Transcription du comité 1992-août-11 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Jack Boehmer, member, provincial/federal affairs committee; senior consultant, Peat Marwick Stevenson and Kellogg; Jim Berner, member, provincial-federal affairs committee; chartered accountant, Kitchener

Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto

Diane Barsoski, vice-president, human resources, Toronto Globe and Mail

Dave Crisp, vice-president, human resources, the Bay

Jim Noonan, lawyer, McCarthy Tetrault

Tim Sargeant, lawyer, Shibley Righton

Reporter Employee Action Committee

Dirk Koehler, spokesperson

Ontario Public School Boards' Association; Metropolitan Toronto School Board

Paula Dunning, president, OPSBA

Bruce Stewart, legal counsel

Mae Waese, chair, MTSB

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793

Jack Slaughter, general counsel

Richard Kennedy, president and labour relations manager

Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild

Gail Lem, president

Peter Murdock, staff representative

Canadian Paperworkers Union, Region III

André Foucault, national representative

Patrick Sweeney, national representative

United Plant Guard Workers of America

Denise Sylvestre, international organizer and president, Local 1956

Lewis Bryant, international organizer

David Wright, Canadian counsel

Ontario Good Roads Association

Leonard Rach, second vice-president

Diana Summers, policy adviser

Welland Chamber of Commerce

Mike Allen, treasurer

Dolores Fabiano, executive director

International Beverage Dispensers' and Bartenders' Union, Local 280

James Jackson, secretary-treasurer

Marlene Irwin, recording secretary

Municipal Electric Association

Tony Jennings, chief executive officer

Doug McCaig, chair

Jim MacKenzie, chair, labour relations program advisory committee

Ontario provincial council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

David McKee, legal counsel

Marion Thomas

Quebec and Ontario Paper Co. Ltd

David Strathern, director, mill operations

Coalition for Fair Wages and Working Conditions for Home Workers

Sheila Cuthbertson, staff lawyer, Parkdale Community Legal Services

Deena Ladd, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union

Teresa Mak, researcher, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union

Pik-Yu Tsui, home worker

Cindy Wong, home worker

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

*Chair / Président: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)

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

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

Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich ND)

Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South/-Sud L)

*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)

*Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)

Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)

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

Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:

*Cunningham, Dianne (London North/-Nord PC) for Mr Jordan

*Eddy, Ron (Brant-Haldimand L) for Mr McGuinty

*Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L) for Mr Conway

*Ferguson, Will, (Kitchener ND) for Mr Wood

*Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND) for Mr Dadamo

*Harnick, Charles (Willowdale PC) for Mr Turnbull

*Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC) for Mr Turnbull

*Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Waters

*In attendance / présents

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Kovacs, Jerry, counsel, legal services branch, Ministry of Labour

Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Decker, Todd

Staff / Personnel:

Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service

Fenson, Avrum, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1000 in room 151.

LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL ET À L'EMPLOI

Consideration of Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui a trait à la négociation collective et à l'emploi.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF KITCHENER-WATERLOO

The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 10 o'clock. We're ready to resume. These are public hearings into Bill 40, amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. They say they are public hearings. People are entitled and indeed encouraged to come to Queen's Park during the balance of this week to watch them in person.

The first participant is the Chamber of Commerce of Kitchener-Waterloo, if the people making that submission would please seat themselves and tell us who they are, their titles, if any, and proceed with their submissions. Please try to leave the second half of the half-hour time slot for questions and dialogue.

Mr Jack Boehmer: I can start if you would like. I'm Jack Boehmer. I am a senior consultant with Peat Marwick Stevenson and Kellogg in Kitchener. My specialty is and has been labour relations, both as a consultant and as an in-house practitioner, not to be confused with outhouse practitioning.

We're here today to represent the Kitchener-Waterloo chamber of commerce. We had the opportunity back on February 14 of making a presentation in front of Mr Mackenzie and we also appreciate the opportunity of being allotted time to come here today.

The Chamber of Commerce of Kitchener-Waterloo represents over 1,500 businesses and organizations that provide employment in excess of 49,000 citizen-taxpayers with a family impact in the Kitchener-Waterloo area of over 190,000 people. This area has been very dramatically affected by the slowdown of the economy, with several major employers being forced to close down operations -- many of the names you'll recognize -- Seagram, Labatt's, Electro Porcelain, Greb shoe, Uniroyal, Waterloo Industries and so on. Several others are in the process of significant downsizing.

As employers, we are struggling to establish a redefined level and an approach to the economic realities as they exist in our economy today, and it's essential that governments at all levels play a responsible, cautious and positive role in this recovery process. Investment in Ontario has had a significant increase in the last decade. What must be encouraged is a continued interest in participating in the economic growth of the private sector. Confidence in the future of Ontario as a place to invest is absolutely essential. It's only through the perceived confidence that jobs can be created and employment levels maintained and hopefully expanded.

We in Ontario, who are committed to an economic growth situation that leads to job opportunities have a problem. Ontario is being perceived as an unfriendly, unwelcome environment for new investment, and indeed for retaining historical presence. The government of Ontario is providing, through pending legislation and perceived attitude towards business, an easy logic, especially for the Americans although this extends beyond the American situation, for organizations to pull out of Ontario.

On June 4 the government introduced its bill to amend the Labour Relations Act. The bill, over 50 pages long, makes sweeping changes to the manner in which labour relations have been administered and will be administered in the province. The majority of the changes are directed to giving more power to unions at the expense of employer and employee rights.

It should be recognized that Ontario has been one of the most liberal labour regimes in North America when it comes to encouraging unionization of workplaces. However, over the years the balance, a been reached between the right of employers to operate their business profitably and the right of employees to organize into unions and represent their interests. Previous governments have managed to maintain this balance, so that the Labour Relations Act did not discourage business investment in the province and did not unduly interfere with the ability of business to adjust to the changing marketplace.

The new bill changes all that. The changes significantly alter the balance of power in favour of unions. During the months leading up to the introduction of the bill, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and other business groups have tried to get the government to understand the consequences of proceeding with these changes. The efforts have been largely ignored by government.

Without radical adjustment to the existing proposals, it will be difficult to attract new investment to the province and difficult for businesses that are unionized, or become unionized, to operate effectively and efficiently. Less agreement between the parties in the workplace and more litigation will occur.

Concessions which the employer does not believe are in the best interests of the business will be made and productivity and profitability will suffer. It is this shift in bargaining power which is the greatest threat to the province's economy.

Mr Jim Berner: I'm Jim Berner, a chartered accountant in Kitchener, here with Jack to represent the chamber.

The bill prohibits an employer from hiring workers to replace employees on strike. It also prevents employees who don't agree with a strike from working on their own jobs. Management people or non-bargaining unit employees who work at the struck location may perform the work, but these persons have an absolute right to refuse to do the work.

In reality, very few employers could continue operating by using only the people allowed. Small businesses, in particular, will be hurt. These are the very businesses that when faced with a strike, find it most important to continue operating, because they don't have another plant or another source of supply for their customers.

Employers, contrary to what unions would have you believe, don't like strikes. A strike occurs because the employer feels that it cannot agree to the union's demands at the bargaining table. Those employers who choose to operate do so out of necessity, not out of malice.

Mr Boehmer: Under the employee rights area, the strike replacement legislation restricts the rights of employees as much as it does business rights. Currently, a union that chooses to strike an employer must have the support of its membership to go out on strike and must have the support of the membership to continue the strike.

This legislation changes all that. To gain access to the new provisions, all a union must do is have a strike vote where 60% of those voting support the strike. Typically, unions have strike votes early on in the bargaining process, before the positions of the parties have been finalized or even clarified. The union gets a strike vote as a bargaining chip.

Employees are often coerced into voting for an early strike in the bargaining process so the union can be seen during the bargaining process as having the employees' support. Under the new legislation, there is no obligation on the union to go back to the employees to ask if they wish to accept the employer's final offer.

Presently, if a union strikes, employees can continue to work if they believe the final offer of the employer is better than striking. This means the union must be sure that the employees support its decision, because they can vote with their feet. As a strike goes on, more employees may believe the costs of striking outweigh the cost of accepting the employer's last position and they may choose to go back to work.

This freedom encourages a union to be responsive to its membership and helps to minimize the length of strikes. Finally, after a six-month strike, employees lose the right to claim their jobs back at the present time. This law often forces a union to concede that the strike is not successful and brings closure to what, to many and most, would be clearly a lost cause. It also benefits the province by encouraging an end to economic action, which is impacting on the provincial economy.

Under the changes to the legislation, it is against the law for employees to go back to their own jobs until the union says the strike is over. The union has no obligation to seek a strike vote on the employer's final offer and the six-month job guarantee is extended in perpetuity.

The union can therefore blithely ignore the wishes of its members and go out on strike or continue a strike with the full sanction of the law. Employees are now at the mercy of the union leadership.

1010

Mr Berner: Under employer rights, the impact on business is also significant. An employer who believes that a union's demands during negotiations are unreasonable presently has the threat that it may operate during a strike and that the employees may choose to work as levers to ensure that the union's position at the bargaining table is tempered with reality. These bargaining chips are balanced by the union's threat that the employees will support a strike and impede the employer's ability to operate. Both sides must take reasonable positions and seek compromise.

After these changes, employers will be faced with the fact that though employees on strike can get tax deductible strike pay from the union and can go out and get other jobs while on strike, the employer will not be able to operate.

The ability of companies to encourage unions to drop unreasonable positions is greatly diminished. Unions also are more likely to use the strike option since the law will provide solidarity on the picket line by prohibiting the employees from working if they choose.

Between 1978, the year the legislation was introduced in Quebec, and 1991, there have been 652 more strikes in Quebec than in Ontario. There have been more strikes in Quebec every year but two during that time. This is despite the smaller workforce in Quebec. In the period 1970 to 1977, prior to the legislation being introduced, there were 46 more strikes in Ontario than in Quebec. This suggests that the legislation encourages more strike activity by unions with the consequent loss to employers, the employees and the provincial economy.

In addition, I'd predict that more violence may occur on the picket lines as unions attempt to encourage management employees and others from exercising their right to refuse to do the work of the striking employees. Significant litigation will also occur. Unions will claim the employers are violating the act by having inappropriate people do the striking employees' work and employers will, out of necessity, violate the act. The result: more strikes, more violence and more litigation.

The experience in Quebec, the only other jurisdiction in North America with similar legislation, is also instructive. Allegations by unions that the law is being violated occurred in over 30% of the work stoppages. Over 400 employers have been fined for breaking the law. This suggests that the legislation is not practical.

Mr Boehmer: Under first-contract arbitration, there is an increased access to first-contract arbitration. Basically, either party may apply for arbitration of all the terms and conditions of a first collective agreement 30 days after the parties are in a legal strike position. Presently, it is necessary to demonstrate to the board that there exists some reason why arbitration is to be preferred to the normal process of collective bargaining. These requirements will be removed.

The prior requirements encouraged the parties to negotiate the terms of their collective agreement and to compromise to reach agreement. Often unions make promises to employees during the organizing campaign that they cannot keep. Instead of having to negotiate a contract that is reasonable, the union will be able to simply apply to the labour board to see if it can get what it couldn't negotiate. The union no longer takes any risk in making unreasonable promises.

It is important to understand that a union doesn't have to be on strike for 30 days before it applies. It simply must be in a legal strike position. A union gets in a legal strike position by applying for conciliation and having the government conciliation officer issue what is called a "no board" report. Fourteen days later the union can strike. The CAW often does it on the first day of bargaining, before the parties even discuss the issues or, in many cases, before the issues are really tabled. This means that the union does not have to strike or even negotiate. They can simply wait 30 days and then apply for arbitration.

The purpose clause, is a real concern, I think, for me. It is predicted that the first-contract arbitration will increase dramatically, and more litigation and less agreement will result. This is even more likely given the addition of the purpose clause to the act.

For the first time, instead of simply encouraging the process of collective bargaining and letting the parties negotiate the result, the act will specify goals that are to be accomplished by collective bargaining. Some of the specified purposes of the collective bargaining included in the new purpose clause are to improve terms and conditions of employment, to enhance the extension of cooperative approaches between employers and employees and to increase employee participation in the workplace.

The preamble is used as an interpretative gloss over all the provisions of the act. Of concern is the impact of the clause on the powers and the jurisdiction of the board and arbitrators. The proposal will discourage the parties from compromising and resolving the issues themselves. This will lead to less cooperation between the parties. The beneficiaries to this proposal will be the legal profession and, of course, the ever-increasing corps of arbitrators and civil servants.

The parties are best able to define their responsibilities through free collective bargaining as expressed in the current Labour Relations Act. Should not the purpose of the act be to enhance labour peace in the province, to stimulate economic growth by promoting a progressive, stable work environment and to enhance the workplace harmony by encouraging internal resolution of problems?

Mr Berner: Combining the bargaining units: The board is also to be given the power to combine bargaining units. For example, if you have an office unit and a plant unit represented by the same union, the union will be able to ask the board to combine them. This would allow them to take everybody out on strike, thus eliminating people who might otherwise be able to act as replacements.

The union may also request that you combine unions in different geographic locations. For example, a retail store chain or a manufacturing operation with more than one location will have these locations combined into one unit so that they will bargain together and will be able to go on strike together. This further limits the ability of an employer to maintain different terms and conditions of employment for different kinds of employees, ie, office, plant, full-time and part-time.

Contracting-in of service: While we're on the topic of different terms and conditions of employment, it is prudent to point out that the act will also now treat contracting-in of services such as cleaning, food services and security services as a sale of a business. This means that if the employer is unionized and wishes to contract with an outside agency to do this work, he will be bound by the terms of the collective agreement. If the contractor is unionized and the work is retendered, the new contractor will be bound by the collective agreement of the old contractor. This doesn't quite make sense. Required savings will obviously be harder or impossible to realize.

Mr Boehmer: What that really means is that in order to try to effect economies through the changing of inside contracting, if they're bound by the same collective agreement, that's nigh on impossible to achieve, so in effect the required efficiencies can't be achieved.

Access to collective bargaining -- new groups covered: The above areas are some of the major changes which shift the balance of power in favour of unions. The other major area which the bill addresses is certification. New groups, specifically domestics and professionals, have been given the right to organize.

In addition, security guards have been given the right to join the same union that represents other employees in the workplace. This will inevitably create conflicts of interest and could leave the employer without security during a strike. In fact, the company could not hire an outside security company because that would violate the strike replacement provisions.

The present act recognizes the nature of the work and the obvious conflicts of interest that exist between security people and other employees. This concern over divided loyalties can be addressed by not modifying the current act as it pertains to security guards or by permitting security guards to join only a union not present at the employer's site.

Access to private premises: Union organizers will now have the right to enter private premises to which the public normally has access. While organizing is only to go on at the entrances and exits to the employees' workplace, "workplace" is not defined. While one can see how it might apply in a shopping mall, it is more difficult to understand how it might apply to, say, municipal offices.

Picketing is also to be permitted in such places. For example, if a department store had a franchised hair salon within its store, presumably a union that represented the hair salon employees could picket right inside the department store.

No petitions: Employees who do not wish to have a union represent them will be precluded from raising objections to unionization after the application date. This means there will no longer be a means whereby employees who were not aware of union organizing or who did not understand the impact of signing a card or who have simply changed their minds can indicate their objection to unionization. Even consumers are protected by the Consumer Protection Act for 48 hours after purchasing something from a door-to-door salesman.

In all cases where 55% of employees have signed cards, the labour board certifies without a vote. As a result, in the vast majority of cases, employees will not have a chance to freely debate the pros and cons of unionization and make informed decisions. The idea of allowing objections at the certification hearing was to ensure a fair opportunity for all employees to participate. This will be significantly curtailed by the changes.

1020

Other changes to the act on certification are also significant. The board is to be given the power to combine a newly certified unit with an existing unit. This would mean that the newly unionized employees will be swept into the collective agreement of the existing unit and will immediately be covered by the terms of that agreement. The employer will have no opportunity to negotiate or maintain differences between the groups. Significant control over its operations will be lost. In this same vein, unions will have the power to insist that part-time and full-time employees be included in one bargaining unit, ending the long-standing recognition that these groups often have different interests and have always been treated separately by the labour board.

A further alteration is somewhat startling. Presently, when an employer commits a serious violation of the act such that the labour board determines that the true wishes of employees cannot be ascertained, the labour board can certify the union even though the union cannot show 50% membership support. However, the board must be satisfied that adequate membership support exists for collective bargaining purposes. This latter requirement is being eliminated. Essentially this means employees' rights to select a union of their choice will be compromised. Employees are being punished for the wrongdoings of their employer.

In summary, no study has been undertaken to indicate that proposed changes will effect positive change in the labour relations climate in the province of Ontario. The government's internal report entitled Assessing the Economic Impact of Labour Relations Act Reform Options, Ontario Ministry of Labour, November 1991, and the commissioned report by Noah Meltz both indicate further study is required to assess the economic impact of the proposed changes.

A cautious, informed approach is essential. Concern for economic recovery should receive priority over election commitments to any minority interest group. Now is not the the time to consider changes in the Labour Relations Act.

It was not our intent to comment in voluminous detail on all the proposed changes that relate to the problems but to concentrate on what we feel would be the major issues as we see them. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Offer, one and a half minutes.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you very much for your presentation. In the area of organizing as well as other areas you've spoken about some of the difficulties with the bill. I'm wondering if you can share with us your thoughts in the area of organizing on a secret ballot vote whereby workers would first be given information as to an organizing drive taking place, what it means to them to be able to cast their vote for or against at their place of employ and what your opinion is of that suggestion brought forward to this committee.

Mr Boehmer: While we didn't mention it in this submission, we did dwell on it in the report to the minister back a few months ago. We feel that a secret vote concept is one that would ensure that the democratic process would be adhered to. Especially now with the restrictions that are being considered, it makes it all the more important for people to be informed as to what the content of the process is and also to be able to vote in a secret ballot, and thereby the democratic process. I think that's very important.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Thank you for being here today. I've been asked to tell you that Elizabeth Witmer has had a death in the family, so I'm here representing her, but you are in her riding and she would like to have been here.

I guess the key question today, given the position you've put to us and the many questions that I think have to be fully debated -- and this is not a committee where we'd get an opportunity to debate these questions -- is whether you would be in agreement with a tripartite type of committee to look at the many issues you have raised. Obviously there's not the opportunity to ask you the questions I would like to ask you, and obviously, from the questions that are going on, I think people are backed into corners here and many are not looking for solutions.

Mr Boehmer: Can I just make a comment on that, Mr Chairman? It has been suggested, I think, by several other groups making presentations here that it go back to study and that there be an all-party committee, even to the point of being expanded to include other interest groups. I guess I go back to the Burkett study.

Mrs Cunningham: Yes.

Mr Boehmer: The intent there was to come up with a unified report, and I think we all know what happened. If further study is required and if indeed a committee is set up representing various interests and certainly the various parties in the House, any report that comes out must be by consensus; otherwise it'll end up like the Kevin Burkett report did, which is really quite meaningless.

Mrs Cunningham: In that regard, this committee in the last year has operated, I think, in that way. It may be interesting to see what kind of conclusion this particular group of individuals comes to. I can honestly say that we've certainly had other pending legislation before us and we have somehow been able to come to some sensible conclusion. There may be some hope. I don't know. It's not usual, but there may be. That's why I'm asking the question.

Your observation on further study, which has to do with the fact that there have been no impact studies done by the government, was only one aspect of my questioning, and the other one was because of your experience in your own community where you seem to be able to come to some conclusions at the chamber, sometimes when people disagree somewhat significantly over issues. You might have had something to offer here. That was an interesting one, a three-party committee looking at the issues one by one and solving them.

The other thing I'd like to say is thanks for the statistics you put in here. We were greeted yesterday with a couple of briefs --

The Chair: Your point is well made, Ms Cunningham. Mr Ferguson.

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): I want to thank both of you for taking the time to come down this morning. I just have two questions, but before I get to my questions, I want to advise you that I'm sure you recognize that strike data can be measured in a variety of ways. You've chosen one unit of measurement and that's the actual work stoppages. I want to share with you some other information and that's the actual number of days lost prior to the legislation being put in place in Quebec: 2.4 million days were lost over a 10-year period as opposed to 1.9 million after the legislation prohibiting replacement workers was put into place. There are about seven or eight different methods of measurement.

In your brief, you've made two very blanket statements. You stated that, "Employees are often coerced into voting for a strike early in bargaining so that the union can be seen during the bargaining process as having the employees' support." You also stated that often unions make promises to employees during an organizing campaign that they cannot keep. Can you share with the committee perhaps some local examples of where that might have happened?

Mr Boehmer: Speaking to the first point you made about the strike vote taken early on in the process, that happens frequently.

Mr Ferguson: What you said here is that employees are often coerced into voting for a strike early in the bargaining process. What types of coercion have you witnessed? I think it would be important to share that with the committee.

