
the solutions to the present problems.
Since some of you may not
read this material due to time constraints or lack of interest, I
offer the following excerpt, a preface to what I call "our union
story," to explain why we at our little company are upset enough
to be spending yet more hours today pushing to get some
worthwhile change implemented instead of trying to carry on with
our business.
The following chronology,
which is included in the package, charts the history of Up-Rite
Door, which from its inception as a sole-owner-operator firm
started by my father, Ernie Mitro, in 1969, grew to employ 10
people, plus its owners, by 1995. Since then, it has dropped to
less than half of its 1995 sales, losing money consistently and
continuously shrinking to just four employees. The company's
future is very bleak and all of this downturn can be attributed
to a focused attack by the ironworkers' trade union over the last
five years.
The union is looking to
extend its market share, using the provisions of Ontario labour
law originally designed to protect union jobs legitimately
established by the workers. Now these rules have been twisted to
try and create union jobs where there were none to begin with and
force business owner-managers to be bound forever to this union.
Ernie and Mary Mitro, their sons Matt, Steve, Harvey, Mike and
all of their offspring are now bound to use ironworker labour if
they start businesses in the union's work jurisdiction. This
jurisdiction seems to be ever-expanding.
We conservatively estimate
the real dollar cost of this situation to have been about
$500,000 since the beginning of 1996. This is more than all of
the company's after-tax retained earnings since its incorporation
in 1979. I might add it's Ernie and Mary's retirement monies.
The story makes for
interesting, if not sad, reading. One would expect this behaviour
in a communist state, but this is happening to this company and
thousands of others like it right here in Ontario, Canada. If
changes aren't made, these practices will simply explode, for it
is far easier for unions to increase membership through backdoor
methods than by legitimate front-door organizing of one worker at
a time.
In short, I'm here today
because things aren't much better in the area of labour relations
in Ontario than they were when this started for us, and we at
Up-Rite are angry and frustrated that these glaring problems are
again not being adequately addressed in this legislation. I'll
excerpt from a recent
letter to Premier Harris to clarify our reasoning:
"Dear Premier Harris:
"Further to my last faxed
memo of April 25, 2000, with copy attached of my April 20, 2000,
correspondence sent to Minister Stockwell after the meeting he
missed with my brother and I, I have the following observations,
comments and questions.
"The day that I had sent
the above letters, Minister Stockwell was standing in the House
introducing the bill he and staff had put together months ago
based on a solution suggested by organized labour and not
supported by the business community or business organizations.
Besides being frustrated that none of my efforts at
communicating, clarifying and suggesting solutions to the
problems have been taken seriously, I am among many involved in
this issue who are extremely disillusioned by this
legislation.
"Let me be clear. In its
present form, and without supporting changes in the system that
will implement it, this bill will do nothing it says it will and,
in many ways, it will make the situation worse. One week ago"-and
this was written on May 10-"at your well-deserved celebration of
accomplishments to date, you restated: `We are not the
government. We are the people who came to fix the government.' I
am wondering if there will be anything to celebrate at coming
dinners if this type of solution is what your team now considers
`fixing government.'"
I asked that he please
respond directly and let me know if he was still the man I voted
for, the one willing to do the right thing for the long-term good
of Ontario, not for the sake of political expediency.
"I remain hopeful that my
efforts to date, and once again, are not a waste of time and that
you and your government are still willing to make common sense
decisions for people who are still waiting."
Now that I've qualified who
I am and why I'm here, I'll attempt to specify where I see the
problems in this legislation, and at the end I'd ask for those
present from government to ask questions regarding the
presentation, advise me where I'm wrong in any assertions I make
and answer the questions I raise. If that can't be done here, I
understand. Please feel free to get back to me in the near future
at the addresses and contact numbers contained in the package.
After all the unnecessary suffering of our firm, I believe the
owners and the employees are at least due this.
The first concern I've
raised I've titled "Good Law is Nothing without Intelligent
Enforcement and Fair Adjudication." I would suggest revamping the
mandate, policies and structure of the Ontario Labour Relations
Board.
Let's say, for argument's
sake, that I thought this bill was flawless and brilliantly
written as a solution to all the legal problems it attempts to
address. I'll be clear: I don't think that, but let's say I do
for a second. I'll grant that it's attempting to cover some
things. For example, paragraph 1, subsection 126(3), the
amendment should clearly take away our concern with succession by
blood, as it seems to remove this link from consideration.
Paragraph 2, subsection
126(3) sets out that if the time an individual is key in one
business is different from another business, then that length of
time matters, their formal or informal management status before
matters and the original business suffering a substantial loss
upon this individual's departure matters. This should provide
some solace, that I will not always be judged "key" wherever I go
in the future.
Unfortunately, the current
mandate, composition, practice and ideology operative at the
OLRB, which I talk about extensively in the paper I've provided,
in conjunction with its binding, non-appealable decisions,
renders almost any legal wording change ineffectual, because
other factors can be interpreted to achieve the desired result
while eliminating the ability to argue the converse. For example,
if blood doesn't matter, then the entire relationship of a client
or prior affiliation in a new company would now not be
relevant.
Just a quick straw poll
here. On the committee, those with business or management
experience in the past? Just hands up. OK.
Mr
Christopherson: Is this a pop quiz?
Mr Mitro:
It is. Those who have had direct experience with the Ontario
Labour Relations Board? Anyone sat in on a hearing? Obviously the
minister would have to put his hand up on that, I guess. OK. Of
those who just put their hands up, how many understand the rules
and procedures at the OLRB?
Interjection.
Mr Mitro:
I'd be wanting to see that minister put his hand up there on
that.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: I want to know what my mark is.
Mr Mitro:
I'm assuming that no one has represented a business before the
OLRB present on the panel. Is that a good assumption?
Interjection.
Mr Mitro:
OK. The main problem I have with this is how this bill guarantees
that the above scenario that I lay out, no matter how well
intended, how well worded and how well presented the wording is,
isn't sidetracked or misinterpreted in its actual application. I
put that out to all present to try and answer.
1150
The direction that the
other part of this bill seems to be taking is the union versus
non-union businesses competitiveness, and I would argue that this
cannot be accomplished when the foxes are asked to guard the
henhouse.
This bill attempts to
implement solutions by mandating that the players in the
union-only arena, namely employer bargaining agents-regional, if
there are any-and employee bargaining agents-regional, if
any-should be the ones to reopen their respective agreements.
This would be ideal if both these entities were (a) equally
representative of all their members and (b) had the resources and
drive to examine the situation. I submit that for decades, maybe
since their creation, employer bargaining agencies have
represented the needs and desires of their large members almost
exclusively, thereby not needing to have the kinds of resources
in place to deal with a huge membership such as the employee
bargaining agencies do. Many employer bargaining agencies are
effectively directed and controlled by a dozen or fewer company
members. Small employer members have less than zero influence on
this organization because each isn't providing much of the
operating money. They are the forgotten stakeholders but they
represent the bulk of the member companies. The employer
bargaining agencies are generally run by a couple of staffers on
a very limited budget, leaving them ineffectual at any
problem-solving. I might add that in our case, it's very
difficult to get any kind of a phone call back.
At Up-Rite we are sent a
bargained collective agreement long after it is in effect, with
no recourse or input on what it says.
Just some notes around this
area:
Where will these new
agreements, if there are any opened up and bargained, be
different from the existing for small companies; ie, how does
this ensure that companies like ours are represented in this
process?
Another question would be,
how do we get the employer bargaining agencies to do anything to
make us more competitive, especially if it means making those at
the top of the feeding chain less competitive? Again, that's the
larger companies.
How many regional employer
bargaining agencies are there in Ontario, and in which trades are
they? Obviously different areas of the province experience things
differently. I know in our trades, in the Ironworkers, there is
only one provincial agency.
Again, what does this bill
do about union-only contracting, especially in the public sector?
I would submit, if you answer this, the government's next casino
might actually come in on or below the budget.
The final question: Why
can't a non-union construction business from another area decide
if any new agreement makes union and non-union firms competitive?
Answering that question, I don't know that an arbiter without
proper business experience can actually tell anyone whether or
not that renders a union-bound company effectively competitive in
a market.
I would submit the bottom
line is what I find most troubling about Bill 69: all of the
problems in the labour relations arena that remain unaddressed;
for example, internal and external union democratization,
workers' rights to choose how they want to work, a streamlining
of how the Ministry of Labour governs all types of work in the
new economy. The government is leaving Ontario's economy saddled
with methods and constructs from the mid-20th century which
haven't worked for decades. It's high time they showed some
leadership and totally rethought the Ministry of Labour and its
role and function to create an economic engine tuner. We would
all be better off.
Until then I leave you with
the fact that, as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business
is fond of pointing out and the current government is fond of
repeating, small and medium-sized enterprises are the new
economic generators. So I assert that we at Up-Rite are these
people. We are one of these businesses, so why does no one care
to really solve our problems in labour relations? We want to go
back to creating wealth and employment instead of having to blow
off yet another day on a seemingly hopeless cause.
Committee members, Mr.
Stockwell, and indeed Mr. Harris, please fix this part of the
government. Let us get back to work and make back the money that
this mess has cost us.
This ends my presentation.
I'd like to answer any questions or entertain any comments.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Mitro. There's perhaps time for one question from
each member.
Mr Gill:
Thank you for the presentation. I appreciate that. It's certainly
fairly elaborate. We'll be happy to read that and perhaps
correspond. In your opinion, does this bill address any of your
concerns at all or is it totally out of the window?
Mr Mitro:
I would say it addresses some concerns. I have major concerns
with implementation. Presently, if this goes into the system like
all the other bills have, I would assert that it really won't
make any difference at all. If anything, it might muddy up the
waters in the opposite direction. I think that is my major
concern about this, and that's why I chose to take the time to
come down today.
Mr Gill:
Are there any amendments you're proposing in your submission?
Mr Mitro:
I haven't really proposed any direct amendments. I've been
advised that really the amending process after second reading
isn't very wide, you know, changing an "and" to a "the" and this
kind of thing. If I'm mistaken, I'd be more than happy to put
something together, as I've already gone through the bill
clause-by-clause and I understand what the intent of it is.
Again, I would argue that some of its ability to do it isn't
there.
Mr Gill: I
think it's only fair to submit-
The Chair:
Sorry, Mr Gill.
Mr Duncan:
Mr Mitro, thank you for your presentation. I will look at the
background documents. Let me just state at the outset that I
think we have some very fundamental differences of opinion and I
respect yours.
We had a representative
from our local contractors' association here earlier this morning
who advocated, I thought quite interestingly, that the labour
climate here in Windsor-I see you're from Sarnia; I'm not as
familiar with your area-works quite well and that our small
contractors are doing very well. I understand the predicament any
government and any labour organization find themselves in in
these sorts of situations. He argued, and I felt it was a very
compelling argument, that the current regime actually works quite
well. This was, again, a small contractor, albeit in a different
area than you. I just wonder how you would view those kinds of
comments. Obviously you don't feel the same way, to quite another
extreme. It's difficult for us, as committee members, to reconcile those two very
different points of view from the small business community.
Mr Mitro:
Sure. I'm sure for some contractors it works very well. We're a
subcontractor firm. We're not a general contractor. We provide
services to general contractors.
Mr Duncan:
He was a subcontractor.
Mr Mitro:
It depends on the trade you're in and the area you're in. Sarnia
has been generally recognized as a depressed area for 10 years or
more. In 1995, when the union BA came in and said, "Why aren't
your people in the Ironworkers union?"-because my dad had been a
member years ago-we said, "Well, what's an Ironworker make?" He
gave us a number and said: "Oh well, we have this lesser
agreement. You could sign on for that." That was very close to a
$10-an-hour increase at the time. We said we'd never get another
job that way. We couldn't employ the people we had if we did
that.
If the entire payment floor
goes up, then I suppose just about anything works.