Mr Boehmer: As an in-house practitioner, it's fairly evident that the peer pressure that's exerted by the organized core group within, say, an industrial setting, but this would apply to any setting, does influence a lot of pressure for adherence to the direction that the committee wants to go. This happens in all kinds of subtle and not-too-subtle ways on the floor, and if you've been exposed to it, you know it's happening.

That's natural. In any group there is a core group, and every group does exert a degree of pressure on other elements within the membership. If anybody here has been a member of an organization -- I'm sure it happens within the political realm as well. To give you a specific element as it happened to this person and that person in that kind of setting, I'm not prepared to do that at this point, but having practised in the scene, I'm certainly well aware of it.

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, and the Chamber of Commerce of Kitchener-Waterloo, for taking the time to be here this morning and presenting your views on this matter. I trust you'll be following the progress of this bill. We appreciate your being here.

1030

BOARD OF TRADE OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO

The Chair: The next participant is the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, if they would please come forward, seat themselves, tell us who they are and what their titles are, if any, tell us what they will and try to save at least the last 15 minutes for questions and exchanges and dialogue. Please go ahead with your presentation.

Mr Tim Sargeant: My name is Tim Sargeant. I'm a lawyer with Shibley Righton. With me are Jim Noonan, a lawyer with McCarthy Tetrault; Dave Crisp, who is vice-president of human resources for the Bay; and Diane Barsoski, vice-president of human resources at the Globe and Mail.

We have decided not to give you a written brief on this matter, as it's some 45 pages long, and to do justice to all the concerns we have would not be possible. I think you've heard a lot of them anyway.

The board of trade, along with other employer groups, is opposed to the wide-sweeping effect of the proposals in Bill 40. We genuinely feel it will hurt investment in this province. Of course, along with other employers, we feel most of the proposals will not have the benefit the government is claiming; namely, less confrontational relationships, and on the other hand, increased productivity. What we all agree upon -- government, employers, union and non-organized employees -- is that it is a very difficult economic time for Ontario. These proposals will not help, in our view.

We should say that even if the economy were prosperous, we think these proposals are ill-advised. The government's own paper recognizes that corporate profits have decreased enormously. In its paper Ontario Economic Outlook, it is stated that another limiting factor in early return to healthy business investment is a record 63% decline in corporate profits since 1989. The paper also recognizes that total real business investment in Ontario fell an estimated 6.9% in 1991; further, that plant construction is not expected to surpass its 1989 peak during this forecast horizon, held back by high vacancy rates in commercial property and restructuring in the head office and financial services industry.

Again, in 1992, Ontario's real trade surplus is expected to decline further to only $4.3 billion as import growth outpaces export growth. We all know that bankruptcies and unemployment rates have all increased significantly. Further, it's estimated by some that unlike the recession in the early 1980s, when 75% of the jobs lost returned, this time 75% of the jobs may be permanently lost.

Given the government's own recognition of an economy in trouble, it is inconceivable how such a major reform to working relationships, one which has major economic implications, could be proposed without meaningful dialogue.

The process of presenting briefs that we have gone through in the last year we find basically inadequate, as no meaningful dialogue arose from those legitimate concerns. Here we are again in a brief 15-minute presentation on a proposed act we view with grave concern. There's no way. It has been held easy to label employers' concerns as "scaremongering." I think that is just unfair. We frankly resent the implication that somehow a business is a bad employer if it is not unionized and that government and unions are the only structures that protect employer-employee interests.

We obviously have concerns with many aspects of this act, and we will speak to a few of them. They are not in priority. I will ask my friends on my right and left to state some of those matters we are concerned with, but this is only a brief and we are concerned with the whole output. We really are amazed that a government that alleges collective bargaining as the cornerstone has proposed legislation that deeply affects the parties' ability to bargain collectively.

Finally, just as an introduction, we would note, given that this is a major reform package, that as far as we know, there is not one major proposal suggested by employers. Labour legislation supposedly is meant to be evenhanded. This surely is not.

Jim, you wanted to speak to a specific issue.

Mr James Noonan: I just want to address one issue, I hope fairly briefly, and that's the question I think was raised by Mr Offer in a question to the previous delegation having to do with automatic votes on certifications. Personally, I sort of take it as a barometer of what the intentions of this government are and whether its purported objective in this legislation is bona fide. Is this "labour reform" or nothing more than a political payoff to its union constituency?

I speak, as I say, about automatic votes on all certifications. It has been proposed by any number of employer groups. The question I always ask is, "Why not?" and indeed have asked that of ministry officials. The only answer we've gotten back from anybody in the government or anybody in the trade union movement is this shibboleth of improper employer influence on employees who might vote on an automatic certification to see whether they want a union or not.

With the greatest of respect for a government that purports to represent the interests of the working people of this province, that's a pretty paternalistic -- and I use the word advisedly -- attitude towards people's intelligence and knowledge in this province, to say they cannot exercise the right to vote in a proper way. That issue, for any of you who have anything to do with labour relations at all, of alleged improper employer influence was put to bed with Radio Shack back in the late 1970s.

Any time it's raised its ugly head since then, the labour relations board has had absolutely no hesitation in putting it to bed again. It's just a non-issue. It's an agenda this government and its trade union backers seem to have that's 20 years out of date. This new procedure on certification simply addresses issues that no longer exist in the labour relations community of this province. It's either abysmal ignorance on the part of this government or cynical opportunism of the worst kind, ladies and gentlemen, in my submission, for this government to refuse to address that concern of employers.

It works in Nova Scotia. It works with the National Labor Relations Board in the United States. Nobody from the employer community is suggesting that there be any period of time for propaganda or anything else. Get the issue out of the way once and for all.

As I said, the government's failure in this draft legislation to address that issue I read, quite frankly, as a barometer of its bona fides on whether it's talking about legitimate labour reform in this province. I am sick and tired, quite frankly, of being labelled as some kind of fearmonger because I am out there speaking against this legislation. That's a simplistic and improper way of characterizing the debate that's going on in this province.

I've practised labour law for 20 years in this province. I'm not some sort of union basher or union buster, but the government has simply failed to address the legitimate concerns in reform of this legislation on both sides of the table. I've nothing more to say.

Ms Diane Barsoski: One of the objects of Bill 40 is to prevent companies from operating during a strike. The fact is that it will be very difficult for some companies and impossible for others to operate. Larger operations, with more management and non-union personnel, will have a less difficult time operating during strikes than small businesses. This means some large businesses and many small businesses will either close during a strike or give in to unaffordable union demands. It's that simple. Either way, we will see closures in the result.

The simple question is, is this an appropriate economic strategy for Ontario? If the true concern is violence, we could consider enforcing the law. Cities which enforce the law, not surprisingly, experience less violence on the picket line.

Questions have been raised about the proposed requirement to have a 60% strike vote before the replacement provisions operate. The question is, isn't this requirement sufficient protection?

1. Currently, the vote requirement is 60% of those voting and there could be even less than 50% voting.

2. The vote is not by secret ballot: inappropriate and emotionally charged macho environment.

3. Frequently the vote is, in effect, a vote of confidence in the bargaining team far in advance of the strike, and that's a fact.

The question then becomes, how about a secret ballot vote, near the deadline, on the employer's last offer and with the requirement of a majority of those in the bargaining unit? The implication of this is that if a true majority of employees want to strike, then it's somehow acceptable to potentially cause the business to close, with the attendant effects on other union employees, management and non-union employees. Same question: Is this an appropriate strategy for Ontario?

1040

Another issue is, how could allowing non-union employees, employees in other bargaining units and managers to refuse to perform the work of striking employees not encourage the striking union to try to influence, intimidate and coerce those employees into not performing the work? Giving them an experience of violence could be quite effective in that regard, and there are examples of that.

How does this promote less violence and harmonious labour relations? Currently, there is no time limit after which the replacement worker prohibitions cease. Given that replacements for managers and non-union employees hired after notice to bargain has been given cannot then perform bargaining unit work, it seems only a matter of time when no company could continue to operate and the union must win simply as a result of attrition.

Finally, the bill will allow bargaining units to be amalgamated more or less at the request of the union, certainly without consulting the wishes of employees. I've made this point previously, but to reiterate, in my case, one bargaining unit, editorial, has more employees than the currently separate four other bargaining units combined. Amalgamation would mean that one group of employees, namely editorial, could vote for a strike even if every advertising, maintenance and circulation employee disagreed. That would also prevent those others from working.

Business is not overreacting in its concerns. Ontario's growing reputation as a province hostile to business and the rights of individuals is being quite legitimately earned day by day.

Mr David Crisp: I'll be very brief. One of the reasons we're all here is to indicate the breadth of businesses involved in the board of trade and how unified business is across the board in its approach. One of the issues the board is concerned about is the power of arbitrators. I won't go through all the remarks on this that you've heard, but I'll give you two examples.

As a trained counsellor myself and having worked with people who abuse alcohol over a number of years and with alcoholic counsellors, we've learned that as a key last-ditch effort to help some of those people, and I emphasize the word "help," it's often the last hold that you have to make it very clear to those individuals that they will lose their jobs if they do not seek and accept help. It has been a practice for parties in collective bargaining to agree that in those kinds of situations where the union and management work together to assist somebody, they would have the power to make an agreement that termination would be automatic and unreviewable by an arbitrator if this person does not attend the programs designated and cease drinking.

Under the current legislation, that's possible. Under Bill 40, if it were in place, that would not be possible because you're not allowed to make such an agreement taking that power of decision about termination away from the arbitrator. Therefore, one of the only routes to enforcing assistance on someone who desperately needs it, even after the parties have agreed that's the best route, is gone, and that's a very practical example of a power of an arbitrator that should not exist.

I'll take a second example from Quebec, where in a recent employment standards arbitration, the arbitrator stated in the response to the situation that he agreed that the woman we terminated had been stealing from us in an organized way, involving her family members to do so, but he felt that termination was too severe a penalty and put her back to work in a situation in which we could not prevent that type of fraud from recurring.

We appealed that and eventually the arbitrator's award was overturned in the Supreme Court, but it took us an enormous amount of money and time to achieve that result and it took the individual an enormous amount of money and time to end up with that answer that should have been relatively obvious at the outset.

Under Bill 40, that kind of scenario involves interim orders and powers of arbitrators to put people back to work. That individual would have been back in our employ, with that type of arbitrator, for the duration of whatever period it took us to get to the Supreme Court; it could be two or three years.

I've got lots of other examples, including examples I could give on the previous presentation's question of coercion during strike votes and so on. I won't go into those now, but I'm available for questions.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Jackson, four minutes. Leave some time for Ms Cunningham.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): In that case, I'll make just a brief observation. Both Mr Crisp and Ms Barsoski have extensive experience in teachers' collective bargaining, and it's unfair for anybody to suggest every time some organized group comes forward to express concerns about this bill that it should or could be stylized as being the narrow interests of business. These are people, at least the two individuals I have identified who are before us, who have extensive background and understanding. I personally have gone toe to toe with Ms Barsoski at the labour board and tested arbitrators' scope and it is not a pleasant experience; it is a protracted experience.

We should listen to the deputants, because their warnings are legitimate: We're protracting the processes of collective bargaining in this province; we're not compressing them and making them more fair and equitable. We're going to add to the conflict, especially by extending the powers of the arbitrators.

That was just a comment. I hope the committee listens to this panel's deputation carefully.

Mr Sargeant: Can I make one comment on that? Jim and I have both been in practice for 20 years. If anybody really legitimately thinks these arbitration processes are going to expedite matters, he is absolutely nuts. Jim and I are going to do well off these proposals.

Mrs Cunningham: I want to offer a correction. Previously, Mr Ferguson started playing with numbers. We'll thank Ms Barsoski for the data she provided us with yesterday, which we checked out. Clearly, if anything, things are worse in Quebec in every category, whether we talk about the number of conflicts, workers affected, number of days lost or, the one that was in question yesterday, the average duration. Clearly, we've had it analysed. The only data you had was for two years before 1978; we put 1978 in that category. We aren't able to get the same data for 1970 to 1975; we've tried. So I just wanted you to know. Thank you very much.

It's unfortunate, though, that these kinds of statistics have been manipulated improperly. They're definitely incorrect in the briefs we're reading; people out there really think the Quebec legislation is helpful when it comes to replacement workers and other aspects.

I don't know why when people come before this committee they don't suggest to this committee that everybody should be voting. I have no idea why in a workplace, when your job is at stake, you wouldn't first of all want to vote and be encouraged to vote, in fact by secret ballot, if you're concerned. I think we're all being too kind and none of us is representing workers out there by suggesting that people shouldn't have the opportunity to vote. When you say the majority of workers ought to be able to vote in this act, I say everybody should be voting in the act, and I wonder why everybody's being so kind. Is it because you want a sawoff with this bunch? We represent the public here, and workers. Why doesn't everybody get to vote?

Mr Noonan: If anybody is going to be affected and represented by a trade union, surely the very least entitlement he should have is a secret ballot vote to decide whether he wants that trade union to represent him, protected by all of the provisions of the Labour Relations Act from malicious conduct by the trade union and the employer. The board has done that. The board's done it for 15 years. Again, for this government not to include -- and that's just an example -- that kind of proposal for automatic certification votes, boy, you wonder why the employer community is jaundiced and sceptical about the bona fides of this piece of legislation. You need only go to examples like that.

1050

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Thank you for the presentation. It's nice to see at least two of you again today. You mentioned at the start of your presentation this morning that as far as you're concerned the process of submitting briefs and discussions doesn't work. I wonder if you're aware that at least six of your major concerns have been addressed since your briefings were presented to the minister.

Mrs Cunningham: Whoop-de-do. Look what's left.

Ms Barsoski: It would be our interpretation -- I'm sure we're free to list them -- that there've been some changes. Having said that, we would also say that there have been some things added which give us great trouble as well. So in our view we don't see much change.

Mr Noonan: That is simply a nonsensical question.

Mr Huget: Thank you.

Mr Noonan: With all respect, the report that originally came out from the labour side of the Burkett committee was absurd. When you take away 60% or 20% of absurdity and leave only 80%, are you supposed to get some credit for that?

Mr Huget: This is a much different document altogether than the Burkett report. There have been 10 major changes in direct response to business concerns.

Mr Noonan: There's an old adage --

Mr Huget: I was trying to ascertain why you felt you weren't listened to when in fact at least six of the issues you raised during your submissions have been addressed, modified or dropped. I wanted some clarification on the process not being effective, recognizing that I don't think anyone in life gets 100% of what he wants.

In terms of some of the allegations that are made around coercion of workers joining a union, you make the comment that the government is being paternalistic, absurd and now nonsensical. I find some of the comments around the allegations of coercion to be a little paternalistic, a little nonsensical and a little absurd.

I would like from you some examples of where that takes place. I have belonged to a union. I've worked in organizing campaigns. I've been organized myself and I have absolutely never in my life had any experience that resembles coercion, nor have I dealt with people who do not understand fully what it means to organize as a union worker. I'm a little confused by some of these allegations and if you could help clarify that for me, I'd appreciate it.

Mr Sargeant: Let me start, in the first place, on the 55% rule. You will find very few employees realize when they sign a card that it can be for automatic certification. You must know that as an organizer, because we have certainly found that in many cases.

Second, there are numerous cases in the OLRB where there has been coercion. As we've pointed out, there's been coercion by employers and coercion by unions. There's all kinds of recorded cases of those kinds of cases.

We're not advocating that the employer be given even those kinds of opportunities, but you say that if you have a free vote -- the board can set up a free vote almost automatically where there would be no opportunities for those kinds of things. It's a very difficult thing to explain to most employees, when the green card goes up, that by signing a card you have actually committed to a union.

Now you put a proposal in that you can't even petition against that unless you do it before the application goes up, which is obviously meaningless, because before the application goes up nobody knows anyway. Now you've got a system where even if a person legitimately changes his mind because he's informed that 55% will vote, he can't change his mind. I think that really smacks of paternalism. If you don't, you and I have an argument.

Mr Noonan: Just one quick point: What you're missing, with respect, in terms of the overall labour relations picture is that you still get, under our current system, employers believing that the employees really don't want a trade union. That carries over into bargaining, it carries over into the positions the parties take in bargaining. It's bad for the system.

Under the new proposal, that's going to get exacerbated. If you put an automatic vote into place, whether an employer likes a trade union or not becomes irrelevant. It's very hard for that employer to suggest that the trade union, if there's been an automatic vote, doesn't legitimately represent those employees. What you do is get a flow-through into the whole system that improves labour relations bargaining and conduct between the parties.

Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. Just as an opening comment, I think you should be aware that there are people who are coming before the committee with concerns about the legislation which would not fall within the business sector. We're hearing concerns, for instance, from children's aid societies, municipal hydro services, a variety of people who have concerns with certain aspects of the legislation; that in fact makes the point you brought forward to the committee.

I am pleased, really, that you've spoken about the power of the arbitrator and arbitration board. It's a matter which I've brought forward, and I have some real concerns about this because there are aspects of this legislation which allow the arbitrator to determine the real substance of the issue. To me this seems to be a strike against a due process which everyone somewhat takes as a given, and certainly I have some concerns in that area as well as with the scope and breadth of their authority.

But my question is not on that. It is on the issue which you have brought forward first, which I think you indicated was as a result of my first question to the first deputants, and that is the vote. The simple question is, what's the trigger? What percentage is it that triggers the vote? Are you suggesting, with your argument in favour of a vote, that the percentage remain at 40%, or are you suggesting that maybe that trigger point be reduced?

Mr Noonan: My response to that is that 50% seems reasonable, but I would expect most employers, to get that vote, would go as low as 40%. Let's let the employees decide. I think there should be evidence, and fair evidence, of a certain percentage of support rather than just a flyer. But in terms of numbers, why not 40%, which is what is proposed under the new legislation? I personally have no problems with that.

Mr Offer: I wanted to just ask that question. I thank you for your presentation. It's unfortunate that we're not able to deal with some other areas of concern with the legislation.

The Chair: The committee wants to thank the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto for coming here this morning, presenting its views and participating in this process. I trust that you'll be keeping in touch.

REPORTER EMPLOYEE ACTION COMMITTEE

The Chair: The next group is REACT, Reporter Employee Action Committee. Please seat yourselves, tell us who you are and what your status is with the committee. Try to save at least the last 15 minutes for exchanges and dialogue. Go ahead.

Mr Dirk Koehler: My name is Dirk Koehler and I'm here on behalf of REACT, which is an association of employees at the Cambridge Reporter.

On February 14, 1992, we made an oral presentation to the Minister of Labour in Kitchener. Our presentation was struck from the record by the minister. The minister apparently did not want to record any worker opposition to his discussion paper. I trust that this presentation this morning will not be struck from the record. If you can give me such assurance now, I will then proceed.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr Koehler: REACT represents a majority of the employees in a bargaining unit where the Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild has been the certified agent since April 1989. The union has not concluded a collective agreement in over three years, and our lives and livelihoods have been disrupted by this union. Through much of the hardship and abuse that we have endured by reason of our choice to not be represented by a union, we have joined together now with the sole purpose of decertifying the union.

1100

I'm here today to show you why we feel that some of the provisions in Bill 40 are totally unacceptable, inappropriate and ill-conceived. The sole purpose of these provisions seems to be to serve the interests of unions and not working people in Ontario. Therefore, this is an agenda for unions, not people.

Certain of these provisions such as the replacement worker restrictions even infringe upon our right to attend to our regular and honest work.

But first I would like to share with you our recent experience with this trade union and the trade union supporters.

In April 1989 the newspaper guild was certified to represent the full-time employees of the Cambridge Reporter in advertising, editorial, business office and circulation departments with about 55 full-time employees. It was later discovered that the guild needed three attempts to certify and that it used suspicious and unsavoury tactics to do so, a less than admirable basis from which to develop a trusting and mutually beneficial relationship.

If I might borrow from the current Labour Relations Act, I'll describe to you what the guild did. The guild induced employees of the Cambridge Reporter to sign union cards by making false representations to them knowingly, recklessly and without belief in the truth of these representations. In short, we believe the guild committed fraud.

They did this when they obtained several signatures on company time and property, they told employees that their salaries would double, they told people there would be no risk involved and that there would never be a strike, they told some workers that the only way to get certain information was to join the union, and several more workers were purposefully neglected because the union identified them incorrectly as company spies or management toadies.

I was one of these workers. I was later called a scab by the same union that pretends to represent me. I was called this because I chose not to join the union and to instead perform my regular and honest work. I will not and never will be ashamed of performing an honest day's work for an honest day's pay.

They accomplished certification by spreading lies and by withholding information that would allow workers to make an informed and educated decision on union membership.

To this date 10 employees who joined the union have come forward to raise their concerns about the manner in which the union conducted the organizing drive. There is no way of knowing how many more employees were deceived, misinformed or ill-informed.

This situation could have easily been overcome by a free vote in an open campaign between the union and its opponents at the time of certification.

On October 17, 1991, nearly two years after certification, the guild asked employees for a strike mandate by conducting a strike vote. This, again, was contrary to their promises at the time of organizing. The vote was not fairly conducted. Some union members who were not present were allowed to vote by phone in favour of the strike mandate. Other employees who were not members and who were not present, including myself, and who had stated by legal proxy their opposition to a strike, were denied the opportunity to a vote.

Forty-three votes were counted; 38 employees from the paper were present. If this took place in a Third World country, it might be regarded as normal. This type of ballot-box stuffing is not acceptable in the rest of Canada, so why would it be acceptable in Ontario labour relations? In how many other cases does this go unreported? We need a government-supervised vote at times of certification and strike.

Our contention is that the union did not have an honest majority in favour of a strike. If the legislation had required a supervised secret ballot vote, then the union would never have received a strike mandate.

However, on November 8, 1991, 27 union members, approximately 55% of the bargaining unit and only 25% of all employees at the paper, began a strike. Another 23 employees in the bargaining unit chose not to strike and to cross the picket line to perform their regular duties.

Time today does not allow for me to begin to describe to you the atrocities, the violence, the vandalism, the terrorism and the denial of the right to peace and security of personal property that took place all in the name of industrial peace and harmonious relations, but I will attempt it.

During the strike, those of us who continued to perform our regular duties were continually harassed, threatened and assaulted, and our cars and homes were vandalized and we were called scabs.

Personally, I've had four flat tires, two during the strike and two following the strike. One night three strikers came to my home at 2 am and urinated on my back door. In addition to this, my wife and I received many unflattering phone calls at all hours of the day and night. I was shoved around, intimidated and assaulted several times. I hope you get the picture.

Unfortunately, many innocent bystanders were also subjected to the union-initiated violence and vandalism, and on one occasion my wife even received a flat tire courtesy of the guild. One striking union member later told me that he was coached on how to flatten tires, vandalize and create a nuisance by top union officials. I found it extremely distasteful that our own local MPP would sympathize with these common vandals.

What is in Bill 40 to protect regular, honest workers, innocent bystanders and the public from this sort of violence, vandalism and civil disobedience? Picket line activity does not justify violence, vandalism and civil disobedience, never has and never will.

We were not scabs or replacement workers. We had a fundamental right to go to work. Yet we were painted by the union as scab labourers. Why does Bill 40 seek to restrict my right to attend to my regular duties?

During all of this, the union filed and won first-contract arbitration. The order for arbitration was issued in April; we still do not have an agreement. It is my understanding that our opportunity to decertify the union, which has been the author of our discomfort these last months and years, is being delayed by the lack of an agreement. The minimum term of this first agreement will be two years, so decertification will take place six years after certification, and I'll bet the union claims that it needs more time to establish a relationship, when in fact what it needs is honesty and ethics from the outset. The legislation must require that unions be honest and ethical at all times and not just in the eyes of union sympathizers.

After the strike ended in March of this year we all breathed a collective sigh of relief. We thought that maybe things could go back to normal and that maybe now we could bring out the truth and decertify the union; this was not the case. Tension was everywhere. The union continues to this day to abuse us. The picket line violence and attitude had moved from the street to the office.

On April 8, 1992, out of sheer frustration, 30 employees of the Cambridge Reporter -- an honest majority -- staged a sit-in. We refused to work. We asked to speak to our guild representative. She refused to talk to us. However, she did find time to talk to the local media, where she dismissed our actions as "nothing more than a collective temper tantrum." After several stressful hours and dozens of phone calls to local media, we were finally recognized by the union. They agreed to meet with a small delegation from our group.

Two days later we met. We asked for a representation vote by secret ballot. The union flatly rejected this. We then raised our concerns about the integrity of the certification documentation and about the unlawful strike vote. They denied any wrongdoing and suggested only the passage of time would heal the wounds. It is unfortunate that the wounds were inflicted by the union in the first place, and that the union would not now accept responsibility for the harm and damage caused. They said, "Give us two years, and things will improve." As I've noted above, it's going to take a lot longer than that, so this was yet another union lie. The picket line violence and attitude which has moved from the street to the office continues to this day.

On March 20, 1992, we filed a decertification application with the labour board. The labour board rejected our application not once but twice, the first time on a technicality and the second time by a two-one decision and without even hearing our evidence. We believe that the labour board was afraid that the truth would cause the union to be decertified.

The bottom line here is that we have a growing majority of people who don't like or want this union. But we don't even have a first contract yet, so here we are today, three years later, certified under fraudulent conditions, harassed and abused for going to work, ignored and denied justice by a government body and with the prospect of at least two more years of harassment and abuse by a fraudulent, self-serving organization which is outnumbered two to one.

It is from our experiences that we have formulated the following recommendations. Bill 40 makes it easier to certify a union, so where is the counterbalance here to make the opportunity to decertify clear and well defined? Decertification should be made easier and made timely, one year after certification. If the union has the support of the employees, it has no risk in a free vote. If they have been fair and honest, they'll have nothing to worry about.

Bill 40 does not increase the union's accountability in representing employee interests. This must be remedied.

1110

Subsections 73.1(1) through (4), dealing with replacement worker restrictions, say that if a majority of 60% vote to strike, "The employer shall not use the services of an employee in the bargaining unit..." In our experience, the union only needs to stuff the ballot box with a few more phone calls. We do not, and never will, trust the union to conduct a fair and honest vote. This must be remedied.

The replacement worker restriction should not restrict any employee in the bargaining unit. If it is my responsibility to attend to my regular duties and provide an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, why does a decision that I do not agree with make my regular work illegal? My right to work is being taken away to support another person's decision to not work. Not only is this unjust but it begs for an explanation. Why is the right to strike more important than the right to work? How does not working keep the economy going?

Don't restrict me. Control the process, not the outcome. If I don't go to work and if I don't have my regular income, who's going to pay for my regular obligations and meet my basic needs? I'll go on record this morning as saying that I will be going to work without regard for Bill 40.

Certification, strike votes, ratification votes and access to first-contract arbitration must be by secret ballot, free of any allegation of coercion or intimidation. They should be well publicized and monitored by an independent party. Any sign of non-compliance with these provisions should automatically be remedied by a subsequent vote. Once again, if the union is honest and fair, it'll have nothing to worry about.

Tougher laws must be enacted to eliminate picket line and union-sponsored violence and vandalism. Termination of employment is a reasonable response to acts of violence and vandalism. Only persons employed by the company at the time of a strike should be allowed to demonstrate on a picket line. Unions should not be allowed to hire professional goons and bullies whose sole intention is to assault people, vandalize cars and homes and create a nuisance. Non-employees should not be allowed to picket.

It should be made easier for employees to go before the labour board without representation from a trade union or a lawyer. The board should not take the attitude that all employees need or want a trade union. It should not overlook the needs of employees for any reason simply because they don't have the legal knowhow to twist the labour law to work for them. The rights and wishes of employees should always outweigh the interests of the union.

In certification, a union should be restricted to one attempt in a 24-month period. It should not be permitted to drag the process out or make several attempts until it finally happens to receive 51%.

The certification process should be more open and democratic, thereby enabling all employees to make an informed and educated decision. Bill 40 seems to promote certification as a covert activity rather than an open process. Covert activity does not create harmonious relations.

In first-contract arbitration where support of the union is questioned by employees, those employees who question the union support should be allowed separate representation in the case of arbitration. In our case at the Cambridge Reporter, over half the employees do not support the union. We do not believe our interests are fairly represented by an organization which has sought to terrorize us over the course of a strike.

As I have presented to you this morning, we have endured much hardship and abuse as a result of choosing not to be represented by a union, and we are faced with at least two more years of this. We are concerned that our rights will be lost to the union, not because it is right but because it refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of our choice. Bill 40 in its present form will provide us with absolutely no relief and may even create further obstacles.

Today we have an opportunity to make some meaningful and progressive changes which will increase fairness and equality in the workplaces, changes which assure the individual of the right to choose and the right to work. These changes will go a long way to assuring that other workers in Ontario might not have to endure the hardship and abuse we have faced for exercising our fundamental right to freedom of association.

Earlier, I asked you for your assurance that this presentation not be struck from the record. I will now ask that you demonstrate your commitment to your obligations as elected officials responsible to the workers of this province by accepting and recommending for implementation these recommendations.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Thank you very much for coming. I just want to go back to your February 14 submission in the consultation period. Just for my information, I'd like to know if you had applied to make an appearance before the committee.

Mr Koehler: We made a phone call and we spoke to someone from the minister's office. That person told us that all the time slots were taken and that the only way to get a time slot was to change with another company, so that's exactly what we did. We feel that we didn't do anything wrong and, quite frankly, we're still baffled at why our presentation was struck from the record.

Mr Jackson: You were set up.

Mr Koehler: Basically yes.

Mrs Cunningham: They didn't --

Ms Murdock: If you don't mind, I think it's my time. You can use your time.

The Chair: One moment, please. I am indifferent as to whether two or three or four people talk at the same time. However, the people who translate the proceedings and the people who have to transcribe this for Hansard are very concerned about two or three or four people talking at the same time, and out of fairness to them, if not out of fairness to each other, people should please not talk simultaneously. Wait until the other person is finished. Go ahead, Ms Murdock.

Ms Murdock: The general policy, and I'm sure it must have been said on the day you were there, was that there were no substitutions because of the numbers that wanted to appear.

Mr Koehler: That's not what we were told, though.

Ms Murdock: I am just wondering, though, to go to some of the statements that you have made, how exactly, in terms of a vote, would you see it working?

Mr Koehler: In which case?

Ms Murdock: On a certification vote.

Mr Koehler: Once the signatures have been obtained, why not just have a vote by secret ballot, monitored by an independent party to make sure that the whole process is fair. That's all we're asking.

Ms Murdock: Would you then, in order to make sure that the process is fair, have lists of the workers supplied to the union organizers so that they would have contact in order to get the --

Mr Koehler: Exactly. In our case --

Ms Murdock: Are you saying yes? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

Mr Koehler: A list of what, all the employees who are in the bargaining unit?

Ms Murdock: In order to get the cards signed. Would you agree to that as being fair?

Mr Koehler: I'm sorry, I don't follow what you're saying.

Ms Murdock: The whole point of the secret ballot vote, which has been stated a number of times, is, on the whole, an attitude of fairness and of having everybody informed in making a decision. In order to do that, you're still asking the union organizers to go and get cards signed up to whatever percentage, which no one has any basic agreement on. What I'm saying is, in order to be fair then, would you also agree that it would be fair that the union organizers would have their names and addresses supplied to them by the company in order that they would have fair access to the workers, equivalent to at least that of the employer?

Mr Koehler: I've never given it much thought. I don't know.

Ms Murdock: You must have. You've spent a lot of time on this and I would think that you should have.

Mr Koehler: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that the union supporters should get lists of all the employees at the paper or --

Ms Murdock: The union organizer, the one who is trying to, in order to get the cards signed --

Mr Koehler: In our case, they just came right into the company, on to the property and had cards signed right there and then. I really don't think it would make a difference anyway --

Ms Murdock: In your particular instance?

Mr Koehler: Yes. That's all I can speak of really. That's the only experience I have.

Ms Murdock: Just on a final point: Obviously you spent a lot of time thinking about unions and anti-unions, whichever the case may be.

Mr Koehler: I've been forced to actually.

Ms Murdock: Would you not agree that, historically certainly, the unions have been of benefit throughout this country, let alone this province?

Mr Koehler: Sure. I don't deny that there are situations where a union is needed and where it would be beneficial. In our case it certainly isn't. It's caused us a lot of headaches.

Ms Murdock: And this legislation, you do recognize, would have to cover the entire province, as it has done for the last 40 years, the amendments to the Labour Relations Act?

Mr Koehler: These are basic amendments that I --

Ms Murdock: It can't deal with specific kinds of situations like that.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Murdock.

Mr Koehler: All we're asking for is fairness in this process.

1120

Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I am sure that the writing of this presentation, as it involved a matter which was very personal to yourself, was not very easy to do. None the less, I think you should be aware that the experience which you have had is, I think, important for the committee to be aware of as we deliberate this bill.

I listened very closely to the question between Ms Murdock and yourself because it was really on the area that I was going to ask a question on, and I will ask the question. To me, it's not a matter as to whether one is better than the other -- that in essence, one workplace, whether it is unionized or not, is better than the other -- but rather whether the workers within that place have freedom to make that choice. I don't know if it's really up to us in this room to decide which is better. It is really up to the workers in the workplace, on their experience, to make that decision.

My question to you is, is that the essence of your concern, that there should be a freedom of the worker, for him or for her to make that decision in his or her opinion?

Mr Koehler: Yes, if I can be short with that.

Mr Offer: That answers my question.

Mr Koehler: I think the process just has to be cleaned up. Everything that I've put forward this morning is just dealing with being honest and fair, and if unions have a problem with that, then so be it, but what's wrong with being honest and fair?

Mr Offer: That answers my question, thank you.

Mr Jackson: Dirk, thank you for what is obviously a difficult brief to present. When one reads it or listens to your presentation, one gets a sense that you've been badly abused by a system. I want to ask you personally, how do you feel about a government that seems to be blind to these kinds of concerns? You're a worker, you're an individual in society, yet your concerns are not being listened to. In fact we've heard deputations from the government side that your stories are, quite literally, fabrications. How do you feel about that, that a government just refuses to even listen to these concerns?

Mr Koehler: A lot of people who belong to REACT, including myself, feel that it's like we don't expect anything more from this government because it hasn't listened to us from the beginning. On top of that, they're putting forth legislation that's going to make it harder for us to continue to go to work and to not be abused. So we can have no option here but to feel distrust, I guess, dismay and just basic frustration.

Mr Jackson: In your presentation you describe atrocities, violence, vandalism, terrorism, denial of your right to peaceful enjoyment of your home and property. How do you feel about a government, Bob Rae's NDP government, literally condoning this form of violence with legislation which in fact promotes it even further?

Mr Koehler: I, like probably the rest of the workers in Ontario, don't feel too good about it.

Mr Jackson: It's interesting that you support the secret ballot.

Mr Koehler: Sure.

Mr Jackson: And we had a presentation --

Ms Murdock: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: There has never been any indication that Bob Rae and his NDP government have ever condoned such behaviour, and I want it clearly --

Mr Koehler: Why isn't it in Bill 40?

Ms Murdock: There has never been, and I take exception to Mr Jackson's comments.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Jackson.

Mr Jackson: I would for the record, though, remind you that on at least one occasion the Premier stood in the House on the case of an incident with a member of his caucus being incarcerated and said that under certain circumstances it was okay to break the law. So the Premier is on record as condoning breaking the law under certain circumstances of conviction, and frankly, as socialists, there's no stronger conviction than the right of workers to organize. In the incidents that you've shared with this committee, those incidents can form violent behaviour, harassment or physical abuse, and that's been well documented.

The point I was raising before I was interrupted by Mrs Murdock was this notion of democracy and the several principles that underlie it. A secret ballot is one of them. When Leo Gerard was before us, he indicated that first of all a secret ballot is a very narrow view of democracy. How do you, as a citizen, feel when Bob Rae and his government would warp the principles of democracy for you as a worker in the process to certify, or your free right to decide not to certify, when you're denied the basic civil liberty of a secret ballot for your own personal protection to avoid your being identified, branded as a scab, urinated on and violated and so on and so forth, which has been your experience?

Mr Koehler: I guess it makes us feel better that here we have an opportunity to make some good changes. It seems to me that the government is going the other way. How can we not feel frustrated here? Nobody wants to go through the abuse or suffer the abuse we've had to go through, and the only reason I'm here today is so that hopefully more workers in Ontario aren't going to have to go through with it. If Bill 40 is passed in its current form it's going to happen, and then it's going to have more serious ramifications down the line.

Mr Jackson: It's interesting that you're still unresolved and that the ministry seems not to be in a position to help resolve the impasse that's occurred at your workplace. It would be interesting for this committee to find out how this legislation will overlay or impact on the current difficulties experienced at the Cambridge Reporter. I am at a loss to understand that, but I think it would be interesting if we could share with the deputant, if there is somebody here from the ministry who could indicate, if this legislation is implemented, what impact that will have on the current impasse in the current requests to decertify. Is there anybody here from the ministry who can respond to that?

Mr Koehler: I think I can speak on that.

The Chair: Ministry people will be here down the road when this committee meets in Toronto in its fifth week.

Mr Jackson: It's unfortunate that the minister, Mr Mackenzie, has seen fit not to provide this committee with representation from the Ministry of Labour so that we can have answers to questions. I find that extraordinary and unusual for a chairman of a committee. Normally we have someone from the ministry at our disposal to respond to those questions.

Mr Koehler: I'd like to make a quick comment.

The Chair: Do you want to respond to that?

Mr Koehler: Yes, I do.

The Chair: Go ahead. Respond to it.

Mr Koehler: In two years, when we go to decertify -- if it's two years; it'll probably be three or four or who knows how long it's going to take -- and we have a ratification vote or a representation vote or whatever -- I don't even know what the process is -- who is to say that the union's not going to stuff the ballot boxes again? I mean, we have this union outnumbered two to one right now and our contention is that we did right from the outset.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr Ferguson, quickly.

Mr Ferguson: I just have one question. This all started back in 1989 -- is that correct? Right -- and you're dealing under the present legislation. I note in your brief of seven pages that you spent about five pages outlining the severe shortcomings of the present legislation. Isn't that correct?

Mr Koehler: Well, a lot of them were caused by dishonesty --

Mr Ferguson: Yes, and all that.

Mr Koehler: -- and bad faith on the part of the union.

Mr Ferguson: You say then that the present legislation has some severe shortcomings.

Mr Koehler: Yes. I think it's only obvious.

The Chair: Mr Koehler, the committee thanks you for being here this afternoon and appreciates your taking the time to present your views. Thank you, sir.

1130

ONTARIO PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARDS' ASSOCIATION
METROPOLITAN TORONTO SCHOOL BOARD

The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, if they'd please come forward, seat themselves in front of a microphone, give us their names and tell us their titles. We have half an hour. People, please try to save the second half of that half-hour for exchanges and dialogue and questions. Please be seated and commence with your submission. Your written brief is being distributed, and all members of the committee, I am confident, will read it. Go ahead.

Mr Bruce Stewart: Members, this brief is now being presented by the Ontario Public School Boards' Association and the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. I will turn over to Paula Dunning, who is the president of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association.

The Chair: And the other person with you?

Ms Mae Waese: I'm Mae Waese and I'm chair of the Metro Toronto School Board.

Ms Paula Dunning: I'd just like to begin with a few introductory comments. As you've just been told, my name is Paula Dunning and I'm president of OPSBA, representing our 93 member boards this morning.

We're joining with the Metropolitan Toronto School Board for this presentation as our views and concerns about the legislation before you are similar.

In addition to Mae Waese and Bruce Stewart, who are here with me at the front table, we have with us Rod Budd, who's the chief negotiator for the Metropolitan Toronto board and the area boards of Metropolitan Toronto; Mike Benson, who's the executive director of OPSBA, and Janet Beer, who's the director of labour relations for OPSBA. They may be called upon later on if you have questions that we think they can best answer.

We have, as an association, some serious concerns about the practical impact of Bill 40, particularly with respect to the replacement worker proposals. While Mr Stewart will be dealing with the technical aspects of those concerns, I'd like to briefly put them in context for you.

The current fiscal climate in Canada has put unprecedented pressures on all levels of government, but nowhere more than at the local school board level. The provincial share of education funding has continued to shrink during the recession, following a trend which we had been experiencing for more than a decade.

As a result, school boards across the province are faced with particularly difficult budgeting challenges. Despite deep and painful cuts during the budget process in 1992, most school boards found their expenses increasing by about 5 1/2% this year, within a percentage point of the rate of inflation but well in excess of the 1% increase in unconditional provincial grants. As you well know, local taxpayers are in no condition or mood to pay more, yet the burden of this funding dilemma has fallen on their shoulders.

Since 85% of school board operating expenses are salaries and benefits, fiscal conditions have placed the collective bargaining process under considerable pressure. In addition, Ontario's school boards have become increasingly complex structures. Each board typically has six or more bargaining units. This means that in any bargaining year, there are six potential contracts and six possible disagreements.

Our problem with Bill 40 is the potential of a strike action in one bargaining unit to jeopardize the continued operations of the board in its ability to serve students. This is a problem we share with other employers in multi-union environments, and it is exacerbated by the current fiscal climate which may contribute to greater than average difficulty in reaching settlements. It's of particular concern as well to the education sector at a time when public expectation of consistent, uninterrupted, quality program delivery is growing.

In general, our concerns with Bill 40 centre on our conviction that many of its provisions, far from promoting harmony in labour relations, will create an atmosphere of increased confrontation. Mr Stewart will outline our specific concerns with the replacement worker portion of the bill, but first Mae is going to speak on behalf of the Metro Toronto board and the seven operating boards in Metropolitan Toronto.