I don't have a problem with
unions in and of themselves. You know, there are good people. I
know a lot of union guys, they're friends of mine, and I don't
have a problem with that. When it comes to what happened at our
firm, where no one in our place had a choice whether they joined,
and it basically has killed the company that existed in 1995, I
have a huge problem with that. None of our staff ever got to vote
on this, never got asked what they thought of it. This just
happened two months ago. There's been a successor-run through our
company to another company that's established-never owners of our
company, never shareholders, never anything but working guys who
wanted to start a little business putting doors in. I think they
should be able to in the province of Ontario and I have a problem
with the two changes I outlined right at the beginning-allowing
them to. I think if they go to the board, they still get the
runaround and they still have that happen to them.
I can't speak for the other
contractor. I wish him well. I know it hasn't worked for us.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you for coming in today. Obviously
you've done a lot of work. It's a lot of paperwork and a lot of
detail. You're to be commended for taking that kind of
initiative. Is it fair to say that you'd be happier if the
Ironworkers just went away?
Mr Mitro:
You know, in my dreams that happens, right? The Ironworkers are
interesting in the sense that they've gone after our trade in the
Sarnia area. They are pursuing company after company. They're not
going in and saying, "Fellows, do you want to be in our union?"
They're going through the back door like they've done with us. I
have a problem with that. If a guy who comes through the front
door, I don't have a problem. It's a free country. He can ask and
say anything he wants. I feel I should be able to do the
same.
If the Ironworkers could,
if they had a methodology to work with us and had something to
give us-I would assert the Ironworkers are mining companies like
mine for the talent. I've trained them. Our people know doors
because we have talent at our company years and years deep that
taught them. The Ironworkers came along and knew nothing about
our trade and needed those people, I would assert again. The
people they have now have come out of companies that have been
pulled in. They have not been apprenticed through the Ironworkers
and come into the trade that way. This might make it a bit of a
different example, but that's what has happened to us, and it has
been allowed to happen systematically, step by step. There's
nothing we have been able to do in many investigative realms with
the legislation as it exists or, I would argue, as it's amended.
I don't believe that it stops what happened to us.
Mr
Christopherson: I should know this from having gleaned
the material, but is your company still open?
Mr Mitro:
Barely. I'm sitting on seven weeks of uncashed cheques. Right now
my company owes me $5,000. My brother and I are the managers. He
hasn't cashed his cheque in calendar year 2000. That means it's,
say, $18,000. Both of us have never made what the union
Ironworkers make under the agreement that we're bound to. So
we're coming every day, we're putting in the 60-hour week, and I
can't see my way clear to ever getting as much money as I'm
supposed to pay out to a fellow. I have a problem with that and I
said: "Help me out here. Business agent of the union, please
explain to me how I should do this." "Well, I don't know how.
Business is tough. I know how much money you've got to send,
though. Here it is; you send me this money." So I don't really
have much choice. I backed out of work to try to get out of that
jurisdiction. They pursued us every step of the way. We have two
file folder drawers full of OLRB stuff.
Mr
Christopherson: When you read this, it almost sounds
like you feel persecuted by the union.
Mr Mitro:
I would argue that in this particular case it has been very
personal. We've had coverage in the media. That definitely
browned them off. I don't know why that is. I don't harbour any
ill will. He's a nice enough guy on a personal level, but I have
a real problem-
Mr
Christopherson: I'm sure they say that about you
too.
Mr Mitro:
Maybe yes, maybe no. Who knows?
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your time, Mr Mitro.
We'll recess for lunch and
reconvene at 1 o'clock this afternoon.
The committee recessed
from 1204 to 1300.
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA, ONTARIO PROVINCIAL COUNCIL
The Chair:
I think we'll get started. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
For the benefit of new people here today, we will be hearing from
delegations to discuss Bill 69. The first speaker is Mr
Byron Black, secretary-treasurer of the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners
of America, Ontario provincial council. Good afternoon, Mr
Black.
Mr Byron
Black: Good afternoon. I'm off to a good start here. I
just opened my glasses case and one of my lenses is out, so I'm
going to have to see if I have long enough arms.
First of all, I represent
the Ontario provincial council of carpenters. I'm the
secretary-treasurer. We represent more than 17,000 members,
comprised of 17 carpenter local unions, eight millwright local
unions, two industrial local unions and four district councils in
the province of Ontario.
The Ontario provincial
council of UBCJA views Bill 69 as an alternative to the proposal
made by certain employers to repeal or weaken subsection 1(4) of
the Labour Relations Act. Repealing or weakening section 1(4)
would have triggered a return to the extreme levels of conflict
that characterized the construction industry prior to adoption of
the Davis amendments, which included the present subsection 1(4).
In our view, Bill 69 reflects an industry-based approach to
addressing the competitiveness issues raised by certain
employers. However, while we do not oppose the general direction
of Bill 69, we strongly believe the bill requires amendments.
Due to the time restraints
applied to our submission, I will focus on sections of Bill 69
which we feel must be highlighted as to the effects and results
on our affiliates.
First of all, the bill
allows, for the first time, for the creation of a designated
regional employers' organization. We have difficulties with this.
We feel that the role of the employers' bargaining agency should
be utilized maybe more than it has been. The designation by the
Minister of Labour of employer bargaining agencies is the
cornerstone of the province-wide scheme for collective bargaining
in the ICI sector in Ontario, of which you're well aware. This
was put in place back in 1977, with the Franks report. The
designations made by the Minister of Labour in 1977 generally
reflect the pre-existing bargaining patterns.
The province-wide system of
collective bargaining in the ICI sector of the construction
industry has been in place for some 22 years. This system has
worked well, in our opinion, and province-wide bargaining has
brought a substantial degree of stability to labour relations in
the ICI sector. In our opinion it would be a serious error to
believe that province-wide bargaining is inflexible or
unresponsive to local conditions. Virtually all provincial
agreements provide for differential wage rates based on
geographic areas. Provincial agreements have procedures that
allow for mid-term adjustments to their monetary provisions on a
local basis. The current province-wide system that is set out in
the Ontario Labour Relations Act can and does accommodate the
need to be responsive to the local conditions.
Bill 69 creates new
procedures for making provincial agreements responsive to local
conditions. The way in which Bill 69 lays out these new
procedures significantly detracts from the integrity of the
province-wide system of collective bargaining. Bill 69
jeopardizes the stability that province-wide bargaining has
brought to the ICI sector of the construction industry.
One of the most serious
ways in which Bill 69 weakens province-wide bargaining is in the
procedures the bill proposes for government DREOs. The proposed
procedures give no role to the employer bargaining agents in the
appointment of DREOs. In our opinion, this is a serious
error.
There has been virtually no
controversy over the more than 20-year period since designations
were issued in respect to the vital role played by the employer
bargaining agencies, and we feel that they should be given more
of a chance to play their role in being effective in the
competitive markets.
The Ontario provincial
council believes that the creation and role of the DREOs under
Bill 69 is a confusing and unnecessary addition to the Ontario
Labour Relations Act and has the potential of undermining the
integrity of the province-wide scheme for bargaining in the ICI
sector of the construction industry. Labour relations stability
will surely be jeopardized by the proliferation of DREOs with
rights to seek conflicting amendments to provincial agreements
within a geographic area.
What we would recommend is
that only an employer bargaining agency or DREO appointed by such
agency should be entitled to apply for local amendments to a
provincial agreement and have the right to make applications for
arbitration and submissions under sections 163.2 through 163.4.
There should only be one DREO, if any, appointed by an employer
bargaining agency for each provincial agreement in each
geographic area. In some areas we have locals that have more than
one in each geographic area of its local union, and that can be a
conflicting situation. DREOs should be appointed by the Minister
of Labour, not by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Both the
employer and the employee bargaining agencies, it should be
noted, are appointed by the Minister of Labour, not by the
Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The other part that I'd
like to speak on is section 163.2(4), which sets out the
provisions of a collective agreement which may be amended under
the provisions set out in the bill. The application may seek only
amendments that contain the following matters. One is pertaining
to wages, including overtime pay and shift differentials and
benefits. We have a serious concern with this. I am currently the
chairman of the carpenters' provincial benefit and pension plan,
which is the only one we have in Ontario, and I have included in
my submission a letter from our administrator supporting our
concern. You can read that at your leisure.
We have 13 local unions in
our pension plan, and we have 12 local unions in our welfare
benefit plan. So if Bill 69 permitted amendments to all of our
local wage schedules, including the contribution rate for our
pension and welfare package, then we would be all over the map
and our plan would be basically destroyed, because our plan is a
provincial plan, like I said earlier, and it's based on one contribution rate and
as a result benefits are provided for the participants on this
basis.
In reference to wages, we
feel that if wages are amended, then this has to be in
conjunction with the mobility clause that's being provided in
this document as well. What we mean here is that if a contractor
comes from out of town to a local area, the employees he brings
with him are subject to those wage conditions. We totally feel it
would be unfair if a contractor came to Windsor from Toronto and
the Windsor rates were amended and the carpenters, for example,
who came with the employer were paid the Toronto rates versus the
Windsor rates. What we're saying is that this has to apply to all
employees on site, to be fair to everybody.
The other issue is with
apprenticeship. We feel that the current wording of Bill 69 does
not take into account the regulations under the Apprenticeship
and Trades Qualification Act that establish maximum ratios of
apprentices to journeymen. So we recommend that subsection
163.2(4) be amended as follows:
"The application may seek
only amendments that concern the following matters:
"1. The wage package,
overtime pay and shift differential"-and nothing more.
"2. Requirements respecting
the ratio of apprentices to journeymen employed by an employer,
subject to the Apprenticeship and Trades Qualification Act and
regulations thereto."
We feel the definition of
"market" is also an area which has to be looked at. Under
subsection 163.2(5), applicants seeking local modifications to a
provincial agreement must "state the kind of work, the specified
market and the location with respect to which the amendments
would apply." Unionized contractors do not require modifications
to provincial agreements to secure work for which they are
already successfully bidding. The way in which "market" is
defined in Bill 69 is far too broad. The definition in Bill 69
could include work that is already being done by unionized
contractors, and to allow wage reductions on such work is clearly
unreasonable.
1310
To make the procedures in
Bill 69 both effective and fair to all concerned requires a more
precise definition of "market." What we recommend is, "The market
in which it is performed which will be a specific segment of the
industrial, commercial or institutional sector which cannot
include work which historically has been performed by members of
the affiliated bargaining agent."
Another area is the legal
test at arbitration for modifications to a provincial agreement.
The test at arbitration in an application for local modifications
to a provincial agreement is unreasonably and unrealistically low
under subsection 163.3(32) of Bill 69. The term "competitive
disadvantage" is a potentially ambiguous phrase. A fair test at
arbitration would be one where an applicant was required to prove
a significant competitive disadvantage with respect to the kind
of work, the market and the location indicated in the
application.
We recommend that
subsection 163.3(32) of Bill 69 be amended by adding the word
"significant" before the phrase "competitive disadvantage."
Another area is in regard
to two final offers only, one from the employer side and one from
the union side. Bill 69 permits more than one final offer to
be submitted by both the employer and the union sides. In the
case of the union side, a final offer could be submitted by the
local union and by the employee bargaining agency. In the case of
the employer side, the employer bargaining agency could submit a
final offer, so also could any DREOs "having members who carry on
a business in the area covered by the affiliated bargaining
agent's geographic jurisdiction." In principle, this could
involve many DREOs.
Permitting multiple final
offers from each side runs completely counter to the logic of
final offer selection. Under Bill 69, DREOs can submit final
offers without ever having participated in any discussions or
negotiations whatsoever. When more than one final offer from a
side is permitted, the incentive for an employer is to arrange
for multiple offers that cover a spectrum of remedies. The
incentive is not to narrow the difference with the union, nor is
there an incentive to seek a negotiated settlement. The bizarre
process of multiple final offers set out in Bill 69 has no
precedent of which we are aware in Ontario or in any other
jurisdiction.
We recommend that Bill 69
be amended throughout to permit only two final offers, one from
the employer side and one from the union side.
Bar on reapplication for
local modifications to a provincial agreement: Subsection
163.2(10) of Bill 69 imposes a bar of six months and 21 days on
another application to an affiliated bargaining agent for local
modifications to a provincial agreement after the day in which
the first application was served if the work, the market and the
location are not the subject of a referral to an arbitrator under
section 163.3, and a bar of six months after arbitration
proceedings have been terminated if such work, market and
location were the subject of a referral.
We recommend that the bar
in subsection 163.2(10) on reapplying for local modifications to
a provincial agreement, if an application for such modifications
was previously made to an affiliated bargaining agent, be changed
to one year. The bar should only apply to reapplications that
either include or are substantially the same as the previous
application. Work that is covered by local modifications to
provincial agreements made under section 163 should not be
subject to subsequent applications for local modifications during
the remaining term of the provincial agreement.
New section, duration of
local amendments: We recommend that Bill 69 be clarified to
provide that local amendments to provincial agreements would
apply only for the balance of the term of the provincial
agreement, and that disputes regarding whether work falls within
the target area of the local amendments made under section 163 or
any other issue dealing with the application of such local
amendments will be resolved through the grievance procedure under the relevant
provincial agreement.
Default provisions in
hiring: Bill 69 proposes certain new default provisions in
relation to hiring under provincial agreements in the ICI sector
in reference to transfer up to 40% of the total number of its
employees from another geographic area to the geographic area
where the project is located, and that name-hire up to 60% of
employees from members of the affiliated bargaining agent in the
geographic area who are required for the project and who are not
employed under the new mobility provision.
Currently in the
carpenters' agreement, we have mobility provisions and we have
recall rights, but we'd like to point out the employer has the
right to either name-hire or use the mobility provisions, not
both. We are concerned that there has to be some housecleaning
done in this respect because there can be games played with the
recall provisions, where an employer can possibly bring in and
tell employees to get into the hall and on the list and things
like that. So we recommend that section 163.5 should amended to
clarify that the 40% of employees to be transferred or the 60% of
employees to be name-hired are maximum percentages which cannot
be exceeded at any time, whether on start-up, buildup or
downsizing the job in question.
Also, section 163.5(1)
should be amended so that the mobility provisions are restricted
to transferring only current employees. That's key to us, because
in our opinion if you want to be eligible for mobility
provisions, you would have to be working for that employer, or
have had been working within a reasonable period of time before
the transfer.
Section 163.5 should be
further clarified to stipulate that the provisions of existing
provincial agreements will continue to apply to persons hired
pursuant to these new mobility and name-hire provisions, such as
provisions involving the payment of travel time, room and board
allowances, the requirements for referral or clearance steps to
gain access to projects etc. This again is an important issue. In
order for us to keep everything on a level playing field or
above-board, these provisions have to be complied with.
The legislation should be
amended to clarify that any employees not hired under the new
mobility or name-hire provisions would continue to be hired, as
before, under the provisions of the provincial agreement.
The 60% name-hire
entitlement for an employer should be changed to up to a 50%
name-hiring.
Section 163.6 requires the
minister to conduct a review of the effectiveness of Bill 69 "in
improving the competitiveness of the industrial, commercial and
institutional sector of Ontario's construction industry" by no
later than December 31, 2001. We strongly recommend that this
section be struck from the bill because we feel there has been a
lot of bargaining, if we may say, in good faith on all
sides-labour, management and government officials-trying to come
to this industry solution. We feel that we've put our best foot
forward to come up with this resolution.
Also we feel, in fairness,
that we need a sunset provision. Section 150, dealing with the
residential sector, sunsets on April 30, 2002. Section 163,
dealing with the ICI sector, has no sunset provision. We strongly
recommend that to be consistent with the principle established in
section 150, section 163 and the amendments to sections 125 and
151 be sunsetted on December 31, 2003.
In conclusion, we are
saying that Bill 69 has been introduced in response to
competitiveness issues raised by certain employers. Some of these
employers have called for repeal or weakening of section 1(4) to
address these competitiveness concerns.
Without section 1(4),
construction employers would be able to walk away from a signed
collective agreement whenever it suited them, through the simple
device of setting up a shell company which would be nominally a
different employer. Taking section 1(4) out of the Ontario Labour
Relations Act effectively turns the statute on its head. Instead
of unionization being an employee choice in the construction
industry, unionization would become an employer choice.
Repealing section 1(4)
would eliminate the checks and balances in construction labour
relations and trigger a return to the era of intense industrial
conflict that preceded the Davis amendments and the enactment of
section 1(4). Such conditions would be the very opposite of the
competitiveness that is the government's stated purpose in
presenting Bill 69.
Bill 69 represents an
industry-based approach to the problems of competitiveness that
some employers have raised. Bill 69 is an alternative to
repealing section 1(4). However, as outlined in this submission,
Bill 69 in our opinion requires amendments if it is to contribute
to industrial relations stability and achieve the competitiveness
objectives that the government has set out.
This is all respectfully
submitted by the Ontario provincial council, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Black. Members of the committee, that was
a full 20-minute submission, so there won't be time for
questions, unfortunately.
1320
ESSEX AND KENT COUNTIES BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
The Chair:
The next presenter is Mr Dick Pearn, president of Essex and Kent
Counties Building and Construction Trades Council.
Mr Dick
Pearn: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Vice-Chair and
honourable members of the provincial Parliament of Ontario.
My name is Dick Pearn. I am
the business manager of UA Local 552, plumbers, steam fitters and
welders in Windsor, and I'm also president of the Essex and Kent
Counties Building and Construction Trades Council.
I thank you for this opportunity to put forward
a position on Bill 69, which I present to you on behalf of the
Essex and Kent Counties Building and Construction Trades
Council.
Much of what I am about to
relate to you has probably been said before in one way or
another. However, that will only indicate to you how strongly we
feel about the imminent threat to our security should Bill 69 be
implemented.
Unlike many others before
me, I am not here to attempt to convince you to temper the terms
and conditions of Bill 69. I am here to try to convince you to
scrap the bill in its entirety.
If enacted, it will not
level any playing fields; it will only serve to disrupt one of
the finest skilled workforces anywhere.
Every representative of
labour in this room would agree that the removal of section 1(4)
from the Ontario Labour Relations Act would have serious
consequences for the unionized construction industry. Nobody
would want to see its demise. It was created and inserted into
the act by a previous Conservative administration for what seemed
to be a good reason at the time. Its purpose was to achieve a
stabilizing effect for a then troubled industry, and it did all
of that.
You would be correct in
thinking right now that I and the majority of my council endorsed
a policy whereby a committee of my peers in Toronto would attempt
to broker an agreement that would persuade the Minister of Labour
of Ontario, Mr Stockwell, not to make good his threat to repeal
section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.
These negotiations were
well-intended, I'm sure. However, under the constant threat of
the removal of section 1(4), we know now that the alternative was
conceived in haste and without enough consideration being given
to its impact on areas such as Essex and Kent counties. Our
message to that committee was not, "Get a deal at all costs." We
may have said, "Trade a few chickens, give away a few sheep," but
we didn't say, "Sell the farm." If we have to survive without the
shelter of 1(4), I guess we will do so.
We have been persuading
non-union workers to join us since I can remember. I believe that
every worker should have union representation to protect them
from the dictates of profit-driven organizations.
Hundreds of hours of
training, over and above the standard requirements for our
respective trades, are provided to our journey persons and
apprentices. This is done to increase that member's employability
and to provide our contractors with the ability to diversify his
scope of work and be able to shift his workforce to any type of
project. Once any journey person has achieved a credible skill
level, we believe that no employer should have the right to cut
that person's wages and benefits in the interests of profit.
Bill 69 is not an
even-handed piece of legislation that levels any playing field.
We all know in our hearts that it is profit-driven, in the
interests of large corporations.
Its potential effect on
smaller areas away from the Toronto metropolis could be
devastating for construction workers and their families, and even
for local contractors.
There should be no
negotiating of manpower mobility: not 40%, not 20%, not even 10%.
We strongly believe that local jobs should be available to local
residents first. As construction workers living in the counties
of Essex and Kent, we have experienced good times and bad
times.
The bad times, when they
come, are getting worse. Unemployment insurance benefits have
been slashed and benefit periods reduced. Workers' compensation
rules are becoming incomprehensible and often require the
services of a paralegal or a lawyer.
During construction
downturns, our respective organizations provide us with more than
adequate options to be mobile.
We do not want to be
separated from our families, however when one has
responsibilities, one has no choice. Without any relief from our
government for traveling expenses or living allowances, we ply
our skills anywhere in Ontario, or even Canada. We do it to
maintain our families and keep the home front secure. We do it to
finance ever-increasing benefit package costs. But we do it
always with the thought in mind that sooner or later a job will
break at home. After Mr Chrétien and Mr Harris get their
share, we pay our taxes here. We buy our homes here. We purchase
our vehicles here. In fact, every dollar we spend promotes our
community.
Outward appearances may
give many the impression that construction workers enjoy the
gypsy life. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can assure
you all that most of us are home-loving, responsible people, just
like yourselves. Please don't support a plan that deprives us,
your constituents, of our ability to earn our living at home.
When an anticipated job is about to break in our own community,
many who have been on their union's unemployed list or who are
working out of the area relish the thought of rejoining their
families and working at home again.
Local unions forming my
council conduct carefully orchestrated pre-job markups for such
projects with employers and owners. This practice is to minimize
disruption and to ensure a smooth project for the contractor and
owner-client. We don't do it to cater to an unknown workforce. We
do it with the thought in mind that we are finally going to get
our members back to work again. It does not matter which
contractor is awarded the job, the same rules and assurances
apply. Most importantly, the same local workforce gets the first
opportunity to perform the work. If the particular project
requires more manpower than the area can provide, each local
union's mobility provisions are utilized. Again, as local area
residents receive preference of employment in times of hiring,
the same philosophy prevails at times of layoff, when the job
winds down.
I respectfully ask you all,
does this sound unfair to you? Is it unreasonable for us to
expect to work at home when a local project presents itself?
Oftentimes it is our own tax dollars that are subsidizing the
project.
If the provisions of
mobility provided in Bill 69 are exploited to their full
potential, all this careful pre-job planning and preparation that
has been fine-tuned for many years will be gone. This can only
result in labour unrest once again. I can assure you all that no
member will sit by idly and see his job taken by others, while
his long-awaited position is filled by persons from other
jurisdictions.
Bill 69 proposes to open
our collective agreements to allow employers the opportunity to
seek reductions in our wages and working conditions. An
announcement made recently gives us every reason to believe that
the Conservative Party for the province of Ontario is on the
verge of promoting a well-earned increase for all our MPPs. As a
taxpayer, I'm not against that notion. It's probably well
deserved. However, with that said, I would challenge any member
of the mighty Conservative Party to shadow a construction worker
for a week, in any given season. Follow us into the trenches and
holes, or up in the steel, in the heat of summer or the frigid
winter. Try a week in January on the art gallery project, right
on the river front, when the winds are blowing the snow around.
Then tell us we're not worth what we get.
Our members believe that we
negotiated our collective agreement in good faith. We thought we
negotiated our collective agreements in good faith,
democratically, and with a final ratifying vote for all members
in Ontario. Should the implementation of Bill 69 be our reward
for acting responsibly?
Work that would be targeted
in the local modification section of Bill 69 is work that most of
our employers often abandon temporarily. In construction booms,
they favour the more lucrative projects that carry a higher
profit margin, and who can blame them? That's not greed, it's
good business sense. But should we be the ones to take a cut in
wages in order for those same contractors to maintain a constant
profit level when they decide to go after the abandoned market
again?