Ms Waese: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the committee and to present our views and express our concerns regarding the legislation.

Unlike other boards that are members of OPSBA, the Metro Toronto School Board and the seven operating area boards in Metropolitan Toronto do not receive operating funds from the provincial government; or as it is more euphemistically stated, we are in a negative grant position and receive absolutely no funding.

The seven operating boards and the Metro Toronto School Board educate 278,000 pupils in this Metropolitan area, approximately one quarter of the pupils in the province. To do this, we employ about 32,000 persons, including approximately 13,000 employees covered by the Labour Relations Act.

As you know, our teaching employees, with some exceptions, are covered by the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, normally referred to as Bill 100. At the present time, approximately 90% of our employees in the eight boards are unionized, with 45 bargaining units covering about 30,000 employees. As an illustration of the complexity of bargaining, one board, the Toronto board, has 17 bargaining units. In Metro our bargaining is further complicated by the fact that funds are raised at the Metro level and shared equitably among the operating boards. Because of this method of financing, the Metropolitan Toronto School Board endeavours to coordinate bargaining by the seven area boards among the unions covered by the Labour Relations Act.

As you know, the teaching negotiations are centralized in a committee of the Metro boards under the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. The boards have supported the introduction of legislation by this and previous governments in the fields of pay equity, employment equity and human rights. For example, the boards have committed in excess of $25 million per annum to the implementation of pay equity.

We approach this proposed legislation in the same spirit. We are not here to oppose advances in social justice. At this stage of the legislative process, we are of the view that our efforts rather should be devoted to improving or fine-tuning Bill 40. With this in mind, our comments are not to criticize the government for the bill's introduction but rather to identify practical problems with the legislation, particularly those aspects governing the replacement worker and the way in which these restrictions on replacement workers would impact on our schools and students.

I also would now turn the balance of the presentation over to our legal counsel, Mr Stewart, to address these specific concerns which the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and the area boards of education in Metro Toronto have with the legislation.

Mr Stewart: Thank you very much, Mae. Members, good morning. I've got good news for you; I'm not going to read the brief. But when you want to read the brief at some future time, the parts I'm going to deal with now are summarized on pages 4 and 5 and further elucidated at pages 8 to 18.

What we want to deal with is the replacement worker provisions. As Mae has just said, we're not concerned here with attacking the principles of the legislation. For a few moments with us this morning, we'd like you to visualize how this is going to impact.

The important fact to realize first of all, as is set out at pages 8 and 9 of our brief -- I'd ask you particularly to look at page 9; this is in the Metro school board brief -- the bargaining units in the average school board are very complex. For example, we have, generally speaking, about six teacher bargaining units, which normally break down into about two units for purposes of bargaining, elementary and secondary. In addition, in most school boards we have anywhere from four up to -- I hope it's the extreme with the Toronto board -- 17 bargaining units. Obviously if anyone has had experience with labour relations, and I'm sure many of you have, you know there are serious problems, when you have that many bargaining units, if one of them goes on strike, and the impact on others.

I think one of the difficulties with this legislation is that it was framed with a view of the average industrial plant. I can understand that. I make no criticism of that point, because there, normally, you have a single plant unit and sometimes an office clerical unit. That's usually the sum and substance of it, so the bargaining, shall we say, is confined at the most to two or maybe three bargaining units.

But as we set out on page 9, we often have in Ontario a separate unit for clerical staff, a separate unit for custodial staff, a separate unit for teachers' aides, a separate unit for professional people -- these wouldn't be teachers; these would be social workers, attendance counsellors, that type of person -- and then sometimes we have a separate unit for bus drivers, for example.

What I would like to do with you this morning is to take you through what I hope is not an extreme case and what I also hope never occurs. But I'd like you to just think for a moment and come with me as we experience a bus drivers' strike in Niagara South.

There's a bus driver strike of the Niagara South board. Those bus drivers in that board are represented by a separate union, and they go on strike. They go on strike because they want more than the 1% the other unions for other units accepted. They want to catch up. It's a new idea; you may have heard it before.

Our problem is, how do we get the pupils to school, because in Niagara South, probably 75% -- I don't know this is a fact, but in your own experience in other boards, probably 75% -- of the pupils are bused to schools. There's a strike. We have all those teachers waiting to teach, all those custodians waiting to custode etc. They're all waiting to do the things they're paid for, but we've got to get the kids to the schools.

There aren't enough supervisors to drive the buses, and of course it could only be the supervisors employed under this proposed legislation, employed at the actual location where the buses are kept or where they're working in the school system. So recognizing the problems, we have 20 teachers volunteering to drive those buses; we have also 15 parents volunteering to drive those buses and 15 CUPE members volunteering to drive those buses, because they'd like to make sure people keep working, the custodians, maintenance people etc.

1140

They find out, unfortunately, that they can't do that because under the proposed legislation other employees can't drive the buses. There's just an absolute prohibition. They can't even go out and get chauffeurs to drive the buses or contract with a busing company to do it. They can't get parent volunteers to drive the buses. On one interpretation of the legislation, I think it would be fair to say that the school board could not organize parent pools to chauffeur the pupils because that would be seen as getting volunteers to in fact do the work of the bargaining unit.

Each of those situations I've described to you is unlawful under the proposed legislation. You can imagine the impact on the local community. They will be so enraged -- they'll probably be initially enraged at the local school boards, who will quickly divert their attention to where the rage should be directed, which would be to this piece of legislation, that they are helpless to do anything about it.

We recognize, coming before you, that it's part of our adversarial system of bargaining that, if you have a strike, things stop. We have no trouble with that. Notice I have not suggested for a moment -- in terms of the teachers going on strike I don't think there's ever been a school board in Ontario that's attempted to operate.

We understand the non-operation. What we are concerned with is the multiplicity of units and the impact if any one of those goes on strike. What we are putting forward for your consideration is the suggestion -- I've set it out at the bottom of page 12 of the school board brief and it appears in OPSBA's brief the same way -- that without gutting this legislation or this proposal, you could put in a condition that the prohibition as to the use of replacement workers would not operate where it impacted on the closing of a school or schools.

There's another aspect of this, too, that I think is being ignored. Quite apart from the impact on the pupils, there's the impact on all those other workers because, in the situation I described -- and believe me, it is not unusual, the type of bargaining unit structure I mentioned -- 5% of the striking employees could cause a school board, ultimately, to have to lay off the other 95% of the workers while the terms of the resolution were worked out.

It's this multiplicity of units where I think this replacement worker legislation, with respect, needs some attention. There has to be some sort of reason on this point. There has to be a point where the spirit of the legislation, if it's the will of the Legislature that people shan't work while there's a strike, is maintained. At the same time, where the ramifications of that are so horrible, so unnecessary -- that is, that all the people will have to be laid off, that schools aren't functioning -- we come to you not in a spirit, which I have seen in the newspapers recently, of adversity and antagonism but really to say: "Do you want this to occur? Is this your intention?"

We suggest that amendments should be considered along the lines we put at the bottom of page 12 of our brief. Indeed, you could have an amendment to the replacement worker provision which -- there are already some exceptions in there covering danger to life, safety and health which could be extended to schools and, if that's asking too much, to the provision of public education. We hope you'll give that some consideration.

There are some other points in the replacement worker legislation we'd like to comment on briefly. This appears at page 13 of the Metro school board brief. The way the legislation is currently drafted, only management personnel who are employed at the actual struck location can perform the work of the striking employees. Now, in a multilocation public employer like a municipality or a school board, that doesn't work very well.

Here in Metropolitan Toronto we have thousands in schools, easily. That would mean the manager at that location. What does that mean, the principal and vice-principal? Can you imagine them running the heating systems? Unless they've changed since the last time I looked, I can't imagine that happening. So there is the possibility of casual shutdowns occurring through perhaps an unnecessarily restrictive ability to respond. Again we say, why wouldn't you allow managers employed in all the school board to perform this work if it is going to be so narrowly construed?

Similarly, we have a particular problem. We go into this on pages 13 and 14. We have, in Ontario -- and you know the word -- supply teachers. They're the people you used to have fun with when they came in when the teachers were away. They're called occasional teachers. For some strange reason, which doesn't concern us now, they are covered by the Labour Relations Act, not Bill 100. It's a strange situation. However, under the legislation, if the occasional teachers, who are represented by trade unions, go on strike then we have a class with an occasional teacher not there and we have regular classroom teachers who, under most collective agreements, may be asked, in the absence of an occasional, to fill in. We can't do that under this legislation.

Interjection: That isn't right.

Mr Stewart: It isn't right. That's a correct statement. It isn't right and that's what we're saying. That is the job. Under our collective agreements with regular classroom teachers, they have agreed that if we can't get an occasional teacher for whatever reason, they will do that work. So there again we say, is that really necessary? Are the ends of the legislation so special that even that situation can't be addressed? We would draw that to your attention.

On page 16, point 4 is one that I think should cause you some concern. The way the legislation is drafted now, let's say you had this bus driver union again, 75 bus drivers in a school board with 1,000 employees. Let's assume the strike could be lawful and the workers have voted more than 60% to strike. The union, however, is making progress at the bargaining table -- it's been heard of -- and decides to defer the strike -- not an usual situation. They're going to try to bargain some more, and four or five members of the union don't like that initiative. They go on strike. Okay, they can do it; it's lawful, the strike's lawful. The unions can do it, please believe me. As a result, the other members under this legislation cannot work. Ask the Ministry of Labour in due course. That is the result of this legislation.

We think that's unnecessary and we're suggesting here that at least the same 60% who are required to vote for a strike should be on strike before this prohibition comes into effect.

On page 17, I have a point I'll mention briefly and that's the question of volunteers. Our schools are full of volunteers. They're doing all sorts of things. As far as I'm aware, the teacher unions and other unions aren't concerned. They see that as an assistance aligned with the communities. We would ask that volunteers be permitted, so far as the school boards are concerned, during strikes, to continue with their functions, whatever they are, without interference with this prohibition.

Finally, the specified replacement worker, as it's called under the legislation, pages 17 and 18 of our brief: We would ask that the legislation should state that the school boards have the right to use specified replacement workers or the right to retain contractors if the people who have agreed to be specified replacement workers don't agree subsequently to continue to work.

There are other matters we could address in the legislation. We have them in our brief, but I think I heard the chairman say that you were all required to read our briefs, so I'll take that as a given.

1150

Interjection: He quizzes us every evening.

Mr Stewart: Yes, I can imagine. Unless there are other comments from the associates with me, Mae or Paula, those are our submissions.

Ms Dunning: No, I think you've covered that pretty well.

Mr Offer: I'll be very brief. Thank you for the presentation. I think the presentation itself puts to rest the assertion that those who have concerns with this legislation are only from the business community. I am hopeful that members of the government have listened very carefully to the concerns you've brought forward.

I want to deal with two areas, one of which you dealt with exhaustively, and that was the issue of replacement workers. It seems to me that if, for instance, in a school system the bus drivers go on strike, which may very well be their right, under this legislation there would be no opportunity, whether by prohibition or by exemption, for the school system to attempt to replace those bus drivers. In school systems where a vast majority of kids are transported, it in essence closes down the system. I would like to get a verification of that.

Second, I would like to find out what happens even for those children who are taken to school by their parents or whatever. How are they picked up? What happens at the end of the day?

Third, there's a provision in this bill which would allow picketing and organizing on private property. I know you have a concern with that and I think we would all be wise to listen to the concerns you have with respect to this issue.

Mr Stewart: To answer your question, Mr Offer, yes, in our reading of this legislation there's just no question that a board could not lawfully, directly or indirectly, continue to assist in the transportation of pupils in any manner whatsoever. The legislation has been drawn to close off all possible options, in my view and in the view of other persons with whom I've consulted.

To the second question about the picking up of pupils, obviously it's not going to operate any better in the afternoon than it did in the morning, so I'm afraid we're in the same position.

To your third question, we have addressed the question of access on page 26 of our brief. It's a concern we have with the legislation. We don't know that the legislation intended that picketers and organizers be able to move in schools. Well, I can say it more positively. We know what the government was concerned with, and understandably: quasi-public property like shopping malls and places like the Eaton Centre.

What we are concerned with is that a school is a place to which, while the public has no right of access, it definitely normally has access. That's the wording of the legislation, so we are quite concerned that this will allow picketers and organizers -- actually, one of the great problems we have in Ontario now in the school system is access to school buildings. It's a continuing problem for all boards, rural and urban, so we would ask that some attention be given to that. I think that's just a question of, shall we say, more concentrated legislative drafting. However, we have brought this forward to the committee which looked into this originally and we don't see any change, so we're here again.

Ms Waese: Perhaps I could add that for the schools within the Metropolitan Toronto School Board whose programs are primarily for students who are handicapped, it would primarily close down that program for those disabled. It's a significant problem, and I think it would be really a tragedy for them.

Mrs Cunningham: I'm wondering if you've discussed your concerns with the Minister of Education or if you plan to do that.

Ms Dunning: The information we've provided has been forwarded to the Minister of Education, I'm sure. Is that not correct? Yes.

Mrs Cunningham: Have you received a response or are you expecting to meet with him? I think this is so complicated that there ought to be a face-to-face meeting. Is that your intent?

Ms Dunning: It's a good idea. I don't think we have a meeting scheduled with him to discuss these matters, but you're right, it's complex enough and specific enough to the education sector.

Mr Jackson: And Mr Silipo has an extensive background as a former trustee, under the circumstances.

Ms Dunning: I'm aware of that.

Mr Jackson: And strong opinions of public record about how well this legislation would work.

Mrs Cunningham: I really would like to thank you for your positive suggestions. It's not very often we get specific suggestions for improvement, so I'd like to thank you for that.

On page 12 you talk about the circumstances where replacement workers should not operate, where such prohibition would cause, and you talk about the two examples. Would you suggest perhaps that this ought to be extended to hospitals and seniors' homes and whatnot? It's not just schools that are going to be affected in this regard.

Mr Stewart: I can see the rationale behind our position being applicable to a number of public, multi-unit situations like hospitals and municipalities. I think they have a lot in common with school boards. If they express these concerns, I think they could be handled in a similar way.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Thank you for your presentation. Just a couple of things: On the occasional teacher thing, if the occasional teacher were on strike, you can use the regular classroom teacher if that teacher is from that school. You're not going outside the school.

Mr Stewart: No, you can't, sir. Excuse me. The only person this legislation allows us to use is a managerial person in the struck location. I would love to agree with you, because my --

Mr Fletcher: I just got this from the ministry staff. What I'm getting, right from the ministry itself is that yes, you can. Why don't we just make sure you get some clarification on that.

Mr Stewart: In case I don't get the clarification, I'm more concerned that you get it. Can I ask you to look at subsection 73.1(6) of the bill? It starts off, "The employer shall not use any of the following persons," and then it says in paragraph 3, "A person, whether paid or not, other than an employee of the employer or a person described in subsection 1(3)." That's a managerial person under subsection 1(3) of the act.

Mr Fletcher: We'll get that clarified.

Mr Stewart: Please do. I'd appreciate it.

Mr Fletcher: As far as the bus thing and pooling together of parents and everything else is concerned, I'd be more concerned as a trustee about insurance as far as pooling together is concerned, especially if we'd done it as a school board. I'd be very concerned about doing things like that, and also about who has a driver's licence if we're pooling together.

On the number of bargaining units, one of the changes since the last consultations is that if the bus workers were to go on strike, workers from a non-bargaining unit could do the work of the struck workers, if it were agreeable with the union that was on strike. But then, once these people started doing the work, they could not be replaced. That's one of the changes that has been made. If negotiations were ongoing and you were having a good relationship going, that is one possibility around the issue.

Mr Stewart: But it requires the consent of the person or the organization that, understandably under our system, is trying to cause harm.

Mr Fletcher: But as you were saying, if you did have the relationship going and negotiations were ongoing, that is one way around it.

Mr Stewart: I'm glad you got these clarifications. I hope we'll see them in the amendments. You obviously have some information we don't have. If we could see that -- I say this quite positively -- we'd be very glad to respond, if you think it's intended to meet the points we're making.

1200

The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Thank you very much.

Ms Waese: Could I just make one comment?

The Vice-Chair: Go ahead.

Ms Waese: Mr Fletcher, you indicated concern about insurance and driver's licences for volunteer pooling. We do all that. We have many of our volunteers driving our young people to activities, and we have covered them with insurance -- we have an automatic coverage -- and driver's licences, all those things are carefully checked up, and we pay a high rate of insurance as a result.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. You should know you've made a very important contribution to the process, and I trust you'll be following it along as we proceed through the process. Thank each and every one of you for coming down here this morning and presenting some very important views.

Mr Jackson: I appreciate Mr Fletcher coming forward with that information. Would he share that with the clerk and we can get a copy not only circulated --

Mr Fletcher: Just read it.

Mr Jackson: No, no, Mr Ferguson indicated he's just received --

Mr Fletcher: My name's Mr Fletcher.

Mr Jackson: Fletcher, thank you -- a memo from the ministry clarifying a point. I'm asking that --

Mr Fletcher: No, it wasn't a memo. I asked a question.

Mr Jackson: You indicated it was in writing. My point, Mr Chairman, is that this again is unusual. The information should not necessarily simply be shared with the government members to assist them in scoring debating points during a public -- this is not a public debate; it's open hearings. I again must reiterate my concern that this committee is not being facilitated with members of staff. This is out of the ordinary and I want to put that on the record.

Mrs Cunningham: Let's have the clarification now, then.

Mr Jackson: Ministry staff should be prepared to clarify these concerns. Mr Stewart has a 30-year record of understanding of all aspects of education law in this province, and I trust his interpretations. If there is a point of new information, it shouldn't be shared between two people who leave this room today; it should be shared with this committee, which is charged with the responsibility of looking at amendments and ensuring, as Mr Stewart put on the public record, that those amendments are brought forward. If the government is planning those amendments, then that information should be shared with this committee at this time and not be relegated to the realm of debating points for government members. I think it's only helpful to the process.

I would again put that in the form of a request that the clerk be instructed to inquire from the Minister of Labour to have at the committee's disposal during these hearings personnel who can offer up these brief points of clarification for the public record. It is helpful to our task, Mr Chairman. I put that in the form of a formal request and will then therefore put it in the form of a motion.

Ms Murdock: Actually, ministry employees have been -- well, they're sitting at the other table today, but they've been sitting over there for any of the committee members. I get up and go over and ask them for clarification and then come back. But in terms of that, the government is not speaking of an amendment; it's already there in Bill 40.

Mrs Cunningham: We're looking at it.

Ms Murdock: Yes, but in that particular section Mr Jackson has just mentioned in regard to what Mr Stewart was saying, under paragraph (6)1 under section 73.1. I know it gets complicated with the numbers, but that section specifically speaks to the concerns they had. It is not a new thing. It's not an amendment. Whether or not it's been read and not interpreted that way is one thing, but it's certainly not because ministry people were not here to provide the information. They are there; they're just not at the microphones.

Mr Offer: I recognize that we've just heard another important presentation on this bill. I won't be long, but I think this presentation speaks to another matter, and that is that there are individuals, groups and associations which are coming before the committee speaking about their concerns about the bill, speaking also, in fairness, about where they support the bill, but there are a number of individuals who are coming and saying, "Listen, this is what we think the bill means to us."

I would think, and from my experience, when there are those groups that come before the committee that have questions as to what the section means, really asking for some direction, I know the Ministry of Labour has very good staff, very good people, who are very well able to respond to those questions.

I would ask, Mr Chair, especially in the presence of the parliamentary assistant and members of the Ministry of Labour, that there be some discussion over this lunch break as to whether it is most appropriate that individuals -- either the parliamentary assistant, the minister or staff of the Ministry of Labour -- be at the table where you are seated, Mr Chair, so that when groups come forward with concerns about the legislation as to what they think it means to them, there are people who can either take note of it and undertake to get back to them or provide that answer on the spot. It will be helpful for us as we deliberate the legislation and helpful, I believe, for the general public, as to what this means.

So I would ask that in the time over the lunch break there be some very serious consideration made by the parliamentary assistant and ministry staff, so that this resource, apart from our research and everything else that's on hand, be available to so many people who want to be heard by this committee.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. I've listened very carefully to the discussions here and we are in recess until 1:30 pm.

Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, there is a motion on the floor. You cannot dismiss it. I've moved the motion that the committee request ministry staff to assist with the deliberations of the committee. Speaking to that motion, Mr Chairman [inaudible] in any way they see fit in order to let us do the job properly. If you're ruling my motion out of order, fine, but you cannot leave the chair with a motion dangling that I put on the floor.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Jackson, the subcommittee has agreed to the hours of sitting of this committee from 10 o'clock until 12 o'clock and from 1:30 and continuing on.

A lunch-hour break will provide the opportunity for discussion on the issue between the parliamentary assistant and ministry staff, as Mr Offer has suggested, and we'll resume at 1:30.