We are expected to provide
all the same skill levels in the interests of the contractor,
regardless of the type of project. Why would any journeyperson
agree willingly to work for less? Forcing our wages down will
only cause discontent. It will discourage productivity and will
more than likely give the underground economy its most
significant boost ever. You never hear that this lost market
share that the contractor is not competitive in is being
addressed locally anyway, in many areas, including ours.
1330
Any mechanical contractor
in this room will tell you that there are agreements on the verge
of ratification that will make them more competitive. These
agreements do not compromise any member's ability to earn his
living with dignity. They will also achieve competitive relief
for our contractors without stealing our members' negotiated
rights, using the legislative process.
I could go on providing you
with my reasons for scrapping Bill 69, but I realize that time is
a factor, so I will end my presentation to you on the same theme
as I began: Bill 69 has all the potential to be the single most
disruptive piece of legislation ever enacted, under the disguise
of improving the construction industry. Our local hiring hall
provisions are the only form of job security we have, especially
at times when we're out of town. We believe that more thought
should go into any deal that deprives any worker of his legally
negotiated rights, especially to thicken the lining of
contractors' pockets. My philosophy has always been: You show me
a contractor crying poverty and I'll show you a man who probably
just bought a bigger boat.
Maybe the events of recent
months will serve as a wakeup call to all organized labour in
Ontario. As we all know, construction collective agreements
expire in the spring of next year. Maybe contractors will get the
edge they're looking for via an honourable process rather than
blackmail or out-and-out theft.
I plead with all our
Queen's Park representatives to come together in the interests of
those they represent and put Bill 69 where it belongs. Thank
you.
The Chair:
There's about time for three questions, one from each party.
We'll start with you, Mr Duncan.
Mr Duncan:
Thank you, Dick, for your presentation. You address very clearly
the questions about your hall and the 60-40 question. I thought
you talked very well about the mobility issue.
One issue that I wanted to
draw you out on a little bit was the ratio of apprentices in this
legislation. You referenced the good work your local does, and
your union does overall. That's an issue that we've largely
passed over today. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. I know
you're opposed to them. I'd like you to put on the record for me
why and what issues you see in the whole apprenticeship area.
Mr Pearn:
I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you want me to
comment on the current proposal to change the ratio of
apprentices?
Mr Duncan:
That's correct, yes.
Mr Pearn:
In order to maintain skill levels to the level they are today,
these ratios were carefully put into place, with a lot of thought
behind it, by PACs, provincial advisory committees. It's a
tolerable level for contractors to bear when training an
apprentice while they're on the job. Any lowering of that would
probably detract from a member's skills, finished-product skills
anyway. I would see it as a general step in the wrong
direction.
Mr Duncan:
It's sort of counter-intuitive to the notion of improved
competitiveness, because that is one of our great strengths,
particularly in this area, as I understand.
Mr Pearn:
The notion of apprentices is not to make a contractor or anybody
else financially more competitive; it's to train and have a
perpetuation of our workforce. That's the original notion. Along
the way, the contractors benefit from the services as an
apprentice increases from first, second, third, fourth and fifth
years.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you for your presentation. Just
for the purposes of Hansard, let me say into the record that it's
not very often that we get a huge crowd that comes out in the morning, breaks for
lunch, and is still here in the afternoon. It's just normally not
human nature. As far as I can tell, there are not only as many
people as were here this morning, I think there are more people
here this afternoon than there were this morning, which again
speaks volumes to how the local construction workers feel about
Bill 69 and the damage it's going to do to their profession.
We've had a number of
employer groups come in who are supportive and seem to believe
that bringing in Bill 69 is going to upset some of you, but
if they just give the government some support and keep their
spine nice and stiff, this thing will be rammed through and
everything will be fine after everybody calms down a little. Yet
we have had a number of presentations from labour leaders
predicting, not advocating, there's going to be major labour
unrest on construction sites across the province. If that's true,
then I would certainly hope that employers are paying a lot of
attention because at the end of the day, if that does happen, any
benefit they might derive from Bill 69 will be more than lost by
virtue of that disruption.
What is your sense, with
your years of experience, especially in a leadership capacity, of
what could happen both locally and across the province if Bill 69
is rammed through in its current form?
Mr Pearn:
I could speak to it as if it were my job that I was going to
lose. It's one thing to bypass the protocol of collective
agreements, but it's another thing when you get into the personal
side of a person living and trying to raise his family here in
Windsor and a group of people coming from out of town to take the
jobs they've long waited for. So I can only predict that not only
will there be union action to protest that procedure but there
will be personal action taken by a lot of citizens of Windsor who
pay their taxes here, live here and don't relish the thought of
losing their jobs to people from out of town.
Mr
Christopherson: Let's hope the government and the
employers are listening.
Mr Gill:
Thank you for being here, it's great and it's nice to see the
crowd back again. Welcome.
I thought you might agree.
Would this mobility clause not benefit your people, as well, the
local contractors, once they get contracts somewhere else? They
could take some of the workers with them for the efficiencies,
because they've worked with them longer term.
Mr Pearn:
Respectfully, I'm not here to cater to the concerns of our
contractors and their mobility elsewhere. I'm here to look after
the members' interests, and we're only concerned that the jobs go
to people who live in this area, not elsewhere.
Mr Gill: I
thought maybe your own members would benefit because now they
will be able to go to other places.
Mr Pearn:
We do have that ability to travel through our inter-union
activity, travel card basis.
Mr Gill:
So you have a mobility clause now with your-
Mr Pearn:
We have a degree of mobility in our agreement.
Mr Gill:
OK, thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Pearn.
MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF
WINDSOR
The Chair:
The next speaker is Mr Richard Haller.
Mr Richard
Haller: Madam Chair, members of the committee, I want to
thank you very kindly for allowing us this opportunity to be
here. My name is Richard Haller and I am the president of the
Mechanical Contractors Association of Windsor. I am also the
immediate past and the current chairman of the MTBC, which is the
negotiating arm of the Mechanical Contractors Association of
Ontario and is responsible for the provincial agreement.
I have with me today Mario
Cossarini, who is the president of State Contractors; David
Holek, the president of Lekter Industrial Services; Brian
Fahringer, general manager of Fahringer Mechanical; and Pat
Devin, who's the president of Fahrhall Mechanical. Together we
represent some 25 local Windsor mechanical contracting companies
operating primarily in the industrial, commercial and
institutional sector for the greater Windsor area.
1340
I would like to make you
aware that the mechanical portion of the ICI construction
projects includes anywhere from 40% to 60% of the total value of
the entire project. It is also usually the most labour-intensive
portion of any given project. As mechanical contractors, we are
also responsible for work performed by subcontractors, which
includes sheet metal, refrigeration, fire protection insulation
controls and often electrical and/or work by civil trades.
As the Windsor mechanical
group, we have been working together with our provincial
counterparts of MCAO, and substantially over the past six-month
period, we have been in discussions with the government, which
eventually led up to the introduction of Bill 69. Our position
throughout those discussions and those meetings focused on the
need for legislation embracing improved management rights. This
is a source for our position of re-establishing fairness,
effective bargaining and improved competitiveness within the ICI
sector.
Clearly, and to our
disappointment, Bill 69 has overlooked this approach for dealing
with our industry's problems. We believe that the perception that
the Minister of Labour, Mr Stockwell-who fortunately is present
today-has conveyed to the public, that there exists broad
management support for both the content and the intent of this
legislation, is not in fact the opinion of the mechanical
contractors.
We're extremely concerned
that the proposed legislation, as per section 160, clearly shows
preferential treatment for a small and select group of general
contractors, while at the same time providing no value or
benefit for the vast
majority of the other Ontario contractors.
The elimination of
management input and the granting of full, unilateral power to
the construction unions is simply unfair and unreasonable. We ask
that section 160 be replaced with wording providing for certain
controlled management rights for all construction employers, not
just the general contractors or select firms-which is clearly the
true oversight of Bill 69-or, at a minimum, that section 160 be
amended to require that the bargaining agency's approval, in
conjunction with the unions, also be required before there's any
relief for anyone under that section.
We also implore this
committee not to support a call for special legislation to
release this select group of general contractors, as has been
called for by some parties. It's imperative that this committee
recognize that all unionized employers face the same
non-competitive challenges existing in Ontario today as those
select firms face, and that relief for this selected group over
others is simply wrong. The supposed gains in competitiveness
that Bill 69's enabling process generates will benefit these
select firms in an equal way to any benefit that is gained from
any other firm presently tied to a union agreement.
It is our understanding
that the government intends to conduct a serious review of the
ultimate impact of this legislation by December 2001. We believe,
however, that this review will be inconclusive, because we think
that the key components of the act will have had insufficient
time to determine their value. The market conditions existing in
the province, and anticipated to sustain for the immediate
future, are certainly not such as will allow for a fair and a
proper evaluation and adjustment for the lost markets, the effect
of which this legislation is attempting to correct.
Nonetheless, we look
forward to playing a major role in this review and receiving the
government's future support for additional legislative action,
where and when warranted, to address the lack of competitiveness
and the fairness in our industry.
We thank the committee for
its time and attention and ask for their full support for our
noted amendments.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Haller. We have time for questions, starting with
Mr Christopherson.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you, Mr Haller, for your
presentation. It's interesting: If one considers the submissions
that have been made since 10 o'clock this morning, I think we've
had one supporter of the bill, and that was lukewarm at best,
which was the Windsor Construction Association. You clearly are
not supportive of this for a whole set of reasons different from
those of a lot of the labour leaders and members who are here,
but certainly you're opposed to it. It should tell the government
that they've got a piece of legislation that not only doesn't
have broad-based support, it's got broad-based opposition, and
they need to go back to the drawing board, after they first scrap
the bill entirely.
I wanted to ask you about
the issue of management rights. I think the reason, if I may, you
heard scattered applause was that people like it when anybody
comes in here right now and opposes this bill, but given that
you're sort of from the management side of things, they weren't
sure just how hard they should be applauding your willingness to
do that, given that the other side of this is what you want in
exchange rather than what's in Bill 69. You're asking for
increased bargaining rights, and I wanted to ask you, as a member
of the negotiating committee for management, why you would expect
the government to step in and beef up management rights from what
you already have in the provincial agreement, given that if the
union wants any rights for their members, they have to get them
at the negotiating table. It's not the government that's going to
give them those rights; that's going to come from their
bargaining ability at the negotiating table. Why do you think
it's appropriate for you to ask the government to give you
management rights rather your having them negotiate them at the
negotiating table the same as a union has to for their members'
rights?
Mr Richard
Haller: First I will respond, as a management
representatives in this industry, in this province, by saying
that the present government has addressed and understood and
identified the exact problem you're asking about substantially
clearly and, I say in defence of them, has attempted to make some
kind of step forward, which in fact they have done. We only
believe it isn't quite enough. But in order to level the playing
ground-re your comments about how these negotiations take
place-first of all we go to Toronto, not necessarily but
generally. We have a group of 14 representatives, representing
all of the ICI contracts within Ontario, and we attempt within
what was probably a good parameter for this legislation some 15
years ago to come up with a province-wide contract that meets
everyone's needs. Having been part of that committee for some 12
years and having chaired the committee in the past, and acting as
the current chairman this year, I think it is next to impossible
to satisfy the needs of all those 14 zones. The end result is
that we now look, as management, at what is really our largest
liability, and that is very obviously our restriction by
legislation of being unionized contractors faced on a continuous,
daily basis with a situation of competitiveness where we're
dealing with people who are other than union and who therefore
have substantially different costing. I'm trying to answer your
question.
Mr
Christopherson: OK. That's fair.
Mr Richard
Haller: The end result is that somehow or other we are
looking for some kind of relief or adjustment to the legislation
that will allow a more equal and a more fair approach at our
bargaining. We are happy to sit down with our union counterparts.
As was mentioned by my immediate predecessor here, Mr Pearn, we
have in Windsor in fact made giant strides toward mutual
agreements to identify our problems. However, speaking on a
broader base, when we go to the entire province there has to be
change, and Bill 69 does address that change.
1350
Mr
Christopherson: But rather than bringing union members
down, how about if the government came in with a fair wage policy
that brought everybody else's wages up and eliminated the
competitive disadvantage that way?
Applause.
Mr Richard
Haller: Apparently you don't read, at least if not the
same paper then the same page of the paper, where, among others,
in my opinion, our most noted leader of the government, being our
dear friend Mike Harris, has clearly identified the competitive
situation of construction in Ontario as being a large deterrent
to bringing business in. I'm sure this is part of their
parcel.
Do I personally want to
take any of my fellow members behind me and reduce their pay?
No.
Mr
Christopherson: But that's what's going to happen under
Bill 69.
Mr Richard
Haller: But the problem is not them-
Mr
Christopherson: So bring everybody else up rather than
taking these folks down.
Mr Richard
Haller: -and it's not me. The problem is-you're
right-everyone else. How do you do it for everyone else?
Mr
Christopherson: That's what I said; bring in a fair wage
policy where the non-union sector has to be at least fair about
the wages vis-à-vis the union wages that are paid under
unionized contracts.
Applause.
Mr Richard
Haller: Maybe we should publish a paper and we can send
it to the entire United States, which obviously doesn't agree
with that procedure, and to the provinces like Alberta, which
obviously doesn't agree with that and has had great success in
doing other than that. For me to say I oppose it, no, I don't,
However, it absolutely is not a result-
Interruption.
The Chair:
Ladies and gentlemen, I have allowed a certain amount of latitude
this afternoon, but please do not let it degenerate any
further.
Minister Stockwell.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Thank you for your submission. Just to
pontificate for a moment, I suppose life is full of compromises,
and compromises are sometimes what makes the process of governing
difficult. I'm quite confident that when Mr Christopherson voted
in favour of the social contract that ripped the collective
agreements up for the public sector unions and gutted them and
rolled them back and reduced them, he in his mind felt there was
a compromise there that served the purpose of the government and
himself. Frankly, I didn't agree at the time with it and I didn't
think it was the approach to take, but I understand what he was
trying to accomplish.
The question then is, there
needs to be some compromise, in our view, in the construction
industry. We hopefully have struck the proper balance. I
understand there are going to be people out there who don't
agree. Collective agreements are set in place and union
membership is what it is. But the point is, and the question I'd
like to make is, if there is a collective agreement in place in
Windsor, for instance, where 90% or 95% of the local membership
is working, there doesn't apparently seem to me to be a
competitive disadvantage. So ultimately, the step before
reopening the contracts would have to be to prove a competitive
disadvantage. Let me say that in Sudbury and Timmins and in other
areas and places in the province, there is a significant
competitive disadvantage. Possibly in Windsor there isn't, so
they wouldn't get past the first step.
The question I have for you
is, if 160 were removed from the legislation, if it were
withdrawn, are you telling me that you would support the
legislation in full and give it your full and hopeful support to
ensure that it works across the province as a whole?
Mr Richard
Haller: I think if I responded to that, and I said it
earlier, that it absolutely is an attempt not only to identify
but to solve some of the problems. My response to that would be
that I would suspect our group would approve that, yes.
The Chair:
Mr Gill, do you have a question? Mr Duncan?
Mr Duncan:
No questions.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Haller.
DAN SLOTE AND CHRIS SLOTE
The Chair:
The next speakers are Mr Dan and Mr Chris Slote. Good afternoon,
gentlemen.
Mr Dan
Slote: Good afternoon. My name is Dan Slote. This is my
son Chris. We're following some big acts here.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Big what?
Mr Dan
Slote: Some big acts. But I have a funny feeling I know
who has the vote.
We came here today to talk
about Bill 69 and how it's going to affect us. I was very
surprised with the people who are here today. We watched the
channel and saw how you people speak, and I know we have some
very loud voices here today, so thank you for listening to us.
Maybe you might not want to, but anyway this is what I put
together.
Chris and I are here today
to speak about Bill 69 and how it's going to affect us, the
workers. I'm a member of Local 552, but I work for CAW Local 200,
Ford's, at the moment. My heart is with Local 552. Chris is a
first-year apprentice in plumbing for Local 552.
As we all knew, a
re-election of the Mike Harris government on June 3, 1999, was
going to be a devastating event for union construction in
Ontario. In my 30 years of plumbing work, I have never seen our
plumbing local take on a political agenda at all. This was the
first time the members stood up, and we did try to fight your
election.
In the late 1970s, Bill
104, I think, the provincial bargaining, was presented to us as
just fact. As members we had no vote. One day it's, "OK, we're going to
Toronto to negotiate."
The building trades of
Ontario spent $6 million in campaign funds against Mike Harris
and the Conservative re-election. That's money that should have
gone to help our unemployed, our sick or disabled members, or
look at our past record as members of local unions donating to
charities and working in charitable activities. This past year
and a half I would say our union support of charitable funds was
diverted to the fight for our future, all because of the gun that
was put to our heads. I feel that way.
Please don't try to kid
ourselves here. This is union-busting at its best for the
Conservatives and their friends, and the worst for my son and me,
especially when it comes to collective bargaining. I think my
main concern is the mobility clause; bringing in 40% of the
workforce to our community or your community and name-hiring
another 30% leaves 20% for our business manager to supply off a
list. This makes it very hard to take care of our unemployed
members-some, believe it or not, on the verge of needing social
assistance. In my case, it takes it out of Mr Pearn's hands and,
as you can hear, he takes very good care of his members.
On the issue of mobility, I
want to speak a little bit about a letter I wrote to the Windsor
Star, February 5, 1999.
"The city of Windsor and
the county of Essex are about to increase our taxes to cover $16
million of hospital expansions. With the construction work
starting, I see again that the workers are from out of town.
"With this donation, I hope
future contracts are limited to county companies and workers.
"The hospitals asked for
our help. Now let's see how they can work with local construction
workers and keep the money here in Essex county."
This is not a union or a
non-union issue, this is a community issue, and I think that's
how the mobility clause is affecting us. We dig in our pockets,
the taxpayer pockets, for grants and programs. We should be able
to keep much of this income here for the greatest benefit of our
community. I don't like to see the money going down the 401 on
Friday night when we have skilled workers unemployed in our
community.
1400
I've travelled this
province to put food on my table and keep the bill collectors off
our doorstep. Year after year, we've done that. Every time
someone gets a plumbing bill, they think we're rich. Bill 69 is
again only lowering our standard of living. In the past, I wrote
Chris Hodgson, my member of Parliament from Haliburton, and
asked, "Why is your government taking on the construction
industry?" As far as I'm concerned, this government is working
very hard to make our labour standards Third World, and if Mike
Harris succeeds, I'm sure there will be a government grant for
his friends.
How does Bill 69 affect me?
I'm working for the CAW at the moment, but I know that in the
near future I'm going to want to travel this province and I don't
think it'll be there because I think this bill is going to create
unemployment in certain areas and obviously they're going to be
trying to put their members to work when they have a 40%
out-of-town workforce brought into their community. It is my
future and I'd like to see my son have a future in this industry
as he's going to be a fourth-generation plumber.
Mr Chris
Slote: I just want to thank the panel for making the
trip down to Windsor. I read that initially all five days were
supposed to be held in Toronto. I think it was a Liberal member
from Sudbury who made the proposal, so I think it's great that
you guys all made the trip down to hear from the workers.
Like my father touched on,
it's hard to top what my business manager, Dick Pearn, said and
so I won't talk about some of the things that he already
discussed, but what I have to also add about the mobility clause
is that when a contractor brings in workers from out of town and
our list that we've used in the past is underutilized, it's going
to hurt some of our older members or some of our-maybe they're
called sick or injured. The thing is, the way the list is set up
now is that we ourselves, as an organization, have had the
decency to protect our older members and with the use of the
list, it's a very fair system. If you're next in line, you go to
work; it doesn't matter. That's pretty much my viewpoint on
mobility, that people haven't already touched on.
I guess what I can speak
on-and Mr Duncan started to ask some questions about this at the
end of Mr Pearn's presentation-are the changes to the ratio of
apprentices to journeymen. I think right now it's a good ratio.
Honestly, the journeymen I work with teach me so much. It's not
in a textbook; it's not in the classroom. It's getting dirty and
it's what they teach me. I'm doing things this week that I
couldn't do last week, and I'm very appreciative of the time my
journeymen spend on teaching me. Also what my journeymen teach
me, and I don't think another apprentice at the same level could
teach me, is they're extremely wise and very safety conscious.
There are a lot of times when I become foolish or I just don't
know what I'm getting into. I'll walk too close to the edge of
the roof and I'll do foolish things. It is always my journeymen
I'm working with who take great responsibility for me. They grab
me and they say, "Get away from the edge of the roof." They teach
me and they are very valuable. I think if we change that ratio
and there are more apprentices, we're going to see more
accidents. I just don't want to see that. The journeymen help
keep the workplace safe.
I gave up a career to come
down here as a plumber. I'm university educated and I think I
made the right choice. That's why I'm coming here and speaking
today. I just had to make this choice last October to leave
corporate Toronto and give this a shot. It's tough to see a bill
like this passing right now in front of me. It's kind of eroding
what I thought was going to be a nice future for myself.
I wish I could explain to
you that the people behind me-we're a skilled workforce. The fact
is they want to erode
our wages. It takes five years to be a plumber or an electrician,
and people work very hard to get that designation. To lower our
wages-I'm just going to throw a number out, like $20, $21 an
hour. I think garbagemen in the city of Windsor, who have zero
training and are not skilled, will get paid more than us. I think
that's a shame. I just can't tell you enough that it is very
tough to do the work we do, and I think the way conditions are
now we are compensated fairly. I don't hear the people I work
with arguing about our wages right now. We work very, very hard
to earn them.
I guess I just don't want
to see the hall and what it stands for eroded. In a comparison to
some of my non-union counterparts, the hall brings me in for
extra training. I think it's 26 weeks of the year I go in for
three- to four-hour classes and I learn things above and beyond
what my non-union counterparts are learning. I think that makes
me a better worker. Comparing it to an automobile, I think the
union worker is the Mercedes or the Cadillac. There's room for
the little Toyotas and there's room for the Cadillacs, and I
think we can all make it.
I think I've said what I
want to say. I don't want to erode any of the time for questions.
We've heard from people who are owners and union leaders. I think
my father and I are pretty much the only workers speaking today.
Maybe there are questions that you've saved for this, so I'll
give you that opportunity.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Slote. Mr Gill.
Mr Gill:
First of all, I want to commend you for being here. I think it
takes a lot of time, energy and guts to be here, and I thank you.
It is our pleasure to be here. Yesterday we were in Sudbury.
Sudbury was my fourth trip within the first year, so we try to be
out there to listen to people. I think it's a great effort.
One of the things I want to
correct is that this is a democratic process; not only this
process we're going through but the elections, the election we
had June 3 and the elections previously. The advantages-we've
seen the effects in the last 15 years of having three different
governments, and it is the people's choice. They decide who
should be governing at what time, which is great.
One of the things Dan
mentioned was that some bad things happened June 3, 1999, to
Ontario. In all fairness, some of the speakers earlier said
Windsor certainly is doing much better since 1999. I just want to
make sure we're on the same page. I think with more jobs
everybody benefits.
Your main concern that I've
seen coming through is on the mobility clause. Is that
correct?
Mr Dan
Slote: That's correct.
Mr Gill: I
want to commend you as the fourth generation in plumbing. Things
must be good. Only then do you get into the same profession.
Otherwise somebody says, "Hey, I'm not getting into that
profession." I just wanted to make those comments. You can
certainly elaborate on that if you want. It's a good profession,
an honourable profession?