Mrs Cunningham: When will we be dealing with the motion?

The Vice-Chair: We'll resume at 1:30.

The committee recessed at 1207.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The committee resumed at 1330.

The Chair: It's 1:30. We're ready to resume. There was a motion moved, as I understand it, by Mr Jackson at around 12 just before we broke for lunch. That motion is out of order as there is still a motion on the floor by Mr Turnbull about which debate has started but about which there has been no vote.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Very briefly, could you explain to me why the previous motion has not been dealt with and why the ruling would preclude and hamstring this committee from any future motions. We are in your hands, as the Chair. Are you an informed Chair on this issue?

The Chair: It's Mr Turnbull's motion. He indicated that he wished an opportunity to speak further to it. He hasn't been with the committee now for some time. It's my view, there having been no objection raised at the time Mr Turnbull made that indication, that Mr Turnbull has that prerogative.

Mr Jackson: Did he stand down his motion?

The Chair: The motion was adjourned with the normal course of the day's business. That motion is still outstanding. As long as that motion is outstanding, in my view, any further motions are inappropriate, short of an amendment to that motion.

Mr Jackson: Has Hansard confirmed that the motion was not dealt with? I wasn't present for the meeting, but I do have the right to understand clearly before we proceed the nature of the ruling. Did he stand down his motion?

The Chair: The motion has not been dealt with. Debate on the motion was adjourned.

Mr Jackson: Is it not the case that it become the first item of business when the committee reconvenes?

The Chair: It's going to become the first matter of business when this committee isn't charged with hearing submissions from delegations.

Mr Jackson: Then why are we not debating Mr Turnbull's motion right now?

The Chair: Because we've got the International Union of Operating Engineers scheduled here for 1:30 this afternoon and it has a half-hour. We've used up three minutes of their half-hour on your point of order. I've ruled on the point of order.

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 793

The Chair: Please try to save the last 15 minutes of your half-hour for questions and dialogue. Gentlemen, tell us who you are and what your status is. Tell us what you will.

Mr Jack Slaughter: Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is Jack Slaughter and I'm general counsel to the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793. With me is Mr Richard Kennedy, who's president and labour relations manager of the local, and Mr Matthew Kellway, who is legal and labour relations assistant to the local. Mr Kennedy will begin by giving a brief description of who the union is and whom it represents and then I will highlight what I believe the priorities are in the legislation that Local 793 would like to see addressed.

With that, I'd ask Mr Kennedy to introduce the local and what it's all about.

Mr Richard Kennedy: Local 793 is a construction union with approximately 10,000 members covering earth-moving, excavating, surveyors and hoisting equipment in all sectors of the construction industry throughout the entire province. We're a provincial local. We've been active for 73 years and have collective agreements with approximately 1,500 employers including municipalities and others in the industrial sectors. Primarily, most of our members are employed in the sewer and watermain, roadbuilding, utility and gas distribution sectors and the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors.

We consider ourselves in many respects leaders in the construction industry, as far as organized labour goes, in health and safety, training facilities, organizing and in labour relations. We have a good staff and we've put a lot of thought into the things we do.

With that, I'll ask Jack to make his presentation on the brief.

Mr Slaughter: I'm going to try to keep things short. I realize the committee's had extensive hearings and has heard from many parties. We've prepared a five-page brief which I believe has been distributed by the clerk. I'm not going to read from the brief but I'm going to highlight various items and speak to some real-life examples we've had that illustrate the points I'm making.

On the whole, Local 793 supports Bill 40. We believe it's a progressive initiative that addresses the reality in the 1990s in terms of the fairness, cooperation and competitiveness that make this province great and will ensure the province is healthy throughout the remainder of the decade and in the future.

I want to highlight various items that appear in the bill and Local 793's position with regard to them. I'll address them in the order in which they appear in the brief.

First is the proposed elimination of the $1 fee for membership. This is an anachronism. If one looks at the recent Ontario Labour Relations Board jurisprudence, one can see that the board doesn't give a great deal of weight to the $1. With the impact of inflation, that's not a meaningful sum today. What the act addresses is the desire of individual employees to be represented by a trade union. Unfortunately, what has tended to happen in the case law and in the experience of Local 793 is that emphasis and litigation on the $1 requirement has become a means of complicating, protracting and attempting to frustrate certification efforts.

In the seven years I've been general counsel to Local 793 and processed approximately 300 certification applications, twice has the question of whether $1 had been collected by one of the collectors been litigated before the board. In both of those cases the allegation made by the employer was dismissed. The only effect of that litigation was to prolong the certification process, cause the board to travel unnecessarily and increase the level of hostility between the employer and the trade union. In other words, it didn't serve to achieve any of the objectives that the Labour Relations Act attempts to achieve, nor was any of the union's membership evidence invalidated. Consequently, it's been our experience that all the current situation does is lead to litigation and disharmony. That's why we're in favour of eliminating the $1 requirement.

The next issue -- and we feel quite strongly about this -- is extending the right to organize for certain groups that are now excluded from the Labour Relations Act. In particular, I draw your attention to workers engaged in agriculture, silviculture and horticulture. As Richard Kennedy has stated, Local 793 represents a great number of employees engaged in the operation of heavy equipment. That type of equipment is commonly used by landscaping contractors and in large agricultural operations. If one looks at the work being performed by employees doing those tasks, it's not a great deal different from that done by employees now in bargaining units represented by Local 793. The same can be said of people performing labouring functions. Furthermore, when one looks at large-scale mushroom farms and chicken hatcheries, it's hard to draw a rational distinction between other industrial operations and those types of operations.

Again looking at decisions of the labour relations board, there were several attempts by the board to certify those persons and employees that have been overturned by the courts based on the narrow reading of the legislation. There are trade unions out there, including the Operating Engineers, the Labourers and the Food and Commercial Workers that are ready, willing and able to represent those employees. Especially in this era of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there's no good reason why those employees shouldn't have the collective bargaining rights that employees in all other industries do.

Third, I'd like to address the issue of the support thresholds in the act. Those are reducing from 55% plus one to 50% plus one the number of employees required for automatic certification in construction industry applications and from 45% plus one to 40% plus one for the percentage required for a representation vote.

I've attached to the back of the brief an excerpt from a labour board decision on Smiths Construction that addresses the factors that make the construction industry distinct from other industrial settings: the seasonality, the interweaving of contractual relationships, the mobility of contractors, including both contractors coming in to do construction work in this province from outside the province or outside the country or employers who, say, operate a home base in Toronto but go to work in disparate locations such as Kingston, Sault Ste Marie and London.

1340

There's a need for expedition in operating a construction business that also applies in representing the employees of construction businesses. The recognition of that reality has led the labour board to develop certain rules that accommodate construction. We think the initiative of the Legislature in this regard also is responsive to those different construction realities.

Next, with respect to the submission of membership evidence, and more specifically petitions, other than jurisdictional disputes this is probably the issue that occupies more resources of employers, trade unions and the labour board than any other. Unfortunately, the reality is that there are very few petitions or statements of desire that are found by the board to be voluntary. It's certainly less than 10%. It's a very insignificant number compared to the resources spent on litigating those issues. It's something that again creates artificial hostility between employees, employers and trade unions, prevents the parties from quickly coming to grips and dealing with one another on a serious and professional basis.

Therefore, we support the initiative to make the date of application the relevant date for submitting all membership evidence both in support of and in opposition to a trade union. This is in place in a number of other jurisdictions, including the federal jurisdiction, Manitoba and others, so it's certainly not a radical or unprecedented move, and it's one that would lead to greater efficiency and cooperation in this province.

For similar reasons we support the initiative to give the parties access to first agreement arbitration after a 30-day period. This is not because we want to see government-imposed contracts on employers in trade unions. Rather, it's the opposite: This will give an incentive for both parties to deal rationally and reasonably with one another and to fashion their own solutions. That, to some extent, is the effect of the current legislation. However, again one goes through a hearing that promotes hostility between the parties, where unions or employers are placed in the position of proving the other party has acted in bad faith, improperly, failed to recognize the authority of the other and promotes a confrontational rather than cooperative atmosphere.

I realize I'm down to about three minutes, according to my clock, so I'm going to move very briefly over the next items.

Just-cause protection for employees imposed from the time of certification to first contract and from the time of being in a legal strike or lockout position to the imposition of a new contract: That's a gap in the legislation. Certainly, I don't think anyone would argue, on either side of the fence, that just-cause protection is something that's improper or shouldn't be accorded to employees. That's a gap in the legislation that's addressed.

Likewise, we strongly believe there is need for expedited hearings for persons who are dismissed during an organizing drive. That's a right and freedom granted to persons under the Labour Relations Act and the laws of Ontario. If employers are entitled to quick hearings for cease-and-desist orders for illegal strike violations by trade unions, similarly employees should be entitled promptly to be heard as to whether their employment should be continued. They're equally serious violations. A person shouldn't have to endure a lengthy period of unemployment and substantial loss of earnings for exercising protective rights under the act.

We also strongly believe in placing time limitations on decisions of arbitration boards. Whether the decision is for or against you, whether a union or employer, you have the right to know what that decision is so you can order your affairs and get on with running your business and representing your members.

We also support the change in terms of bargaining structure whereby, at the board's discretion, part-time and full-time employees can be grouped within a single unit where the numbers warrant. This will encourage the organization of part-time labour, and because of economic realities that's been a growing force within our economy. It's a group where frankly there's not a lot of incentive, in particular cases, for unions to organize because it may be relatively small compared to the full-time unit and have, it's recognized, a somewhat different interest. It's an incentive for those people to get the same kinds of rights and representation full-time employees have. I'd strongly urge you to consider that matter.

With respect to limitations on the use of replacement labour, we recognize this is a sensitive issue for both sides. However, both Quebec and Manitoba have legislated in this regard with, we think, good effect on the labour relations in those provinces. We recognize there are certain essential services or particular situations that will have to be addressed to make this legislation workable. We think that can be done. We think this Legislature and this committee should perhaps consider striking industry-wide committees or using the regulation-making power to address those items.

I see my time is just about up. On the whole, we support the initiatives in Bill 40. Certainly there are some areas that need to be looked at in terms of the drafting and so on. In this short presentation, I'm not going to touch on those technical matters. Mr Kennedy and I thank you for your consideration of our views. If you have any questions, we'd be pleased to try to answer them to the best of our ability.

The Chair: Mr Jackson, four minutes please.

Mr Jackson: I have no questions at the moment.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Thank you very much for your presentation. I found it reasonable and balanced. You seemed to actually try to reach a consensus between labour and management for these changes that are proposed, to allow choices. I think that's good. It helps me to make my mind up and to make decisions.

You mentioned at the very end the replacement labour situation. Bill 40 has a provision in it which wants to promote advisory committees between the workers and their management. That's to deal a lot with potential closures. But you mentioned getting industry and management and workers to work together on committees. Would you see that as a vehicle to expand that, to work on such issues like this? Could you expand?

Mr Slaughter: I think that's something that could be useful, Mr Klopp. For example, Local 793, as Mr Kennedy has said, primarily represents employees engaged in construction. But we also represent employees of municipalities, the waste disposal and hazardous waste industries, sawmills and so on. We recognize in our contract negotiations with our various employers that they require different conditions and treatment.

For example, in the construction industry one of the things that's developed now in terms of strikes is what they call the two-gate policy developed by the labour relations board. For example, the construction labourers are in a legal strike position, but other trades such as the operating engineers, the carpenters and the plumbers may not be. The labourers don't want to disrupt the other trades and their contractors unless their work is being performed.

One of the things the labour board has developed in its wisdom is that one gate will be established for the construction labourers, and that's where anyone performing labourers' work is to enter, and another gate established for the other trades. Those trades and their employers don't feel that they're violating union solidarity or disrupting labour relations by attempting to do the labourers' work. The labourers will not be allowed to picket that other gate unless employees doing their work are trying to enter through that gate. That's the sort of cooperative mechanism that's developed right now between the labour board, employers and trade unions. That policy is not a perfect one but it's an accommodation between the parties that tends to work.

I can see in the waste disposal industry -- I think we all recognize that with increasingly toxic types of wastes and dangerous things and simply the accumulation of waste in a long strike, how does one deal with that? Does one need legislation ordering those employees back to work because of a hazardous situation or is there a compromise that can be worked out? I don't have a magical answer for this committee.

We have contractors such as Waste Management and Laidlaw. We represent those employees there. Unions such as ourselves and CUPE that represent those employees, were we to work together on a committee in cooperation with government, we could come up with some sort of regulations or patterns that would work so that we wouldn't need back-to-work legislation but would develop a workable framework for that industry.

With sawmilling, the Woodworkers are certainly a much larger presence than the Operating Engineers there. I wouldn't try to pretend otherwise, as are the Paperworkers. But again, those industries have particular needs in terms of how their machinery can be safely run, what equipment can be shut down, inventory-taking.

Our sister local, Operating Engineers Local 796, and the other stationary locals I work from occasionally -- I know there's a draft Operating Engineers Act and I've been contracted by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations asking, how do the stationary engineers feel about their obligations, the obligations of their employers in shutting down boiler rooms and steam plants and so on? The ministry has been quite cooperative in soliciting the comments of Local 796 and the other stationary locals and the employers.

Yes, I think it's a consultative, cooperative mechanism that can work. I think it's something that should be encouraged, because one of the things about the Labour Relations Act -- and I don't think we want to get away from it -- is that it facilitates bargaining and ongoing relationships between employers and trade unions.

I don't think we want to go the route of the Canada board, where it's this overarching board that tells everyone what to do. Certainly there are situations where that's needed, on both sides, no question. But I think the greater the extent to which both players in the industries can work together, the better solutions you get. I find the more things that are generated from the workplace floor or from the office floor from our employers, the better it works for everyone.

1350

Ms Murdock: Thank you. On page 2 of your presentation -- you did mention it when you were speaking, in regard to the 50% plus one, which was in the consultation paper -- there's been a typographical error, because that was deleted and when the deputy was here he made that statement, that it's still at 55%. Just so you know that. I didn't want you to leave here --

Mr Slaughter: We would support reinstating the 50% plus one. I realize the volume of items before the committee, so I hear what you're saying on that issue. But the comments I've made with respect to the uniqueness of the construction industry are valid and, while I realize it may be difficult to get that item back on the table, we still feel it's correct and we still support the change to 40% in terms of the representation vote threshold, although I will say in practice I don't know if that's going to make a tremendous amount of difference. In my experience, if the union can't win votes with the 45%, it may not be able to win votes with the 40%. But I appreciate your commentary.

Ms Murdock: I wanted to go to the decision that you appended on the back, number 10, ascertaining the number of employees of the bargaining unit at the time the application was made and whether or not the comments made by this arbitrator were generally common to many of the decisions you get in relation to application and timeliness.

Mr Slaughter: This is the board's standard policy in the construction industry. The only employees that count for construction industry application are those employees actually physically at work on the date of application. Sometimes that works in the union's favour; sometimes it works against.

There's a famous labour board case where the union filed the application in the morning but all the employees were unable to report because of a snowstorm, so their application was dismissed. So it went against the union in that case. In other cases, the employer will say, "Some of my employees were on vacation." The labour board has said, "We're not going to consider that either." It's not something that works all pro-union. It's a neutral standard.

The reason for that type of standard is that employment fluctuates from day to day in the construction industry, particularly in roadbuilding operations in the lesser-skilled positions such as flag persons -- no offence to my friends, the labourers -- and manual labour. Persons are often hired by the day. Rather than engaging in a long-ranging inquiry of how many employees you had on each day in each of the last 30 days in the month and how many of those employees should count, the board has developed this rule of thumb that essentially has been used, I would say, for about the last 30 years. If I gave you the entire decision you would have --

The Chair: Thank you. We've got to move on to Mr Offer.

Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. It's good to see you again. Members of the committee should be aware that at your head office you have a wonderful training facility which is probably one of the very best of its kind for the area in which you're involved. I don't want to extend an invitation to everyone else but everyone should go and see how the training facilities are actually operated. It's very interesting to see. I congratulate you on that.

I have one question on your presentation in the area of petition. You'll know that we've heard lots of presentations on this. However one wishes to style the question, basically the time frame that now exists for putting in petitions has been abolished under Bill 40. In other words, there is no more time between an application and a terminal date. My question to you is, because of this change, do you have any concern about the right of a worker to change his mind in any organization drive?

I ask you that because I know we have discussed these and other matters earlier and I think it's an important area because there is a concern that these changes do take away what was previously in the legislation, and that is the right of an individual to have a lengthier time frame to change his mind. Could you share with us your thoughts on that?

Mr Slaughter: Yes, I would, and I might ask Mr Kennedy at the end to comment on that as well.

I will get to the question very shortly but first I would like to thank you for your kind remarks about the training institute. I would, on behalf of the trustees of the training institute, extend that offer to everyone around the table to come and attend the training institute. I point out that it is jointly trusteed by an equal number of management representatives and union representatives. We hosted an international conference where it received similar accolades from people throughout Canada and the United States.

I will quickly turn to your question because it's a valid comment. First, employees will still have the right to appear before the labour board and address a whole series of issues: They have status to appear before the board and address the appropriateness of the bargaining unit, the inclusion and exclusion of employees from the bargaining unit, any charges that the union membership evidence has somehow been gathered improperly and any other relevant issues before the board. So their status to appear before the board is not diminished.

Second, it's been our experience -- this is what I'm going to turn to Mr Kennedy on -- that very few of these petitions or statements of desire are generated from the employee himself. That's unfortunate but that tends to be the reality. The vast majority of petitions are generated after conversations with the working foreperson, with the owner and with circulars distributed by the employer; that's why the vast majority of petitions are found to be tainted. I won't repeat what I said before, but it tends to be the employer after the fact marshalling its forces, which leads to hostility on the employer's side, and of course it's met in kind with hostility on the union's side, and it's not a cooperative relationship.

In the cases of larger organizing drives where there is true dissatisfaction on the part of employees, petitions will still be filed before the certification goes in. We just had a very large organizing campaign in the Ottawa Valley, for example, and as soon as the union was around the job site, petitions were being circulated against the union. If those petitions are filed, the board has to consider them even with the legislation.

So there is a change in the structure, in the timing, for those wishes, but there is still a very valid form for expressing them.

Richard, maybe you could address your experience in that area.

Mr Kennedy: To an extent, we control the date of application by the number of cards we sign. Sometimes the weather and the scheduling of work have something we don't know about, so we're not in total control of the date of application. But at the same time, while the worker who signed has the right to change his mind after the terminal date, the same goes for the people who did not sign a card. We've often used that period to increase our count, so to say, and that will be taken away from us.

For the purpose of getting rid of petitions: I don't know what the percentage is but it's overwhelmingly that they're thrown out and they're used as a delaying tactic only to stop a certification drive from going forward in a speedy manner. We'll live with that end of it.

We'll also live with not having the time to come after the heat's off, so to say, and quietly sit down with people and tell them what we're about once that terminal date has been -- the application date. We'll lose our ability to go back in another atmosphere or another setting, a much quieter, less strenuous setting, to get more cards signed.

The Chair: Gentlemen, I want to thank you very much for appearing here today on behalf of the International Union of Operating Engineers. You've made a valuable contribution and I'm confident you've been helpful to the members of the committee. Thank you for being here.

1400

SOUTHERN ONTARIO NEWSPAPER GUILD

The Chair: The next participant is the Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild. The people who are speaking on behalf of the guild, please come seat yourselves in front of a microphone and tell us who you are and your title, if any. We've got half an hour. Try to give us at least 15 minutes for discussion and questions. I suppose it's not inappropriate that the newspaper guild would be attracting so much attention from the newspapers. Go ahead.

Ms Gail Lem: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill 40. My name is Gail Lem and I'm president of the Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild. To my left is Peter Murdock, who is the staff representative with our union. We're a 3,000-member union representing employees in the newspaper, magazine and book publishing industry.

Due to time constraints, I'm not going to read this brief in its entirety, but I trust that the committee will do so at a later date and take all of our concerns into consideration.

In recent years, we've had direct experience with a number of organizing campaigns and with the difficulties in bargaining first contracts. In the past year, our members have been on strike for first contracts at the Cambridge Reporter, as you well know, and the Guelph Mercury. Both contracts are now being settled through first contract arbitration. In addition, 1,600 of our members were on strike for a month this year at the country's largest newspaper, the Toronto Star. In all three strikes, the companies hired replacement workers.

Our experiences have taught our members that reforms to the Ontario Labour Relations Act are long overdue. The act must be changed, because as it currently stands it enables unscrupulous employers to obstruct employees' rights to organize and it enables some employers to avoid their responsibility to bargain. The act and the Ontario Labour Relations Board have also failed to keep pace with changes in the workforce and in the workplace, as the government has recognized.

We reject arguments of critics who say that reform will tip the balance in labour relations. The assumption behind such arguments is that there is currently a finely tuned balance. This is far from the truth. Too many employees in Ontario, in our industry and in many others, find themselves working in small groups for large and powerful employers, employers who are sometimes willing to use their huge resources to crush the rights of their employees or to stop the spread of unionization.