Mr Dan
Slote: Yes, it is. Mobility is one thing when I look at
our community-I'm sure that the contractors, but especially our
union representatives here, have spoken about opening up our
agreements at will. That's their job and they do it well. I don't
want to speak about parts of the bill, but mobility and taking
care of our community, families, neighbours and friends here in
Windsor-and when I'm retired and up in Haliburton, taking care of
people up there, neighbours, friends and family, that's
important. But to erode our standard of living through
legislation, I find it hard.
Mr Chris
Slote: If I can add something to that, I don't want
people to get the opinion that the workers of Windsor are very
nationalistic; we're not. When times are very good here, Windsor
opens up its arms and accepts people from all over this country.
People from Ottawa, Oshawa, when we have a surplus they are more
than welcome to come and work here because I understand that they
have a family to feed too. As long as we're eating well and we're
doing OK, the workers who are behind me have zero problem in
tolerating-I know three years ago my father had a man from London
who has a travel card come live with us in our home. There is no
hardship. If we have a surplus, we love to keep our contractors
happy, to make sure the work gets completed on time. We're not
building a big wall at the border. We don't mind.
1410
Mr Duncan:
First of all, thank you for coming and sharing your thoughts with
us. I did want to comment that this is a democratic process, yes,
but we need to understand that no Legislature in the country
holds fewer public hearings than this one, and no government has
held fewer public hearings than this government has, so to
pretend that there's some kind of democratic exercise going on
really is stretching it a bit.
I do want to say I'm glad
to see my colleague the Minister of Labour here. Despite our
differences of opinion, I'll give him his due, as it's not often
you see a Minister of Labour come down and do these hearings, and
I acknowledge that.
We did agree, for instance,
to truncated hearings, but only because if we didn't agree to
that we wouldn't have had any hearings. I don't think anybody in
the opposition likes that. I don't think anybody in the
opposition likes, quite frankly, Raminder, what your party has
done to our parliamentary democracy. It really is
unfortunate.
I want to ask one question,
however, because you did allude to something that strikes me. I'm
not in your industry. I meet periodically with your union
leadership and members, who share issues with me. We do open our
arms here, don't we-I'm thinking of the casino project, I'm
thinking of our hospital projects; there was some controversy
around that-to people coming in from the outside. In fact, if I'm
not mistaken, we've had quite a number of people from outside the
community. Certainly when the prosperity began here, which was a
bit ahead of the rest of the province, I think we welcomed
people, didn't we, and the system served those individual members
well as the system exists now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there
have also been times in this town when the auto industry has been down and our guys
have had to go elsewhere, and have been able to, perhaps not the
way we might like, but the system has worked, by and large,
fairly well and in fact we've enjoyed relative labour stability.
Would you agree with that, and would you agree that this kind of
change ultimately is not going to serve either management or
labour?
Mr Dan
Slote: I'll tell you right now, I've travelled quite a
bit, and I know leaving Windsor-I must say, three years ago I
went to Kingston to work, and I knew when I got in my vehicle and
drove down the 401 that they had full employment and they were
looking for a pipefitter. I was able to go to the hall with my
referral slip and I was put on a job right away. Come a week from
the first Thursday, I was able to go to the bank machine and send
my wife some money, so she knew I was doing good. That's one nice
thing about instant banking-it works. So she knows that I'm doing
fine every Thursday and that she can pay the bills. I've worked
in Sarnia, I've worked in London, and, yes, we've been received.
By the same token, when people are in trouble and have special
needs, I know that Dick Pearn opens up his arms, brings them in
and takes care of them.
Just because we're skilled
trades doesn't mean we're paying our bills all the time. Two
years ago, I was off for five months here in Windsor. I did some
travelling, but I collected unemployment for four months. But
when it was all said and done at the end of the year, I had to
send half of it back because I just happened to find a job and
worked like crazy for six months. But in the first part of the
year I wasn't too sure where the next cheque was coming from,
other than the government. It's a struggle. It's hard. We work
hard.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you both very much for coming in.
Let me say to the parliamentary assistant, in terms of democratic
process, the bill itself is insulting enough, but your comments
continue to infuriate me when you talk about democracy being the
cornerstone of how you operate. There's nothing democratic about
taking a political gun, pointing it to the head of the labour
movement and saying, "Negotiate or die." There's nothing
democratic about that today and there never will be, so let's
understand that.
Chris, I want to thank you
for articulating the issue of safety, because it has been raised,
and it has been difficult for both of us in opposition to make
the link, given that safety is really not the primary focus and
yet we know there are safety issues. Safety is a priority and
primary concern for you and your union and I'm sure some
contractors-I have no problem saying that-but it has been
difficult for us to make the linkage, and yet we knew at the end
of the day it was going to have an impact. Of all the hearings
we've had, I think you've made the most concise, legitimate,
clear argument in terms of looking at the clause about the ratio
of journeypersons to apprentices in speaking to the real issue of
where safety could be affected in the workplace. I want to thank
you for that because you've made a major contribution to these
hearings in articulating that in the way you have. Being a young
apprentice, it could only be done by someone who walks in your
shoes. So thank you for that.
Some employers have come in
and said, "This is a horrible bill; we're not getting anything
out of it." We've had some employers who have come in and said:
"It's wonderful. We love it the way it is." We've had other
employers come in and say, "We like it because it does things for
us, but it doesn't do quite enough." I don't see anything in
here, not one thing, that improves the lot of construction
workers. So while some employers may not get anything and other
employers may get improvements, for the workers there's just one
answer: They're losing things.
You've come in here as an
individual worker affected by Bill 69. My question to you: Is
there something I'm missing in Bill 69 that's an improvement to
workers? Certainly the government says it's a wonderful thing. I
don't see it. Could you articulate for me whether there's
anything in here for construction workers that's a benefit?
Mr Dan
Slote: I don't see anything. There was nothing to my
benefit there at all. To be honest with you, the reason we're
here is because we do watch you people. When Chris Stockwell
stood up and explained the bill, Chris looked at me and he said:
"Dad, do I have a future? Did I make a mistake by leaving Toronto
to come to Windsor and start an apprenticeship?" It devastated
the two of us. I was glad that, "Yes, you want to be an
apprentice, great," but now you take a look at this legislation
and there's nothing in it that's going to benefit him or me or,
as Dick Pearn said, the industry as we know it.
Mr
Christopherson: Thank you again for coming in.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL,
ORNAMENTAL AND REINFORCING IRONWORKERS LOCAL 700
The Chair:
The next presenter is Mr Greg Michaluk, business manager for the
International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and
Reinforcing Ironworkers Local 700.
Mr
Christopherson: Before Mr Michaluk takes his seat, if I
could let you know, Chair, and anyone else here, that I will have
to leave halfway through this presentation because I have to get
to the airport. It certainly has nothing to do with my lack of
desire in terms of hearing the presentation. But I wanted to
explain why they'll see me get up and leave. I want to thank
everybody for coming out. This has been the best showing we've
had anywhere, and I urge you to stick to your guns.
Mr Greg
Michaluk: I'll probably be done before you leave anyway.
My presentation isn't going to be that long. I anticipate
questions, and hopefully I can give some answers.
My name is Greg Michaluk. I'm business manager
of Ironworkers Local 700. We represent approximately 850 members
throughout southwestern Ontario, specifically in the
Windsor-London-Sarnia area. Ironworkers erect structural and
miscellaneous steel, install rebar for reinforced concrete and do
installations of conveyor machinery and equipment. We've been in
the Windsor-Sarnia-London area since 1946 supplying contractors
with skilled tradesmen to perform that work. I've been an
ironworker and a member of Local 700 for the last 31 years. I've
been business manager since January 1992.
1420
I have some general
comments. It's not too often I get an opportunity to address
government officials. Since I've had this job, I believe 1998 was
the first time I took part in a hearing such as this. I got here
late, so I didn't hear all the comments. I'm sure a lot of it is
going to be repetitious. I hope my comments aren't 100%
repetition.
My general comments on the
proposed bill-I guess a little bit of history that was heard
earlier. I think it was in 1978 when the government basically
legislated provincial bargaining for both employer and employee
bargaining agencies. Provincial bargaining has been going on for
the last 20-some years. In my opinion, it's working well. One of
the most important things that provincial bargaining did was
create stability in the province for construction projects in
regard to wages and working conditions. It allows the employers
to have the knowledge of labour costs for-at that time it was a
two-year period; now it's a three-year period.
Collective bargaining to
the ironworkers: Our provincial collective agreement contains
enabling clauses to address particular hardships that may be
encountered, as well as to address so-called competitive
disadvantages. The ironworker provincial agreement also contains
clauses that generally give employers the right to manage their
business with full autonomy, such as the right to hire,
discharge, transfer, promote and demote employees, as well as
determining the location of the workplaces, the materials,
methods, machines and tools to be used in the execution of the
work. In general, an excellent working relationship between
ironworker employers and ironworker employees has been developed
and exists at present.
So far in the last 20
years, despite the cyclical nature of the construction industry,
of construction work, labour relations have thrived. There have
been no major lockouts or strikes with the ironworker EBAs, and I
think that's an excellent record, that we have that type of
labour stability.
Then in 1998 the government
decided they would attempt to fix what wasn't broken. They
started with Bill 55, which was introduced for
apprenticeship reform. The government was proposing to tell the
construction industry how to perform training, despite the fact
that both construction employers and employee reps, in
partnership with provincial education-and-training
representatives, had led the way with an aggressive,
well-organized apprenticeship training program that produced
skilled, productive tradespeople. That partnership is working
well to this day, and I suppose, in the government's wisdom,
they've back off on that for the construction industry, which was
a good thing.
Then Bill 31 was introduced
about the same time. The main thrust of that bill was project
agreements. That was the first attempt to attack provincial
bargaining by basically telling employer bargaining agencies, "If
you didn't like the wages and conditions that you originally
agreed to with provincial negotiating, then here's another window
of opportunity for you." To date, project agreements have done
little or nothing to create additional work opportunities,
especially in the Sarnia area, where, in my estimation, it
probably originated. Billions of dollars of new construction work
was supposed to materialize when the legislation passed. At
present, there is 75% unemployment of ironworkers in the Sarnia
area.
Now along comes Bill 69.
Same theme: "If you don't like the wages and working conditions
that you originally agreed to, then here's another window for
you."
It's interesting to note
that those three bills have specifically attacked the unionized
construction workers.
I believe that the
government should allow employers to accept responsibility for
their own actions and the responsibility of managing their
respective enterprises, instead of pounding on the workers,
saying: "It's your fault. Your wages are too high. Your working
conditions are too good."
The ironworker has his own
opinion on this, but, most importantly, the ironworker
construction tradesman is respectful of and willing to abide by
negotiated provincial agreements between the two agencies that we
bargain with. It's my belief that the ironworker employers also
share that opinion. Abiding by and adhering to negotiated
provincial agreements has a proven track record of labour
relations stability. This stability promotes job harmony and
productivity. They go hand in hand. It's important to note that
the opportunity to vote upon and ratify provincial agreements is
given to rank-and-file members of both employer bargaining
agencies and employee bargaining agencies prior to coming into
force. Bill 69 wouldn't afford this important privilege.
In my opinion, Bill 69 will
do nothing to promote positive employer-employee relations,
thereby undermining established and proven stability in the
construction industry.
I'll continue to maintain
the same rapport that I have with my employers and continue to
address any concerns that will promote additional work
opportunities for ironworkers, and this will be done as per the
ironworkers' collective agreement that's presently in place, and
not through Bill 69.
Some of the comments that I
heard earlier: Every construction union negotiates with their
employer bargaining agency and what they get at the end of the
day, what's agreed upon by both parties, is brought back to their
respective memberships and voted on and ratified. It's important
that the rank and file do have a say in this.
Like I said, I came in a little late. I heard
the words, "This is a democratic process," mentioned more than
once. My opinion of a democratic process is: Put the issues
before the people. Explain it to them so they have a clear
understanding of what's proposed, and the end result is, let them
tell you whether they like it or not. What's happening here, from
a worker's perspective, is that it's getting rammed down our
throats. We've bargained in good faith over the last 20-some
years provincially, and now it's not good enough.
That's probably all the
comments I have. I am interested in taking questions and trying
to come up with an answer for you.
1430
Mr Duncan:
Thank you, Greg, first of all, for your presentation. Just
following up from your comments about how we've had relative
stability over the last 20 years, presenters before you predicted
that we will see much greater instability in the coming years,
once this legislation is passed. Would that be your opinion?
Mr
Michaluk: Definitely, in my opinion. If Bill 69 goes
through as proposed, I've got a game plan on how to work through
that. If I have an employer who comes into Windsor and wants to
do something on a so-called competitive disadvantage, in theory,
through the government, he's going to get what he wants. But I'll
tell you I'll do what I can. When that employer leaves this area,
he'll never ask me for that again. He won't. It's that
simple.
Mr Gill: I
think you were referring to me about the democratic process or
not. Don't forget that some of the other parties, when they were
in government, came through with the social contract, took away
all the contracts that you had ever negotiated-
Mr
Michaluk: Not me. Not me.
Mr Gill:
So I want to put it on the record that-
Mr
Michaluk: And I'd be saying the same thing to that
government that I'm saying to you if they did it to me.
Mr Gill:
Thank you. I think that's fair. You have your opinion.
In terms of an enabling
clause, explain to me a little bit further what sort of
concessions you have to make depending on conditions. Give me it
in dollars and cents if you can.
Mr
Michaluk: I've done enabling clauses over the years
where we have deducted the wage by 5%, 95% of the wages. I've
done enabling clauses in the Ironworkers agreement where we
changed the apprentice-journeyman ratio. We're not a compulsory
trade. We're not regulated where we have to have X number of
journeymen or X number of apprentices. It's contained in our
collective agreement it's a five-to-one ratio. I've done things
like five to two and five to three.
Mr Gill:
So those were the conditions where you felt perhaps you were not
competitive enough and you had to give these concessions. Is that
the scenario?
Mr
Michaluk: That's right, and that was an agreement
between the employees and the employer. It's what we agreed on
and it goes right back to the bargaining for our collective
agreement. It's the conditions that we agreed on, on how we'll
proceed with a project.
Mr Gill:
It has worked well in your scenario? You're happy with that kind
of arrangement, I understand?
Mr
Michaluk: I thought at the time and in hindsight it was
the best thing to do under those conditions.
Mr Gill:
Similarly, perhaps in your own mind you're suggesting that people
who don't have those enabling clauses will benefit from that?
Mr
Michaluk: I don't know who has it and who doesn't. I can
only speak for the Ironworkers.
Mr Gill:
No. I'm saying, in your opinion, in your mind, it is a good thing
to have and others who don't have it might benefit from that?
Mr
Michaluk: In my mind, a good thing to have is an
agreement between the employees and the employer that both
respect and intend to work by.
Mr Gill:
Something you didn't mention much was the mobility clause.
Mr
Michaluk: I didn't mention anything on mobility.
Mr Gill:
Right. Do you have any mobility?
Mr
Michaluk: Ironworkers have mobility.
Mr Gill:
What percentage?
Mr
Michaluk: It's 60-40. A contractor is allowed to bring
in 40%. Again, that is an agreement through our collective
agreement that the employees and the employers agreed to, brought
it to their rank and file, voted on it and ratified it. It wasn't
jammed down our throats.
Mr Gill:
Again, you think that's beneficial, that 40-60 works out well for
you?
Mr
Michaluk: The 60-40 has been in our collective agreement
since I've been an ironworker.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Michaluk.
WINDSOR ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
The next speaker is Mr Franco Favaro of the Windsor Electrical
Contractors' Association.
Mr Franco
Favaro: Madam Chair and delegates, I am Franco Favaro,
president of the Windsor Electrical Contractors' Association,
representative to the Electrical Trade Bargaining Agency of ECAO
and electrical manager of Fahrhall Mechanical Contractors.
You have already heard
representations from various elements of the electrical
contracting industry in your travels across the province and
should be aware that we are strongly supportive of Bill 69 as a
workable model for restoring competitiveness and fairness into
the Ontario construction economy.
The Windsor Electrical
Contractors' Association fully endorses and supports Bill 69 with
respect to provisions on hiring, mobility and the process for
making local amendments to the provincial collective agreement.
Taken together, these elements of Bill 69 have a potential to
restore and revitalize Windsor's electrical contracting
industry.
All that is needed is the incentive to make Bill
69 work. Windsor Electrical Contractors' Association recognizes
that Bill 69 encourages the labour and management parties to work
together to develop their own answers to the issues of hiring,
mobility and local competitiveness, and are prepared to work with
our labour partners to get the most out of the opportunity that
we can.
The Windsor Electrical
Contractors' Association agrees with the stand taken by ECA
Ontario and other subtrade groups regarding section 160.1 of the
Bill. This section gives an employee bargaining agent the right
to agree to abandon bargaining rights for individual employers,
such as general contractors. This right can be exercised without
any consultation, participation or consent of the subtrades, such
as the members of the Windsor ECA, who might be adversely
affected by their unilateral decision.
While other elements of
Bill 69 encourage the parties to come together to solve mutual
concerns, the abandonment provisions simply grant complete
authority to the unions without reference to the employers,
employer bargaining agents or regional employer organizations who
will be most affected.
The real solution to the
problem of the competitiveness of some general contractors is the
competitive improvements that will come from other components of
the bill. By definition, the more competitive our companies are,
the more competitive any general contractor carrying our price is
going to be. Windsor Electrical Contractors' Association believes
this is the area where we should concentrate our efforts. By
comparison, the union abandonment of bargaining rights is the
equivalent of throwing in the towel.
Area associations and
individual contractors deserve the opportunity to respond in a
timely fashion to the challenges raised by abandonment.
Abandonment provisions of any type should not come into effect
until after the next round of province-wide bargaining and the
local modification procedures are in place.
That said, I would like to
repeat that Windsor Electrical Contractors' Association supports
the balance of Bill 69 dealing with hiring, mobility and
modification to local agreements. Local modification to the
provincial agreements is definitely the key provision for the
Windsor Electrical Contractors' Association. This is probably
because we have had so little success in implementing a market
recovery program here.
At the Ontario level, the
Electrical Trade Bargaining Agency and IBEW Construction Council
of Ontario developed a provincial market recovery program for
implementation in each of the 13 local areas. The program enabled
the local parties to make modifications to the province-wide
agreement in order to achieve competitiveness in markets we have
lost or might lose. On a job-by-job basis, each local union had
the authority to accept or reject any application. In the areas
that implemented the program, it has been successful in winning
back about one million working hours per year.
Only two areas did not
participate, Sudbury and Windsor. In the case of Windsor, the
debate over whether to implement the market recovery program
degenerated into an unfair labour practices complaint against the
Windsor Electrical Contractors' Association by Local 773, IBEW.
At the labour board hearing into the complaint, it was dismissed
without hearing as having no merit. Regardless, six months of
valuable time and effort has been wasted in this fruitless
exercise and we still don't have a market recovery program.
1440
Bill 69 provisions to allow
local modifications to provincial-wide agreements are exactly
what are needed to bread the log-jam over market recovery in
Windsor. The mechanism contains the necessary incentives and
procedures to get results. Results are desperately needed here.
The Windsor Electrical Contractors' Association represents about
10 member firms and about 10 non-member firms in collective
bargaining with the IBEW, Local 773. Most of these contractors
specialize in work for the Big Three auto manufacturers. Our
collective agreements have become geared to this type of
work.
Only two local electrical
contractors specialize in commercial and institutional work. My
company is one of them. Together we may have about 5% of the
commercial institutional market in Essex and Kent. The rest is
done by others, most of them originating from outside the
jurisdiction in the London area.
On the industrial side,
Windsor electrical contractors are fairly successful in the auto
plants, but outside the Big Three it's a different story. Even
tier one and tier two feeder plants of the automotive industry
are dominated by others.
On top of it all, our
labour partner, Local 773, is relatively small compared to the
overall amount of available work, comprising about 450 members.
Windsor electrical contractors perform between 800,000 and
1,000,000 work hours annually with this workforce, making it one
of the highest utilized IBEW workforces in Ontario.
This tight labour market,
combined with a strong focus on the automotive plants, makes it
very difficult to achieve any real success in the light
industrial, commercial and institutional marketplace.
Based on what I have
described there is no doubt that the people who drafted the bill
must have had the Windsor electrical contracting industry in mind
at the time. You have already heard of the advantages that hiring
and mobility rights bring to our industry and how they generally
improve training efficiency and competitiveness. I don't think
there is any need to repeat that here. Suffice it to say that we
agree with the submissions of ECA Ontario and ECA Northern
Ontario on these points.
In the Windsor market, as I
have described it, hiring and mobility rights take on different
perspectives. Clearly, in our tough labour market situation, and
the pull of the auto industry being applied every day, the local
modification
provisions simply won't work without hiring and mobility.
As a commercial contractor,
how can I attract the workers of the right mindset to stick with
me without improving hiring rights? How will we regain major
commercial and institutional work in various regions of the
jurisdiction without the influx of contractors and workers from
other jurisdictions?
In other parts of the
province, the three elements of hiring, mobility and local
modification are discussed and debated as separate but related
items. In Windsor, speaking as a commercial institutional
contractor, I see them as a single package. In my world, local
modification rights are useless without hiring and mobility.
The importance of the local
modification provision to me and to Windsor electrical
contractors cannot be overstated. I would like to point out two
concerns which, if addressed, will further improve that
provision. First is the designation of regional employer
organizations. As a bona fide constituent of the Electrical Trade
Bargaining Agency, I believe Windsor ECA is the only body that
should be designated for the purpose of making amendments to the
electrical provincial agreement. I know we have the support of
ETBA in this regard.
Secondly, I agree with my
colleagues from Sudbury who pointed out that the list of items
that may be amended could be too restrictive and lead to
unnecessary litigation. We believe that all collective agreement
items that impact cost competitiveness should be open to
amendment. It might be easier to address the items that cannot be
changed.
In summary, the Windsor
Electrical Contractors' Association fully supports the
government's initiative to revitalize our industry through Bill
69, and in particular the package of hiring, mobility and local
modifications that is going to get us back in business.
Windsor electrical
contractors cannot support the abandonment provisions of the bill
and in that regard is of the same opinion as other subtrade
groups. We strongly believe that the solution to the problems
160.1 is meant to address lies in the aggressive application of
the procedures in the balance of the bill. I thank you for your
time and effort.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Favaro. Minister Stockwell has a question.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: I appreciate the deputation today. By way of
entry into this, I'm sure this is probably not going to make a
lot of people too excited in this room, but having met for eight
or nine months on this particular issue and seeing study after
study, it was very apparent to me in Ontario, practically across
the province, that unionized construction jobs were decreasing.
They were losing tendered bids in the institutional, commercial
and industrial sector to non-union contractors, who were hiring
non-union workers.
I went to great trouble to
investigate, speak with people involved in the industry and
analyze the studies. What was very apparent to me was that there
were hiring halls, which used to be busy in the 1960s and 1970s,
operating at 30%, 40% and 50% unemployment rates because the jobs
that were being tendered in these areas were being won not by
unionized generals or subs but by non-unionized generals and
subs. In fact, on balance, the unions, generals and subs said to
me, "We can compete within reason, but if we're 20% and 30% over
the non-union bid, we can't compete."