We are pleased that Bill 40 recognizes that collective bargaining is a system worth encouraging, preserving and strengthening. We're disappointed with the compromises the government felt it had to make and we urge reconsideration of some of the issues and proposals that were dropped from the discussion paper.

In my comments, we'll attempt to address only areas where we have direct experience and where we feel we have something to add to the debate. In areas not mentioned, we support the position of the Ontario Federation of Labour.

We'll also attempt to address the arguments put forward by newspaper owners who appear to be claiming that their businesses will be disproportionately affected by the amendments, particularly the restrictions on the use of replacement workers. The chorus of protest coming from newspapers is coming from companies whose hands, in many cases, are far from clean. Employers in this and other industries whose history is littered with attempts to budge an employee's rights have little credibility talking about fairness in labour relations.

Section 7, on full- and part-time employees: We support Bill 40's approach, which recognizes that there's no logic or rationale to split full-time and part-time units automatically. Our experience in this area indicates that the current rules separating the two groups at the request of one party has been an instrument used by employers who wish to bargain separately with full-timers and part-timers in the hope of weakening one of the groups, usually the part-timers.

On section 8, the consolidation of bargaining units: We applaud the government for providing a mechanism to consolidate some bargaining units but we believe the approach is too timid. We also have misgivings about subsection (4) of the new section 7, which we believe will create unnecessary disputes over whether different locations of an employer's operation have significantly different methods of operation or production. Consolidation of bargaining units is a key issue if the labour relations system is to adapt to the changes in the workplace.

For collective bargaining to work for many Ontario workers, the act must recognize that large numbers of employees work in small workplaces owned by large employers. This is especially true of the newspaper industry, where dozens of small workplaces are owned by only a handful of companies. These employees do not have a chance at fair collective bargaining if they have to face the large employer in separate small groups.

The argument is also stronger in the newspaper industry because the industry is one of the few where the board has allowed organizing by department within a workplace. For example, at the Globe and Mail, where I work, we have five bargaining units and five collective agreements. It has long been our position that the contracts and the bargaining units should be consolidated, but the employers will not agree and there is no mechanism to have the method adjudicated.

But why does Bill 40 stop at consolidating only units of the same union? Fragmentation of bargaining units does not serve the interests of productive and efficient collective bargaining. We believe Ontario should adopt a position similar to that of the Canada Labour Relations Board, which has used its power to consolidate bargaining units of more than one union at one employer where the situation warrants.

We also believe the government has not gone far enough to encourage broader-based bargaining. This is a crucial issue if the collective bargaining system is to be modernized and serve the needs of employees in rapidly growing sectors such as the service industry. We urge the government to look again at this issue, and in particular we support those who are calling for a comprehensive study of broader-based bargaining.

On section 8, support required for automatic certification, we believe the retention of the current 55% threshold for automatic certification is offensive to the fundamental principle of majority rule. We believe the union should be certified immediately when the majority is clearly in favour.

We reject suggestions that there be a vote on all certifications. The act has long viewed the signing of the card as a vote for the union, and that approach has proved its validity.

On first-contract arbitration, we believe it is vital to improve access to this remedy. The act's current requirement that the board conduct an exhaustive survey into the history of bargaining in order to determine whether first agreement arbitration is warranted has often made a mockery of the idea that this remedy should be a quick one.

For example, our union applied for first-contract arbitration at the Cambridge Reporter on November 28, 1991. Despite a purported 30-day time limit in the current act, hearings dragged on into February 1992 and we did not receive a decision in the case until approximately three months after the application was filed. All of this time, our members were on strike. The situation in Guelph was similar.

We believe Bill 40's proposals in this area are a step forward but we seriously question the need for a 30-day waiting period after the legal strike lockout date. This would force some groups into a strike or lockout situation by an employer who felt that a month-long dispute could break a newly formed union.

On section 32 on the use of replacement workers, in all three strikes our union has been forced to take this year, the employers have used replacement workers. In all three cases we can say unreservedly that the use of replacement workers inflamed passions, created unnecessary picket line confrontations, damaged the long-term relationship between the parties, ate up scandalous amounts of police resources in the communities concerned and, above all, lengthened the strikes.

A ban on the use of replacement workers would be the single greatest step in civilizing labour relations in Ontario. We are confident that had Bill 40 been in place when the strike at the Toronto Star began in early June, the strike would have been considerably shorter than its 31 days. In fact, we believe the strike may not have occurred at all had the Toronto Star not been able to avoid bargaining key issues by simply ignoring them and relying on its ability to hire new people if our union called a strike.

We believe it's time to call a halt to the right of employers to bully rather than bargain and to the all-too-common scenes of picket line violence. Bill 40 is a step in the right direction. However, we have serious concerns about three large loopholes in the legislation.

First, we believe the employer's right to shift bargaining unit work to another geographic location or to contract out bargaining unit work will enable some employers to avoid their duty to bargain.

Second, we believe it's impossible to enforce the bill's well-intentioned prohibition of reprisals for non-management, non-bargaining unit employees who refuse to do bargaining unit work during a strike or lockout. It is naïve to believe that employees, particularly those without union protection, will not be subjected to subtle pressures to fill in for the striking employees. And it is unrealistic to believe that these employees will insist upon their rights when they are subject to such pressures. Bill 40 should adopt the discussion paper's approach and ban the use of non-management, non-bargaining unit employees from performing the work of strikers.

Third, and this is really important to us, we're concerned that the bill does not appreciate how much work in our industry and in others can be done from any location as long as the employee has the computer and a modem to transmit work to a location where a strike is taking place. The restrictive phrase "at a place of operations in respect of which the strike or lockout is taking place" in subsection 73.1(6) creates a loophole. In our industry, for example, it apparently would allow a freelance writer who had been used by a newspaper before bargaining began to vastly expand his or her work for the paper during a strike as long as he or she worked at home and had a computer link to a strike-bound newsroom. We urge the government to close this loophole.

1410

We also wish to address some of the arguments being made by newspaper owners, who claim their industry deserves special treatment and who have pushed their arguments to the forefront of the public debate by using their own newspapers to publicize their views.

The owners suggest that a newspaper cannot be shut down during a labour dispute and live to tell the story. This is not true. There have been numerous instances of newspapers ceasing operation during a strike or lockout and returning afterwards, most recently at the Sudbury Star, which locked out its staff for five weeks less than two years ago. The Sudbury Star is still alive and quite well, having recaptured readers and advertisers despite competition from the two Toronto dailies which circulate in Sudbury, two television stations, numerous radio outlets and a twice-weekly community newspaper.

The owners also suggest that Bill 40's restrictions will require a shutdown of any newspaper during a labour dispute. This is not true. The Montreal Gazette operated in 1987 despite a strike lockout in its production department and despite Quebec's anti-scab law, after making a decision that it had to publish during a dispute. We strongly disagree with that decision to publish, which was made in order to extract concessions from employees rather than to resist union demands. But the fact that the Gazette published under an anti-scab law tougher than Bill 40 contradicts the newspaper owners' arguments.

The owners cite the death of the Montreal Star in 1979 after a strike as an example of the harmful effects of Quebec's anti-scab law. It is not. The Montreal Star case is an example of why it's usually smarter to bargain and settle than to fight. The Montreal Star died because Montreal's English-speaking community could not support two competing dailies and because the Star lost readers and advertisers to the second-place Gazette when it shut down during an eight-month strike. Even the owners of the Star admitted on closing the paper that had they bargained with the production unions rather than fighting them, the Star would have lived and the Gazette would have died. A similar situation, we'd like to point out, is unlikely in Ontario anyway; only two Ontario communities, Toronto and Ottawa, have competing daily newspapers.

The owners also suggest that their industry is special because news is perishable. They suggest they cannot stockpile material. Well, I work in a newsroom and I can tell you this is not true. Newspapers that choose to publish during a labour dispute have access to Canadian Press and other wire services and also regularly stockpile feature stories and less time-sensitive articles when they are preparing for a possible strike or lockout. The Toronto Star is only the most recent example of a newspaper that managed to fill its pages when it decided to publish during a dispute.

The owners also suggest that news is perishable in the sense that once a news event happens and is not written about readers are no longer interested. This is no doubt true for most of the material in newspapers, but it is no more true for our industry than for most others. In almost every sector of the economy, customers will look elsewhere if you cannot produce or deliver your product. This merely suggests that in a competitive industry labour disputes can be a high-stakes game. When this is the case, the incentive for both sides to settle is high and the settlements are exactly what a labour relations law should be encouraging. The newspaper industry has managed to ensure it has less competition than many other industries. Still, we are confident that Bill 40 will in any competitive industry provide an incentive for settlement rather than for conflict.

Finally, newspaper owners suggest that unions in our industry are very powerful and that there is a balance of power that should not be tampered with. This is not true. Only a handful of daily newspapers in Ontario are not owned by huge corporations. Even small community newspapers are also widely owned by large chains. This means that the bulk of the newspaper industry is structured in the same way as much of the service industry, namely, relatively small workplaces owned by large and powerful corporations. The suggestion that unions in the industry are powerful and can bargain whatever they want under the existing law would be seen as a cruel joke by our members at the Cambridge Reporter and the Guelph Mercury, where small groups of very low paid employees had to fight for their rights against one of Canada's largest companies owned by the eighth richest man in the world.

There is no reason at all to give any special consideration to the newspaper industry. We strongly believe that Bill 40, particularly if some loopholes are closed, will improve the labour relations climate in our industry and in others.

I just want to turn briefly to the end of our submission to talk about internal union democracy. We realize that consideration of Bill 80 is beyond the committee's current mandate and we would like an opportunity at a later date to express our views on that bill. However, we wish to make some comments today about internal union democracy, which we believe should be on the agenda for any consideration of amendments to the Labour Relations Act.

The view that unions are private organizations that do not need to be regulated by statute is, we believe, outmoded. For one thing, unions are given many rights in the act and should have corresponding obligations in conducting themselves democratically and, in the case of international unions, in giving their Canadian members proper services and decision-making powers.

Bill 40 moves timidly in this direction by requiring a strike mandate in order to invoke the restrictions on replacement workers and Bill 80 takes a major step by recognizing the rights of Canadians within international unions in the construction industry. But why is internal union democracy a concern only in the construction industry?

We strongly urge the committee to look at changes that would deny unions the right to impose or threaten trusteeships against locals whose only crime is dissent or seeking affiliation with another union. We believe good unions have nothing to fear from legislatively guaranteed standards of democracy.

Last, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to raise our concerns. We congratulate the government for understanding the importance of labour law reform.

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): Thank you to representatives from SONG here today for the fine presentation and thought-provoking views that you've presented.

First of all, I think that pretty well everyone, whether you are in opposition to Bill 40 or in favour of Bill 40 or feel Bill 40 doesn't go quite far enough, thinks there is a need for updating the existing labour act, that it no longer reflects today's workforce or workplace.

I would like to focus specifically on the aspect of first-contract arbitration. You touched on a couple of situations that your trade union has experienced, the employees of two what I would call smaller community newspapers, the Cambridge Reporter and the Guelph Mercury, where there seems to be undue delay in resolving concerns at those particular newspapers.

Could you perhaps expand on some of the problems that your particular trade union experienced, and as well expand on why you feel it's important to have expedited first-contract arbitration?

Ms Lem: With respect to the first-contract arbitration process in particular, the current act says that once a union or an employer, once either party applies for first-contract arbitration a decision will be made within 30 days.

During hearings at the labour board we were told by the board that the board had already ruled that that section of the law was directive and not mandatory, so they recognized that they ought to give us a decision within 30 days, but all kinds of things got in the way, like any other court system. The hearings dragged on for three months, because the board did not take the 30-day rule seriously. Part of that was requiring an absolutely exhaustive amount of work from ourselves, our bargaining committee, and also the company to be brought forward to see whether we deserve to have first-contract arbitration.

The fact of the matter is that this process took at least 60 days longer than it ought to have. It meant that our members were out on the street in the dead of winter walking the picket line instead of working. Both of the strikes were ugly strikes because of the use of replacement workers, to some degree, and the amount of tensions that were then raised on the picket line as a result. You know, when people are out of work and they're walking the picket line in the dead of winter they get very upset at seeing other people take their jobs. The fact of the matter is that the 30-day rule was a good idea if the board would stick to it, but it didn't.

Second, the proposals say there should be a 30-day waiting period after the legal strike lockout date, and we believe that should not be necessary. That doesn't mean that there will be a 30-day strike or lockout, but it provides the opportunity for there to be one and for very powerful employers to push people out on the street unnecessarily in an attempt to break the union.

We believe that if first-contract arbitration were available automatically as of the legal strike lockout date, the system would still provide enough incentive on both sides to bargain, and that's where we would like to see the law changed. At that point the parties would have gone through conciliation and gone through mediation, and we believe that if they were serious about achieving a first contract, they would have done so and they would do so rather than risking putting the matter in the hands of a third party.

The Chair: We've got to move on.

1420

Mr Offer: Just in response to that last question, I think you indicated that on first-contract arbitration there was a need for a strike for 30 days. This legislation does not require that, on my reading. It only requires that you be in a strike position for 30 days as opposed to being on strike. In fact there have been some presentations around that, so I'd just like to state that as a matter of clarification.

My question of course deals with the major portion of your presentation around the issue of replacement workers. What I would like is if you could please explain to us, during a strike -- and I have no quarrel with the right of a worker to associate, to join a union, to strike; that's a given and I have no problem with it at all -- but where there is a strike, that same worker I believe has the right while on strike to obtain other employment. I have no quarrel with that either. I think that should be allowed.

If all of those rights are allowed, why isn't there with that the right of an employer, how best it can, to attempt to keep its operation running with all those difficulties that might arise? If we're recognizing all of those rights, why not that right of an employer to continue operations, as difficult as it may be.

Ms Lem: Because, quite simply, there is no balance of power. The companies have a lot more power, money, flexibility and so on than the employees do, and it frustrates the process of collective bargaining. In fact it makes a mockery of the process of collective bargaining to give workers the right to withdraw their labour and then say, "It doesn't matter because you don't have any power anyway." The company can continue to operate as if you didn't withdraw your labour. It makes a mockery of collective bargaining and a mockery of the right to strike. We believe that the intention of the labour law, as we understand it, is to encourage collective bargaining and encourage settlements.

Second, it lengthens the strike or lockout situation because the employer doesn't have that extra impetus to settle, and third, because of the amount of violence that can be incited in that kind of situation.

Mr Offer: That was really basically the question that I wanted to pose to you. I still have a couple of minutes so I'll continue.

I noticed in your brief you spoke about your wish that there be membership lists provided in an organizing drive. I know this wasn't part of your submission, but it was part of your summary of major points. I'll tell you, though, we've heard some suggestions about why these should be provided.

I have a concern with respect to confidentiality of workers, the whole issue of workers, male and female, single-support or not, having their names, addresses and a whole stack of confidential information being made known during an organizing drive. It has nothing to do with whether one can or cannot, or should or should not, organize. To me the issue is whether an individual, man or woman, working should have private and confidential information provided outside of his or her employ.

I'm wondering if you can share with us why this type of information should be made known.

Ms Lem: When you organize a workplace, and this is especially true of part-time workers but not at all restricted to part-time workers, there can be a lot of people who will appear on the company's list that the union may not know of because of the hours they work, because they work in a bureau or somewhere not in the main location. There can be a myriad of reasons.

We believe the list should be provided after a union has displayed a specified level of support, because ultimately the union has to sign up. In other words, a majority of the people who are employed there have to, in effect, vote for the union by signing union cards. If you looked at that situation elsewhere, such as in your own election, there's no requirement that every person in the province or in your riding vote. Here there is a requirement that a majority of the people in the workplace must in effect vote for the union by signing the card.

We're not saying that a union should just walk in and be able to demand a list, but we think that after showing a level of support the list should be provided, and we also think the privacy considerations of which you spoke can be dealt with in the legislation. The union does not need to know who's a single-support mother, necessarily know that sort of thing. What we're looking for is having accurate lists of the numbers of employees who work there.

Mr Jackson: Just to put a fine point on that one, I frankly feel there has to be some degree of protection and I'm a little nervous. Although I recognize the union's right to be able to contact employees, I have serious concerns about yet another example of us suspending somebody's civil rights. We're seeing far too many occasions of it, with employment equity coming, and now this request is a suspension of the civil rights of an individual to protect a certain amount of his or her privacy. Especially for women in single-parent, mother-led homes or for victims of violence it's a concern. It's a legitimate one. It's not a general legitimate concern for all members of society, but it certainly is, under certain circumstances, for women in particular. I'd certainly like to put that concern on the record because that's the concern I have about it.

I have two areas I want to explore in the limited time. One is that we heard a presentation this morning with respect to a certification approach in the Cambridge Reporter, which was filled with acrimony, violence and so on. I want to ask you the direct question: Why is it that you allow -- your union in that case and others we've heard of -- phone-in votes that are positive to your ends but that you would reject notarized proxies that do not support your contention? Why is it that you undertake that kind of activity?

Ms Lem: Actually, we don't allow proxy votes.

Mr Jackson: Then why do you allow phone-ins? In the case this morning, 38 employees were present and 43 votes were counted.

Ms Lem: That's the contention of a particular employee who was anti-union, who acted as a strikebreaker during the strike and who is still trying to get rid of the union. That's another whole subject. But his unfounded contentions I don't think are --

Mr Jackson: But the facts before the labour board were that there was a disproportionate number of votes cast for the persons present. Are you saying that in your union on no occasion do you count votes unless the people are present?

Ms Lem: In my union we have no provision for proxy votes. I cannot recall that --

Mr Jackson: You answered that already. I'm asking if you've ever have a discrepancy.

Ms Lem: Excuse me. I cannot recall that ever happening during the 10 years I've been in this particular local or the 17 years I've been a member of various locals of the newspaper guild. Also, you should know that the Ontario Labour Relations Board recently, last month I believe, threw out another attempt by this employee and his group to decertify the union.

Mr Jackson: I think that is their right in this province.

Ms Lem: That is one of the things that was brought to the board, and the board, in its wisdom, obviously found that the allegations were unfounded.

Mr Jackson: You do not support secret ballots, I suspect.

Ms Lem: We have secret ballots in all our strike votes.

Mr Jackson: But if this legislation were to be amended, do you support secret ballots for certification? Why are democracy and its principles selective in this regard?

Ms Lem: I don't think democracy and its principles are selective in this regard.

1430

Mr Jackson: Wouldn't they protect people though?

Ms Lem: I think during an organizing drive -- I've worked on several -- employees well know the position of their employer. I'm a reporter and report on business at the Globe and Mail and I certainly know my employer's position on various things, including unions and how the company runs and so on. So first of all, employees already know what their employer's position is.

Second, you will find if you've ever worked on an organizing drive that organizing occurs when there is a need for a union. It's a very tough decision for people to make and it's not one they make lightly.

Finally, I would say that when they sign the card, they are in effect voting for the union.

Employers, in the current law, are not allowed to intimidate, coerce, harass, threaten or fire employees because they choose to join a union, but that does happen. I organized the Metroland chain of newspapers owned by the Toronto Star. I had three reporters who were fired during that organizing drive. I fought at the labour board for three months and finally they were reinstated because the board found they were fired because they supported the union. So the company does intimidate and even dismiss people. We feel that if people have in effect voted for the union --

Mr Jackson: It's on that point I was asking. Wouldn't the secret ballot protect --

Ms Lem: No, the card is a secret ballot.

Mr Jackson: Not the strike vote. I'm talking about certification.

Ms Lem: I'm talking about certification too.

Mr Jackson: I consider there to be abuses on both sides. I'm not saying one side is wholly innocent in that regard. I'm simply saying that all citizens of this province could survive any fears of reprisal if their -- just as my constituents don't have to worry, when they come in to ask for my assistance, if they say: "I know you know I voted against you, Mr Jackson. Will you help me?" That is a right, a democratic principle and I don't think an employer or a union should know who does or doesn't support them. I think the arguments for or against a union should stand on their own merits.

Ms Lem: But, Mr Jackson, when you sign a card, that is also privileged information which the employer is not supposed to have access to. It is in effect a secret ballot. To suggest, as you appear to be doing, that people don't know what they're doing when they sign a union card --

Mr Jackson: No, I didn't say that. I said protect everybody.

Ms Lem: It's a suggestion inherent in your question, the idea that people don't know what they're doing when they sign a union card.

Mr Jackson: No. I want everybody protected.

Ms Lem: Fifty per cent of our members are journalists who cover major political and economic events and I certainly think they know what they're doing when they sign a union card.

The Chair: I want to thank you, Ms Lem, and you, Mr Murdock, for appearing here today on behalf of the Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild. We appreciate your interest and we appreciate your coming here to Queen's Park. We trust you'll be monitoring the bill as it goes through the committee process and trust you'll be keeping in touch. Take care.

Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, I wonder why Mr Ferguson didn't ask this group the same question he asked the daily papers about the efficacy of their reporting when they asked rather offensive questions that --

The Chair: Darned if I know, Mr Jackson. Among my talents is not mindreading.

CANADIAN PAPERWORKERS UNION, REGION III

The Chair: The next group is the Canadian Paperworkers Union. Would they please come forward, have a seat, give us their names and tell us what their titles are, if any. We have until the hour. We want to make sure we save at least the last 15 minutes for questions and exchanges. Tell us your names, gentlemen, please, and your status with the CPU. Go right ahead.

Mr André Foucault: My colleague, who will be presenting the presentation on behalf of the Canadian Paperworkers, is Patrick Sweeney. He's the national representative of the organization. My name is André Foucault.

Mr Patrick Sweeney: On behalf of the Canadian Paperworkers Union, Region III, I would like to thank the resources development committee for allowing me the opportunity to appear before you today to express our views on Bill 40.

The Canadian Paperworkers Union represents some 21,000 workers in Ontario who are employed in the forest products industry, dealing with pulp, paper, lumber and paper-converting operations, the latter of which includes commercial envelopes, greeting cards, school and office supplies, corrugated products and folding cartons, as well as wallpaper and bindery establishments.

The wide variety of operations in which we have membership and their geographical location in this province give our organizations the strong basis upon which to formulate its views on the contents of this proposed legislation. It is in the spirit of representation, due process and the promotion of economic partnership that we advance the content of this brief for the committee's consideration.

As in society at large, citizens are legally and constitutionally entitled to representation before our courts, within our governments and before inquiries and commissions to protect their rights; so should they as workers in our province's plants, mills, factories, stores, mines and offices have access to representation in their dealings with their employer. Workplaces of this province cannot be viewed as standing outside the general framework of our society, but rather as an integral part of it.

Further pursuing the parallelism which exists between our society and its workplaces, it is also fundamental that all have access to due process. Decisions made unilaterally by employers can have far-reaching and serious consequences for the employees who are impacted upon by these decisions. Given these serious consequences, it stands to reason that in the absence of a formal procedure through which these decisions can be appealed or challenged, Ontario workplaces can well be repositories of injustice. In a civilized society, everything should be done that can be done to promote fairness for us in our place of employment. Unionization provides the only real mechanism which can advance this objective.

The future of our economy, our very ability to stay ahead of competition from this continent and beyond depends on a new partnership which must involve workers. For working people, involvement can mean simply taking a blind lead from employers as in the past, but full representation as equals in dialogue between employers, employees and our governments.

Once again, unionization brings with it the mechanism through which workers can become not only equal but effective participants in the dialogue, which must be initiated and continued between themselves, their government and their employers if we are to rise to the challenges from our competitors.

The Canadian Paperworkers Union is dismayed at the mindless opposition which this bill has received from some segments of the business community. It is incomprehensible to us that this proposed legislation has become the battle cry for every fanatical employer or employer organization which prefers living in the past than change in accordance with the gradual evolution of our society.

In our view, this narrow and ill-conceived position tends to undermine our very ability to compete on the global market. To suppress this necessary and desirable evolution is to suppress our future itself. The opposition is certainly vocal, but cannot, in our view, reflect the mainstream of progressive and responsible employers of this province. At a different time, these opponents would have been on the front lines opposing the prohibition of the use of child labour, the right to vote for women, reduction in the workweek, workers' compensation legislation, public education, the Canada pension plan and other progressive measures.

We only have to look at the most vibrant European economies to serve as an example to us of the benefits which can be derived from mature corporate management in its dealings with governments and unions.

Eligibility: We praise the minister for having extended the right to unionize to a large number of workers who have been legally denied this opportunity. Once these barriers are removed, security guards, among others, would be eligible for union representation.

The committee should note that among the 11 labour jurisdictions in this country, the province of Ontario is the only that does not afford security guards the right to join any trade union. This exclusion was based on the fictitious belief by management that were security guards eligible for unionization in the union which represents the employees of a given establishment, such association would create a conflict of interest. Security guards, they argued, would have a dual loyalty, one to the employer and the other to the union and its membership.

It is inappropriate that people employed as security guards be discriminated against in this fashion. In practice, most security guards are recruited from the ranks of the unionized workforce, where they have already held membership for years.

1440

Our experience shows that in the provinces where we do represent people in the security field, concerns for divided loyalties are unfounded and in fact artificial. Our experience further shows that people take on positions of responsibility and exercise their obligations diligently.

Protection of workers during organizing campaigns: If the statutes of the province of Ontario provide workers with the right to unionize, as they do and as they should, it must follow that employees who exercise these statutory rights receive maximum protection from our laws.

The bill addresses the issue of unjust employer harassment and dismissal of workers who participate in an organizing drive. This proposed legislation does provide some additional protection to workers who are subjected to such unfair measures, and rightly so. It is shocking that workers are often fired or disciplined for simply trying to convince their coworkers they would be better off dealing with their employer collectively in a union rather than alone as individuals. Yet many workers who try to organize must live day in and day out with the fear of losing their livelihood. This is a clear violation of free speech, free association, and is directly opposed to the spirit of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

This is a problem that the Canadian Paperworkers Union has faced in the past and it is one that we face today. We have organizing campaigns under way in Ontario at this time where workers are petrified of losing their jobs if their employer discovers they're attempting to join a union. This is particularly significant when unemployment levels are high and work is hard to find.

Admittedly, the act does presently forbid employers from unjustifiably disciplining or dismissing workers involved in an organizing campaign. In practice, though, unscrupulous employers can fire key organizers and not face the music for many months, by which time the campaign might fail in the absence of the key people. It is important that such tactics disappear so that workers are able to freely exercise their rights to associate and join a union.

Section 92.9 of the proposed bill contains provisions to protect workers, during organizing campaigns, from unjust discipline and dismissal. A union will be able to request an expedited hearing before the labour relations board, were it filed an unfair labour complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act. Where a union requests an expedited hearing under this section, the hearing must begin within 15 days of the request and a board will sit on consecutive days until the hearing is complete. The board must render its decision within 48 hours of the completion of the hearing.

The proposed 15-day waiting period can be a long time in an organizing campaign and falls short of what the CPU would recommend. None the less, compared to the current process, which can take many months before reaching a solution, it is a significant step forward which we support.

Certifications: One area where we find the legislation quite disappointing is with respect to the support required for certification. The government has decided to maintain the current provision in the act which sets 55% as a level of membership support a union must have before it is entitled to automatic certification. This is truly unfortunate. CPU recently signed up 54% of the workers in a large, viciously anti-union plant in Ontario, yet was unable to obtain automatic certification. The intensity of the employer's anti-union campaign, replete with implied threats and unrealistic promises, doomed the vote to failure.

It is unfair to set up roadblocks to workers who wish to join a union, and the 55% rule constitutes such a roadblock. In addition, it is clearly unjust, since the majority of workers who have expressed their wish to join a union are denied being able to do so. The Canadian Paperworkers Union believes that if a simple majority of workers joins the union, certification should be automatic. This practice is currently in effect in Newfoundland, Quebec and in the federal jurisdiction.

We note that the legislation does lower the percentage required for a representation vote from 45% to 40%. We support this change.

Petitions: Let us turn now to the issue of petitions by employees who claim they do not want to be represented by a union. In our experience, in virtually every case, petitions are frivolous, employer-sponsored and invariably fail to prevent certification. Nevertheless, anti-union employers, who are well served by them since they provide a way to delay certification, demoralize newly unionized workers and often divide the workforce. The proposed legislation no longer permits petitions to be submitted to the board after the date the union applies for certification.

While this restriction constitutes a welcome change, the Canadian Paperworkers Union believes, for the aforementioned reasons, that petitions should not be considered by the board at all.

Anti-scab measures: The Canadian Paperworkers Union fully supports the amendments in Bill 40 which have as a purpose to restrict the use of scab labour. The use of scabs during a strike leads to an emotion-charged atmosphere, serious picket line confrontations and a weakening of the positions of workers. This has been a serious problem in the pulp and paper industry in the United States and is a major concern of ours. The changes proposed in Bill 40 go a long way towards preventing such conflicts in the future in Ontario.

Regrettably the bill does not go far enough towards equalizing the respective burdens of workers and their employer during a strike. Employers are still permitted to contract out bargaining unit work and to shift it to another location. Supervisors and non-bargaining unit employees who normally work in a struck location are allowed to perform the work of the striking employees. So while workers are deprived of their income, employers in many instances will be able to operate at something approaching their normal rate. We ask that the government amend the bill to correct these deficiencies.

We also propose that this bill be amended to direct the labour relations board to expedite any hearings that deal with complaints under this section of the act and that decisions be rendered promptly.

Conclusion: The amendments to the labour law of Ontario proposed in Bill 40 benefit the working people of this province. We believe the bill requires certain improvements. We congratulate the government on its resolve in proposing these new changes, for which we expect rapid passage in the Legislature.

We feel that the proposals contained in this bill will reflect the direction of our society in granting fundamental rights to the workers of this province to proper representation, due process and a participatory role in a dialogue which will be so essential to the new economic partnership.

That is the end of our brief, Mr Chairman, but I'd like to read a closing comment to you. The committee should be aware that our union continues to study certain other sections of this bill and is in the process of reviewing the same with our legal counsel. We reserve the right to put forth additional positions before this committee at a later date when again we will appear before it. We may also choose upon the completion of this public hearing to address certain concerns directly with the government.

Mr Offer: In the time permitted, I'd like to raise one issue. But I'd also like to ask you, Mr Chair -- and I'm not asking for a ruling at this time, but I certainly think that it has to be taken into consideration -- where there are motions to be brought before this committee, first, when is the time that they can be brought forward? Second, when will we have the opportunity to be able to discuss those motions, without taking away time from the deputants making presentations?

I'm using this time which is allocated to our caucus to ask a question to bring forward this matter because I don't want to take away from either the deputation or the questions from other caucus members. But I believe that this is a matter of very serious concern because of some of the questions that have arisen over technical assistance from ministry staff. Having said that, Mr Chair, I would just note that I hope to receive some information from you as to how this committee can deal with the orders of its business as we proceed.

I noted from the final comment you made that you wanted some additional time, potentially, to come forward before this committee, with which I have absolutely no problem whatsoever. I would like to give notice, Mr Chair, that I will be placing a motion once more before the committee that at this hearing we ask that extra time be given so that we are able to listen to all those people who want to not only come before us but also who may wish to deal with certain matters that have arisen as a result of their representations.

The Chair: Thank you for the notice.

1450

Mr Offer: Have I run out of time because of that?

The Chair: No, we're going to give you a couple of minutes. But to respond to your query, as with the motion that's currently on the floor, made by the member of the Conservative caucus, the appropriate time, in my view, is at the end of the day's business when all of the participants have been heard and had their time allotments effectively utilized.

Mr Offer: Thank you.

The Chair: We're going to be here till 9.

Mr Offer: Thank you very much. I will be distributing the motion to be heard at the end of the day.

Thank you for your presentation. As you speak about some of the concerns about organization and organizing drives, could you please share with us what your position is in the area of giving workers the right to express their opinion in a secret ballot and the right to be fully informed as to the issues around an organizing drive.

Mr Sweeney: I'd like to defer to my colleague, if I may, on that.

Mr Offer: Sure.

Mr Foucault: Our union affords prospective members full knowledge of our organization. Our constitution is our biggest organizing tool; that is the first document that is placed in the hands of employees who are considering membership in our union, so that they fully understand the structure we have to offer them and can question any part of the constitution.

I assure you that our constitution contains in it the salaries of our officers and everything else; it's a wide-open document. That's what we do; we're wide-open with that and very open to all kinds of questions with respect to that. As far as a secret ballot vote and certification matters are concerned, 50% plus one is the majority and is in itself a secret ballot, a determination of the wishes of the employees.

We view this as a parallel perhaps in the legal profession. If I retain a lawyer to act on my behalf, or if one of us does that, the courts don't go beyond being satisfied that there is a contractual arrangement between the lawyer and the client, and that's enough. We don't need to have the courts protect individuals against lawyers. We accept that the relationship develops freely between lawyers and their clients, as it does between unions and prospective members.

Mrs Cunningham: I'm interested in your union, the Canadian Paperworkers Union, Region III. I'm wondering if you have grown in membership in the province of Ontario or whether you have had more members in the past.

Mr Foucault: I think it's fair to say that, like most unions, our membership has been impacted upon by the recession that we are experiencing in this country. Therefore I would say our numbers have declined, although we're talking about layoffs of individuals on a temporary basis mostly, who continue to have recall rights in their place of employment and continue to have access to our representation, grievance procedures and so on. We continue to act on behalf of these people. Certainly the employment level may be down, but they still continue to be members of our union.

Mrs Cunningham: Okay. The reason I ask is that I've just spent some time in the Maritimes, and they seem to have more members of your union down there now than there have been in the past. I'm just wondering if the industry is growing in the maritime provinces as opposed to in Ontario.

Mr Foucault: I don't think those numbers bear out. I believe the membership in the Maritimes is pretty stable.

Mrs Cunningham: Is equally low or low as well?

Mr Foucault: Yes. It's about 12,000 and has been for some time.

Mrs Cunningham: Okay. I just thought it was growing, and that's why I wondered about that, given your presentation today.

You talked about the battle cry on behalf of some of the employers. I want you to know that the one I get in my office more frequently -- and it's not just from the business community, but from other communities like representatives of municipalities and hospitals; today we heard from school boards -- is the tremendous concern about worker replacement, that part of the legislation and how in fact it could -- today we were told it would literally close the schools down if it was one union. Some school boards have as many as 16 different unions, and this wouldn't allow anybody to replace workers, whether it be bus drivers or whether it be substitute teachers or whatever.

I thought they had rather legitimate complaints. So I don't think everybody is coming before the committee and presenting unreasonable positions or concerns. I just wondered if you knew about two or three that I've just mentioned and feel they do perhaps have a legitimate concern.

Mr Foucault: It's all part of the ongoing debate around this legislation. People are free to express their concerns. However, if a society is going to be consistent, there are times when granting rights is easy to do and there are times when it's difficult to do, but in the end, if the rights are worth granting, which we believe they are, then it should be done as consistently as possible. It's in the principle of the right that we base our argument. I'm not saying it's going to be easy for all.

Mrs Cunningham: Are you talking about the right to be a member of a union, when you're talking about rights?

Mr Foucault: Whatever rights this legislation, when enacted, would bring to workers. I'm talking generally, not just the right to belong.

Mrs Cunningham: Their concern specifically was the right to have a replacement worker either drive a bus or teach a child, where the itinerant teachers or the substitute teachers are members of a CUPE union. They're concerned that they can't replace them with regular teachers, as they can now.

The Chair: Mr Fletcher, did you want Ms Cunningham to have some your time?

Mr Fletcher: No.

The Chair: Do you want to reply to Ms Cunningham's point?

Mrs Cunningham: I wondered if you thought that was a legitimate concern. I think your response was that you think everything should be consistent. There are some examples here where we're very concerned about the implementation of this legislation across all sectors. We wondered if you'd given that any consideration or if you even knew about it in this regard.

Mr Foucault: Certainly, if we aren't impacted upon as working people with this issue, we are as citizens and parents and so on. I'm saying, as a citizen in this regard as well as a working person, that if there will be rights afforded to people because it's more a right to do it, then we as a society should be prepared to accept the downsides of granting these rights as well as recognizing the upsides.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. Just a few things. We've heard from a lot of groups that have come in that they liked the legislation, they liked the proposals and they praised the Minister of Labour and this government for introducing this legislation. We've also heard from groups that are saying this legislation tips the balance of power, that it isn't a level playing field.

In your experience as far as organizing drives, as far as signing up members, whatever you do during negotiations, is there a balance of power? In your experience, is this tipping the balance of power or is this creating a level playing field?

Mr Foucault: Generally and then to the specifics: generally the balance of power has to be perceived not between management and union but between shareholders and union, because that's who in fact management represents, the shareholders.

For example, during a labour dispute, the workers are without income; in a sense, no bread is coming to the table. The shareholders, on the other hand, continue to have bread coming to the table because their investment in that plant is not generally their sole source of income. There's a more direct investment on the part of the worker and a more direct stake in that employee's job than perhaps for a shareholder in a company. When you're looking at that playing field, we have to keep in mind who is juxtaposed to whom here, and it is the shareholder being juxtaposed to the worker. The management people are basically an instrument of the shareholders in this conflict.

Specifically, with respect to organizing, there's no question that the power of the employer, just the implied threat or the perceived ability to discontinue the gainful employment of an employee for exercising his rights under this act, as it now stands or will when this is eventually enacted, is a deterrent towards the exercise of those rights; that's got to be curbed.

The labour relations board doesn't hear all the horror stories, because the ones that are heard before the board are the ones where we weren't able to establish a clear violation. We go before the board and we have support for our position and we advance it to the best of our ability.

In the ones where we have a clear violation, the horror stories, very seldom does someone get before the board, because our attorneys on our behalf or ourselves on our own behalf will contact the employer and say, "Here are the facts we have." We expose that support that we have. Generally they will negotiate with us a settlement to those allegations because we have the support.

1500

So the worst-case scenarios of employees being fired are very seldom heard before the board, being told so by the employer in front of witnesses, unashamedly, of people who suddenly are caught up in a layoff because of an alleged lack of work. We know full well -- and we can demonstrate -- that somehow the cutback reached into that department simply to remove people from the campaign and access to fellow workers. Another example I could use is when an employer literally paid an employee to stay away to avoid a subpoena served on that employee.

So these are things that, when we can prove them, of course, the employers will suddenly back off; they will suddenly negotiate with us. We can prove it directly.

The Chair: Thank you. We've got to move on, gentlemen. Thank you very much. The committee expresses its gratitude to you and the Canadian Paperworkers Union for your interest, for your participation today, for your submission and what I trust will be ongoing contact and monitoring, on your part, of the legislation.

Mr Foucault: Thank you for the committee's time, Mr Chairman. Take care.

UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF AMERICA

The Chair: The next participant is the United Plant Guard Workers of America, if they'd come forward, seat themselves in front of a microphone and tell us their names and titles. We've got half an hour. Please keep at least the last 15 minutes for exchanges, dialogue and questions. Go ahead, please.

Ms Denise Sylvestre: Good afternoon. My name is Denise Sylvestre. I'm an organizer for the International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America. I'm also president of Local 1956 of the United Plant Guard Workers. I'm employed as a security guard with an agency company.

United Plant Guard appreciates getting this opportunity to appear before this committee to make submissions with respect to Bill 40 and reforms to the Labour Relations Act. The International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America, endorses and supports the vast majority of the reforms being proposed by the government in Bill 40. We feel that the changes being proposed, particularly in areas such as access to third-party property for the purpose of organizing, the elimination of petitions in certification applications, improvement to successor rights provisions and restrictions on the use of replacement workers are a long time coming and very much needed to allow Ontario workers to have access to collective bargaining.

We have concerns, however, about certain proposed amendments. We oppose the proposed amendment to section 12 of the act. We have doubts that section 31 of the bill, as presently drafted, will accomplish its intended purpose. Finally, we are requesting that the government enact a proposal to provide unions with access to employer's lists of employees for the purpose of organizing.

The UPGWA is the trade union which has represented security guards in Ontario since 1958. It is a guards-only union; it represents security guards and only security guards. The union was first formed in 1948 in the United States, where it today has some 25,000 members. The union has approximately 2,500 members in Ontario. Most of the bargaining units represented by this union are small and consist of between 20 and 25 employees. Our largest unit has about 270 members.

In Ontario we represent guards employed by employers such as General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, Alcan, Ontario Hydro, the Ontario Jockey Club, the Art Gallery of Ontario, Burns Security, Carecor Security, universities and major hospitals, among others. Additionally, we represent security guards in Quebec and New Brunswick.

In the past two years the union has been very actively organizing and has grown by some 40% in Ontario, adding some 1,000 new members. Most of these new members are agency guards, security guards who work for a security agency as opposed to in-house guards directly employed by the company to whom they provide security services.

Our union has a full-time organizing department and has had four separate organizers active within Ontario in the past year.

In the collective agreements we have negotiated we have been able to win substantial improvements in wages, benefits and working conditions for our members. For example, our collective agreement with Chrysler provides a comprehensive health care plan, life and disability insurance, an income maintenance plan, a legal services plan and a supplementary unemployment insurance plan. Our collective agreements with the agencies we have organized provide for wages in excess of minimum wage and a full range of benefits, including paid sick leave, medical and dental plans, free uniforms and equipment and health and safety protection. That's a big plus, the health and safety; we have no health and safety without our unions.

As a guards-only union we recognize and are able to respond to the unique interests of security guards. By negotiating only on behalf of security guards we ensure that the specialized needs and interests of guards are addressed in collective bargaining. We come before you today as the voice of organized security guards in Ontario.