The question I have for you
is, is this any different from what you see and feel and would
argue for me today, or do you see it as something that's
completely different from that? I've got to be frank with you: It
doesn't make sense to me to have a hiring hall of 500 people and
have 100 working at $40 an hour when you could have a hiring hall
of 500 people and have 400 working at $33 an hour. The question I
have is, have you seen this at all or is this just a figment of
my imagination?
Mr Favaro:
In the Windsor area we see a lot of the commercial, light
industrial and institutional work going to a non-ECAO
representative. We are seeing a vast majority of that work, which
we were part of in years past, going to the non-union sector. It
seems like it's getting progressively worse, with the
understanding that more schools are going to be coming out, the
health care system is implementing a fair number of buildings
that we will not be competitive in; that is inevitable in this
area.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Favaro.
1450
WINDSOR SHEET METAL
CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
The final presenters this afternoon are Mr Brad Vollmer and Mr
Mark Haller of the Sheet Metal Contractors Association.
Mr Brad
Vollmer: Good afternoon. I'm Brad Vollmer, director of
the Windsor Sheet Metal Contractors Association and president of
Bannon Sheet Metal division of Vollmer and Associates. With me is
Mark Haller, president of the Windsor Sheet Metal Contractors
Association and president of Spada Sheet Metal. Also present are
Pat Devon, director of WSMCA and president of Fahrhall Sheet
Metal; Frank Van Oirschot, director of WSMCA and president of
Industrial Metal Fabricators; and Al Gauvin, director of Ontario
Sheet Metal Association and WSMCA and president of Aldon Sheet
Metal Contractors.
Although we are here to
speak on behalf of the Windsor sheet metal contractors, the
people here with me are members of firms that are multi-trade
contractors providing not only sheet metal services but also
mechanical and electrical. Several of them also sit on both local
and provincial boards of directors and thus understand the
ramifications of this bill for all areas in the province. In
general, we support the government's initiatives to create a fair
and competitive system for everyone to work with in the ICI
sector.
Bill 69 is a step in the
right direction for achieving improved competitiveness and
fairness in our industry. It is clear that Bill 69 encourages the labour and
management parties to work out the specific details of such
issues as hiring, mobility and local modifications to provincial
agreements.
The only part of Bill 69
that is not process-oriented is section 160.1, which is the
vehicle to allow a union to abandon bargaining rights with
individual contractors, presumably general contractors. All areas
of the province must be treated equally.
The solution for the
general contractors to be more competitive is to make their
subcontractors more competitive.
I am also concerned that
the area associations affected by any abandonment have the
opportunity to respond to this new competitive challenge. Any
form of abandonment provision should be delayed until after the
next round of province-wide bargaining so that its impact can be
addressed at the provincial bargaining table and through the
local modification procedures in Bill 69. While the abandonment
provisions will have some impact here in Windsor, I know, through
my constituents at the contractor trade bargaining agencies, that
many sheet metal contractors in other jurisdictions will be
hard-pressed to survive if the general contractors, their primary
clients, are released from their subcontracting obligations to
the sheet metal workers' union. It seems ironic that the bill,
which should make us more competitive, has the potential through
section 160.1 to generate even more competitive challenges.
That said, I return to the
overall direction of Bill 69, and on behalf of the Windsor Sheet
Metal Contractors Association support the general provisions
relating to hiring, mobility and local modification to provincial
agreements.
Enabling: The government's
initiative on local modifications to a provincial agreement
provides a practical method for tailoring broadly applied
provincial or local conditions of employment to suit the changing
needs of the local marketplace.
The local unionized sheet
metal contracting economy has been dominated by the automotive
manufacturing marketplace, which periodically requires large
numbers of tradespeople in the automotive plants working under
tight time frames. This situation results, over time, in
collective agreement provisions geared specifically to the needs
of this type of work. This reality ignores the fact that other
markets with other standards of employment exist and require
attention or they will continue to be lost.
For example, Windsor now
has 11 Big Three automotive plants. These plants put out a
tremendous volume of construction work which can only be
completed by companies signatory to a collective agreement. This
work employs much of the membership of the Windsor sheet metal
union workforce, and as a result there has been little interest
for the Windsor sheet metal union to find work outside of the
automotive market.
In the past year, the Big
Three automotive industry has been on a worldwide supplier
reduction campaign which will reduce the number of contractor
vendors in Windsor, but these plants will continue to require the
same number of men from the local union. These sheet metal
contractors that lose their vendor status at the automotive
plants will be required to look for work in the commercial and
institutional industry, in which we are not competitive against
the non-union contractors.
Without the ability to
address the specifics of each market and to fine-tune our
agreements to meet local needs over time, we will lose our
competitive advantage in one market or the other. With respect to
commercial and institutional work there is strong evidence that
this is already occurring.
The government's initiative
to create a mechanism to address local modifications to
provincial agreements addresses this concern.
The Windsor collective
agreement requires us to pay 248% of the straight-time wages on
overtime shift work. Again, the flexibility provided by local
modification procedures will help iron out these problems and
avoid the situation for the growth potential of our commercial
and institutional marketplaces.
One of the areas of the
local modification procedure that requires review is the list of
eligible items for modification. The complexity of our agreements
and unique working conditions require the ability to amend all
terms and conditions of employment that affect our
competitiveness. For example, work at the automotive plants
requires non-standard work schedules which may not be readily
identified on our list of items. For simplicity and to avoid
unnecessary litigation, it may be better to state what cannot be
changed, such as union recognition, safety, union security
etc.
Also, we are concerned
about the designation of regional employer organizations that may
apply for local modifications. The Windsor Sheet Metal
Contractors Association is a constituent member of OSM and
effectively represents its members in that forum. In our opinion,
where the sheet metal provincial agreement is concerned, Windsor
Sheet Metal should be the only designated regional employer
agency in the Windsor-Essex-Kent area. Our existence should be a
bar to any other group applying to be designated.
With these minor but
positive amendments, the Windsor Sheet Metal Contractors
Association generally supports the government's initiative to
permit local modifications to a provincial agreement. This
procedure will make province-wide single-trade bargaining more
responsive to local conditions and improve the fairness and
competitiveness of Ontario's construction economy.
Mark Haller will address
hiring and mobility.
Mr Mark
Haller: Workers of Windsor Local 235 are dispatched to
the employer on a name-hire basis. The government's initiative on
hiring is meant to address this issue by providing contractors
the right to select up to 60%. Windsor presently has the right to
select up to 100%. We trust the government's initiative is to
read "select no less than 60%" and also not meant to limit a
contractor's right to transfer their current workforce from any
project they may have in progress now.
The Windsor Sheet Metal Contractors Association
membership is naturally concerned about opening its doors to more
competition from outside the area, but at the same time
appreciates the new opportunities available to us as a result of
Bill 69. Bill 69 will allow Windsor sheet metal contractors a
broader range for selling their expertise in other jurisdictions,
which will benefit both the contractors and their unionized
employees.
To a certain degree,
mobility already exists for the workers. In tough economic times,
large numbers of local tradespeople travel without compensation
to other areas to work. Similarly, when the automotive sector is
booming, large numbers of sheet metal workers migrate to Windsor,
Ontario. One can expect the same ebb and flow with the mobility
provisions in Bill 69, as contractors seek to advance their
company and its employees by marketing into new business
areas.
To summarize everything
we've talked about today, OSM and the Windsor Sheet Metal
Contractors Association are supportive of the government's
initiatives to improve Ontario's construction industry through
Bill 69. With some minor reservations regarding the details, we
support the bill as it relates to hiring, mobility and the local
modification procedure. We also like the structure of the bill,
which leaves much of the fine-tuning to the parties affected. The
OSM and WSMCA are committed to using this opportunity to make the
theory of the bill work in practice.
Both WSMCA and OSM do have
serious concerns about the abandonment provisions. We do not
believe that a union or employee bargaining agent should have the
right to so radically affect the subcontractor's business without
the consent of the affected employer, bargaining agency or
regional employers' group.
Thank you very much for
letting us speak today.
Mr Duncan:
Just a couple of minor questions. First of all, we anticipate the
government's amendments to the bill tomorrow at 4 o'clock, if I'm
not mistaken. That's when we have to have our amendments in.
The Chair:
All three parties' amendments.
Mr Duncan:
I just have a little trouble. You said that the recommendations
you've indicated are fairly minor from your perspective. From
where I sit, just looking at this, they're pretty major issues in
the bill, from both sides' perspective, particularly something as
sensitive as this. I know that you represent very well regarded
employers and firms in this community. I'm having trouble
reconciling that position: "We support the bill, but here are the
changes we need. These are minor changes." The way I read it,
they're fairly significant changes. If they don't go through,
you're saying the bill is flawed.
I guess I'm concerned about
that because we've heard quite clearly now from a number of
people on the other side of the table that this bill is going to
lead to a lot more instability in your sector. Can you reconcile
those issues for me so that I have a better understanding of
where you're coming from?
Mr
Vollmer: I don't see it causing instability. It's more
wording as to, for example, hiring 60%. Presently, we have 100%
name-hire.
Mr Duncan:
I don't want to be argumentative, but as I understand the
instability question, what your partners in the industry are
saying-your partners being the unions-is that you're going to be
faced with a lot more strike action, a lot more work stoppages.
In their view, this is going to poison the whole collective
bargaining atmosphere.
I'm concerned about that. I
think we all agree there are things that can be changed, but my
concern specifically would be that we not go back to the pre-1978
situation. Remember that the law as it exists now was brought in
for a reason. And it wasn't a problem only in Ontario; it was a
problem in Quebec and other places. I'm concerned about that from
an economic perspective and what that kind of instability will
mean to communities like ours, and indeed the province.
Mr
Vollmer: I don't see enabling causing that.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: From the studies I've looked at with respect
to the Windsor and Essex area regarding construction work, for
the union and non-union sectors, what I've seen is that if the
Big Three work, it's virtually all union, and all that union work
is done for them. Outside of that, in the industrial, commercial
and institutional sectors in this area-and granted, right across
the province, for that matter, even into Toronto-there has been a
precipitous drop in the amount of union participation in the
construction end of things.
By adoption of Bill 69, if
the House deems it to be acceptable, would you believe in your
mind that one of the benefits that could come of this is that you
as a unionized employer would ultimately tender and get more work
and, then, theoretically, by getting more work, hire more union
people?
Mr
Vollmer: Absolutely.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: If that is the case, then-
Interjections.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: I appreciate the fact that you don't agree. I
didn't interrupt any of the deputations. There may be a
difference of opinion.
Interjections.
The Chair:
Please, it's getting towards the end of the day. Allow the
minister to ask the question.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: If at the end of the day the game plan is for
you to get more work, or any unionized contractor to get more
work, ultimately the only people who can work on your site are
union members. So by you becoming successful in winning tenders
out there in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector,
how would it not be beneficial to the union hiring halls? In
fact, they would be sending more union people to the job
sites.
Mr
Vollmer: The more competitive we are in the commercial
and institutional sectors in picking up more work, the more
unionized employees we will employ.
Hon Mr Stockwell: Have you seen
a drop in the last 10 or 15 years in the amount of work you're
doing outside of the automotive industry?
Mr
Vollmer: Yes.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: How much of a drop?
Mr
Vollmer: The number of contractors has dropped
dramatically. As far as work volume, I don't want to make that
guess, but substantial.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Would you be different or is this pretty much
right across the entire construction side of things and the union
side? Is this just you or is it electrical or is it the-
Mr
Vollmer: This is mechanical, electrical and sheet metal.
Those are the trades I deal with. It's across those industries in
my area.
Hon Mr
Stockwell: Do you have any belief at all that you are an
aberration in this province, or is this in fact what's happening
across the entire province?
Mr
Vollmer: From my constituents, I understand this is
happening across the province.
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Vollmer and Mr Haller.
That's the end of the
public consultation. Thank you for your patience, ladies and
gentlemen. This meeting is adjourned.