While we support the vast majority of the amendments to the act being proposed in Bill 40, there are three areas in which we feel changes are needed. The first of these is the right of unions to obtain lists of employees during organizing. We urge the government to amend Bill 40 to provide such a right to unions. Our experience in organizing agency guards has taught us that without such lists, we often cannot even find the people we are attempting to organize. Without these lists, some people will never have the opportunity to join a union. The details of our submission in this regard are found on pages 5 and 6 of our written brief.

The second area in which we feel changes must be made to the proposed amendments is the area of successor rights in building services. We strongly support the government's intention in amending the act to provide successor rights to employees who provide cleaning, food and security services under contract. The lack of successor rights for these employees has meant that in the past they did not have any real right to collective bargaining. Our concern is that the amendment, section 31 of the bill, is drafted too narrowly to accomplish this purpose. We are proposing a rewording to ensure that the government succeeds in extending successor rights to these employees. Also, details of our submission will be on pages 6 and 8 of our written brief.

Mr Lewis Bryant: My name is Lewis Bryant. I'm an organizer for the United Plant Guard Workers and unit chairman at the Alcan Rolled Products Co in Kingston. I am employed there as an in-house security guard. I'll speak to you about the proposed amendments to section 12 of the act.

Section 12 of the act currently provides that security guards cannot be placed in the same bargaining unit as non-guards and that a trade union which represents non-guards is not entitled to be certified as the bargaining agent for security guards.

The proposed amendments of the bill would permit unions which represent non-guards to represent guards. The amendments would also place guards in the same bargaining unit as non-guards, unless the labour board were to find that a conflict of interest would arise due to the guards being required to monitor other employees. If such a conflict were found, the board would be required to place the guards in a separate bargaining unit, but could not require that the guards be represented by a different union.

The rationale which underlies section 12 is that if guards are placed in the same unit or union as the employees there would be a conflict of interest between the duty of the guard to his or her employer and his or her allegiance to union brothers and sisters. The labour board has ruled that in order for section 12 to apply to any group of employees, the conflict must be a real one. Conversely, the labour board has held that when no conflict exists, section 12 does not apply. The employees in question can be placed in the bargaining unit with other employees and represented by any union.

The board has found that an employee is not a guard simply if he or she is uniformed, wears a badge, carries a weapon, is licensed as a security guard or designated as a special constable. This does not mean that section 12 applies.

1510

Similarly, if an employee only guards an employer's property against third parties but not against other employees, section 12 will not apply. As a result, armoured-car guards are not guards under the act and may be represented by any union.

Section 12 only applies to a select group of employees, those who have responsibility for monitoring other employees and who would be in conflict of interest by being placed in the same bargaining unit or being represented by the same union as other employees.

The government, in both the discussion paper and the fact sheets accompanying Bill 40, states that conflicts of interest do not exist so as to require guards-only unions. It bases this claim on undisclosed research of other provinces by the Ministry of Labour.

We reject this assertion. Section 12 only applies where there is a real conflict. In situations where there is no conflict, the labour board has said section 12 will not apply. We disagree with the Canadian Paperworkers Union, which you just heard.

We are here to say that, as security guards working in the field, such conflicts of interest do exist. They are very real. If the unions which are not guard-only are permitted to organize security guards, security guards are going to be placed in a very difficult position -- I know; I've been there. We will face substantial conflicts between our duties to our employers and our allegiance to our union brothers and sisters.

It is a guard's job to observe and monitor other employees. That includes conducting searches of their clothing, vehicles, lockers and lunch boxes, for the purpose of protecting the employer's property against possible theft and vandalism by these employees. We are required to report to the employer any misconduct that we may observe. We may be required to give evidence on behalf of the employer if discipline proceedings against that employee result. Our responsibility to observe, record and report employee misconduct continues and is heightened during a labour dispute. Simply put, we are cops in the workplace.

In order to properly do our jobs for the employer and to avoid risk of discipline or dismissal we must observe, monitor and report misconduct by each and every employee. From experience, to do this we must maintain a certain distance between ourselves and the other employees. We tend to have very little to do with other employees. We have separate lunch areas and locker rooms and we cannot allow friendship or some common interest to interfere with our job.

If we are placed in the same bargaining unit as other employees, then this separation will be hard to maintain. We will be under pressure, spoken or unspoken, to look the other way when an infraction involves a union brother or sister. This pressure will be even more noticeable when the misconduct may be in the interests of the bargaining unit, ie sabotage on the eve of a strike. We will be placed in a no-win situation. We either risk discipline and dismissal by the employer or we are disloyal to our union brothers and sisters.

The conflict will not be resolved by placing security guards in a separate bargaining unit. We are experienced and devoted trade unionists. If we are members of the same union as other employees of our employer, we will face conflicts and pressures, regardless of whether we are in a separate bargaining unit. In order to do our jobs as guards effectively, workplace solidarity can extend only to our relationship with other guards and no further.

These conflicts and pressures will exist for both agency and in-house guards. As agency guards we work in a variety of different workplaces where other employees are represented by a number of different unions. If the unions which represent non-guards are permitted to represent agency guards, we will wind up working at sites where we will monitor other members of our own union. As such, we will face the same conflicts faced by in-house guards.

Section 12 serves to protect us from these conflicts and pressures. We see section 12 as a legislative protection, not a legislative limitation upon our rights.

Security guards are not the only employees in Ontario prevented from joining unions who represent any other type of employee. Teachers and members of a police force also face restrictions of this nature.

The Police Act recognizes that if police officers join unions representing non-police, conflicts of interest may result. Security guards are the police in the workplace. The same kinds of conflicts exist. We are more closely related to the police officer than we are to the factory worker. The same legislation protection that applies to the police ought to apply to us.

Ms Sylvestre: We are aware that the government is concerned about the low level of union representation of security guards in the province. So are we. This is why we have been so actively organizing in the past few years. It's not the in-house guards who are underrepresented by unions; it is the agency guards. This has far less to do with section 12 than it does with other weaknesses in the act.

We have learned by experience that it is particularly difficult to organize agency guards. Guards employed by agencies are employed at numerous different work sites. We have no access to employee lists to even find these people.

Agency guards also recognize that they have high degrees of vulnerability in their jobs and they are easily replaced. I can tell you that's how they feel because I am an organizer. At 3 o'clock in the morning guards are saying: "Get out of here. The boss is going to see you and I don't want to talk to you." I mean, we've had people hiding under the desk, sending nurses out at hospitals because they're scared to death because I'm even near them.

If we do succeed in organizing them and obtaining improvements in wages and conditions of employment, their employers may be undercut by non-union agencies. When their employer loses contracts, they lose jobs. The result is that agency guards are underrepresented and underpaid.

These problems will not be resolved by eliminating section 12. Allowing guards to join any union does not eliminate the problem. One of Canada's largest unions represents security guards employed at certain airports under federal legislation. Despite the size of the union, they have only succeeded in negotiating a collective agreement paying 60 cents an hour more than minimum wage. Our contracts are better.

Other provinces do not have equivalent sections to section 12. Yet, to our knowledge, only in Quebec are a significantly greater number of agency guards represented by unions. Again, this has little to do with section 12. It is a result of what is known as the "decree system" whereby collective agreements are extended to unorganized workers without the necessity of certification.

Increasing representation among agency guards will be done through improvements to successor rights provisions, granting unions access to employee lists, granting effective and quick remedies for dismissals and discharges during organizing campaigns, eliminating petitions in certification proceedings and prohibiting the use of replacement workers during a labour dispute.

We fear that elimination of section 12 will in fact harm security guards. It may cause more employers to eliminate in-house guards in favour of agency guards in the hope of eliminating the conflicts of interest which will be created by having guards and non-guards represented by the same union. The result will mean that there will be fewer in-house guards and more hard-to-organize agency guards working for lower wages without the protection of unions, a result contrary to the government's entire purpose in enacting Bill 40.

Conclusion: We strongly urge the government to redraft section 31 of the bill to ensure that it accomplishes its intention of extending successor rights to employees working in the building services area, to amend Bill 40 to give unions engaged in organizing access to the lists of employees and to amend Bill 40 to leave section 12 of the act in place and provide for guard-only unions and bargaining units.

We endorse and strongly support the other proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act in Bill 40. Collective bargaining works well for those who have access to it. With these changes, security guards will have that access.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms Cunningham, three minutes, please.

Mrs Cunningham: Thank you very much for appearing here today. You've certainly given me some information that I wasn't aware of. I'm just wondering whether you would expect that this committee would bring forth amendments as it sees fit to be discussed during the clause-by-clause or whether there are sections of this bill that you feel would be worthy of some kind of further discussion.

We've had a number of people say to us there will be new -- new information has been brought to light. You've certainly brought some to me today that I'm going to consider. We have had many requests to appear before this committee for some ongoing discussions. It's a very confusing piece of legislation for many of us.

1520

Mr David Wright: My name is David Wright. I'm Canadian counsel to the union. I don't feel it's our place to direct the Legislature in its proceedings. We certainly appreciate the opportunity we've been given to make submissions to this committee and to make submissions to those people who will be deciding this bill. We hope that government and opposition members alike will hear what we've had to say today and propose the necessary amendments to accomplish the aims we think are needed.

Mrs Cunningham: Could I ask you, with regard to some new information that we got today from a group of school boards that are very concerned about not being able to use replacement workers: Specifically, the example they gave was that if the bus drivers went on strike or if the itinerant teachers went on strike, with this legislation they couldn't replace the bus drivers, and therefore the students wouldn't get to school as they can now, or, in the case of occasional teachers, the regular teachers couldn't take their place.

These are the kinds of things we're hearing for the first time, and there may be some differences across different sectors where this bill ought to be applied. Would you have any opinion on that at all?

Mr Wright: We definitely strongly support the government's initiative to place limits on the use of replacement workers. We think it's absolutely crucial to allow unions, including our union, to resolve our problems in the workplace through the mechanism of collective bargaining. The result is like any strike that currently exists: it places some hardships on parts of the public, hardships that exist currently when a strike happens. It will exist with replacement workers, but we think in the long run limiting the use of replacement workers in fact will mean fewer strikes in the province and less disruption to the public.

Mrs Cunningham: That's probably based on the information that you've been given with regard to Quebec. I'm not sure, but certainly their track record doesn't prove that at all.

The Chair: Do you want to respond to that?

Ms Sylvestre: I myself feel that if that anti-scab law was enacted, it would bring the people to the bargaining table and resolve their problems rather than allow a labour dispute to happen. It would bring things on a more even keel as far as I'm concerned.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms Murdock.

Ms Murdock: I'm sure as security guards, not having replacement workers would make your job a lot easier in many instances. I just want to ask about something that you've talked about in terms of agency guards -- I guess I would call them "contractual" guards, which would be the same as agency guards. Correct?

Ms Sylvestre: Exactly.

Ms Murdock: And managerial guards?

Ms Sylvestre: In-house.

Ms Murdock: In-house guards. I didn't understand the differentiation before, and I'm still not totally clear on how each group negotiates. I know that one group is under OPP supervision or monitoring and the other group isn't. But one of the suggestions that was made to us in an earlier presentation was the whole concept of industry-wide bargaining. You didn't get into that in your document, but I was wondering if you would care to comment on this.

Mr Wright: We didn't directly address the question of industry-wide bargaining. You're correct. We do, however, mention in our submissions to you the fact that, as far as we know, Quebec is the only jurisdiction where you see a significantly greater number of agency guards organized. That is because they do have a form of industry-wide bargaining, the decree system. We think that's been the reason why in Quebec, security guards, and particularly security guards who work for agencies, have been able to enjoy the right to join unions and enjoy the right to bargain collectively.

Ms Murdock: If agency guards were allowed to join any other union, any local or any particular bargaining unit, would that not resolve some of your concerns in regard to what you were saying earlier in terms of not being so unionized now?

Ms Sylvestre: No. Actually I feel that if security guards were allowed to join any union, it would be an injustice to security guards. I myself want to be represented by a union that represents security guards, and represents security guards in Ontario, not necessarily -- I feel, like my friend Lewis said, that we are more closely related to the police officer than we are to the factory worker.

With joining any trade union -- we are agencies, so we move from this factory to this factory to this factory. We're taken from this place and put over here during a labour dispute. We're just shifted all over, and we're bound to run into either being in the same bargaining unit or the same union as the people -- and I don't want to have to deal with the question of: Do I do my job or do I turn in my brother or sister?

The Chair: Mr Ward, just a few seconds.

Mr Ward: Just briefly, the critics of Bill 40 say they want things left alone because it's a level playing field as far as employer and employee relationships are concerned, as far as organizing is concerned. Yet we're hearing mounting evidence that in fact it is not a level playing field, that there are tremendous obstacles for employees to make the choice of whether they want to join a union or not.

The Chair: Point well made.

Mr Ward: You alluded to some --

The Chair: Mr Eddy.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I hate to interrupt Mr Ward. I'll pay for that.

Thank you for your presentation. I note particularly, and agree with, your views on section 12: to amend the act and provide for guard-only union and bargaining units. I think that's awfully important. But I want to ask about page 14, the paragraph under (D), where you make the statement, "We are aware that the government is concerned about the low level of union representation of security guards in the province." Where did that come from and what does it mean? Why is it here? Can you comment on that point?

Mr Wright: I think the government, we feel ill advisedly -- one of the rationales they have advanced for eliminating section 12 is that it will increase the level of representation among security guards in the province. As I say, we don't agree that will in fact achieve the result that is sought, but we, I guess, learned this through discussions with the government and through the fact sheets and background papers that were delivered with respect to Bill 40 and the discussion paper.

Mr Eddy: Quite startling.

Mr Offer: I have one question. When I read the provision in Bill 40, it speaks about a conflict of interest. I think it's clear from your presentation that you believe there is a conflict of interest. Bill 40 is putting that up for discussion, as to whether there is a conflict of interest, but you, in your professional capacity, believe that is an issue where, from your experience, there is a conflict of interest.

They speak about the guards in a bargaining unit monitoring employees. I note in your presentation that you don't limit it to just employees. It's not just employees that you monitor, but rather you also monitor and protect property. I think there is a hidden issue here. This issue of conflict that you've made very clear is made even clearer if we take into account the issue of property. Can you share with us whether it is your job just to monitor employees, or whether there's some sort of monitoring of property which you do?

Mr Bryant: Yes, and in that are management people as well. We check them when they come in and out, so it's not just the workforce but management as well. We can't really be on management's side too. As was said, we're the cops. When we go through on our rounds as security guards, certainly on a weekend when the employees are not working, with all the machinery and stuff, we have to report to someone. If we were just to turn our eye because maybe a plumber would get a job and it could be worse or whatever -- there is that conflict. It doesn't matter where you stand. You're sort of in between; you're sort of on your own.

The Chair: I want to thank the delegation from United Plant Guard Workers of America for coming here and expressing their views so eloquently. We appreciate your interest and trust that you'll be keeping in touch. I want to note that we're especially pleased that you brought your lawyer, David Wright, with you. His reputation as a labour lawyer, I tell you, extends far beyond the city limits of Toronto, so we're especially pleased to see him here. Thank you, people.

1530

ONTARIO GOOD ROADS ASSOCIATION

The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Good Roads Association. Please come forward, and tell us your names and your titles. Please try to save the last 15 minutes for questions and dialogue.

Mr Leonard Rach: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee on behalf of the Ontario Good Roads Association. My name is Leonard Rach. I'm second vice-president of the association, and I'm also director of engineering for the Metropolitan Toronto transportation department. With me this afternoon is Diana Summers, policy adviser for OGRA.

For your information, OGRA represents over 750 municipalities across Ontario. Our members range from small, rural municipalities to the municipality I work for, Metropolitan Toronto, and we speak on behalf of and with the support of our membership on a variety of roads and transportation issues.

We recognize that amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act are important to the government, but they must be pursued in full awareness of their impact on the sector of which OGRA is a part, the broader public sector. A great deal of attention has been paid to the anticipated impact of the proposed changes on labour and the business and private sectors. We believe that additional consideration is required to determine the impact on the provision of critical municipal services.

OGRA, along with a number of other public sector organizations, including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Municipal Electric Association, the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers of Ontario, the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Urban Transit Association, met with the Minister of Labour and his officials to express our concerns with the discussion paper and Bill 40 in particular. We as a group believe that as providers of critical services, our concerns were not addressed in the discussion paper. While some adjustments have been made, Bill 40 still does not adequately meet these concerns.

I'd like to comment at this time on two specific concerns OGRA has with Bill 40.

With respect to replacement workers, OGRA believes that during labour disputes, municipalities must be able to continue to provide critical services to the public. This includes roads that are safe and dependable for the travelling public. People expect and require a road system upon which they can depend for such basic needs as food and travelling to their place of work. Obviously, safe and dependable roads are also required for emergency vehicles, school buses and transit vehicles as well as commerce.

Members of the committee will be aware that the discussion paper was silent on the issue of the use of specified replacement workers. However, subsections 73.2(2) and (3) of the legislation allow for the use of specified replacement workers in certain situations.

OGRA seeks clarification on whether municipalities and their road authorities are to be included under this section. There are many variables in the declaration of an emergency concerning roads, such as weather and perhaps the length of a labour dispute. It might also include the failure of some critical elements of the road system, such as our traffic control signals, and our mandate to keep bare pavement available for the travelling public under winter maintenance conditions.

With respect to location, it is also unclear from the legislation what is meant by the terms "location" and "place of operations." A municipality usually has a number of locations or sites, including a head office and several work yards. We feel that Bill 40 is unclear on whether municipal managers can be deployed to various sites within the municipality during labour disputes. In the past, many municipalities have used replacement workers from their management staff to carry out the critical essential duties of the union staff to ensure safe roads during a labour dispute. In some public works departments, there is only one management employee on staff. Municipalities need clear authority to continue to use management personnel throughout the municipalities' operations during labour disputes.

I've limited my comments this afternoon to those concerns dealing exclusively with road operations within a municipality. Other public sector and municipal groups will, I know, speak to the broader issues that concern municipalities and their need to provide such essential services as electricity, water and sewage.

OGRA was encouraged that some of its concerns were dealt with in Bill 40, although, as you can see, there is still some confusion among municipalities regarding the intent of the legislation and its impact on municipal operations.

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity for allowing our organization to speak to you on this important issue. Municipalities have legitimate concerns with the proposed legislation and we welcome discussion such as this. We wish you well in your deliberations.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Questions?

Mr Ward: I'd like to thank you for your presentation on behalf of the Ontario Good Roads Association, an association I know is very well thought of throughout, I believe, Ontario. I know my own municipality is a member, the city of Brantford, and I believe we make good contributions, as far as our municipality is concerned, to the association.

Your primary concern dealt with the issue of replacement workers and the need for clarification on the intent of the legislation, so I'm assuming that, from the Ontario Good Roads Association standpoint, you don't have any real concerns about the updating of the labour act except as it pertains to the operations of your particular association and roads, that your prime concern is the replacement workers.

I notice you focused on the emergency situations that may occur during a regrettable labour dispute. If you look at the bill, subsection 73.2(3) allows replacement workers, with a procedure for that to kick in where there is: "(a) danger to life, health or safety; (b) the destruction or serious deterioration of machinery, equipment or premises; or (c) serious environmental damage." Those should cover that concern from a safety standpoint; ie, if there's a washout due to a severe storm, the process is in place, according to the bill, to allow that to be fixed. I think that is your prime concern, the health and safety of the public, of the good citizens of my community of Brantford, and I think that should deal with your concern.

Mr Rach: It's not only the sporadic concern, for example that a stop sign has to be replaced, but you get into a winter storm condition where you have to provide a certain amount of salt on the roadway or a salting and plowing operation to keep the pavement bare. Essentially it requires, in my estimation, an ongoing commitment by replacement workers, and in most cases municipalities supply the replacement workers in the form of management personnel.

1540

Mr Klopp: Along those lines, in Huron county -- I come from Hay township -- there's three or four road people working. I think of Stephen and West Wawanosh; they don't have unions. We do at the county level. The workers have chosen to organize, and we've had good relationships. Many of my friends work for the county; of course we always joke about how hard we work or how hard we don't work. I think one of the things is that they've worked in cooperation with their employee, the elected officials. In fact, earlier today we had a submission from the engineers, Local 793. They suggested the replacement worker thing is a situation that's dicey for both sides.

My friends who live in Zurich or in Hay township who work for the county also ride the roads. I think our people have it in the summertime, so if there are any disputes they don't have the maintenance problem like they would in wintertime. At the same time, it frustrates them, because they don't want to be seen as hurting even themselves going up the road.

The point is that they suggested that we promote through this bill the idea of having you, the managers -- the owners, if you will -- and the workers, if they choose to unionize, get together and work out these things on a one-to-one basis through some kind of committee so that you and they, who are in the community, can work together. Bill 40 does have a provision that we're trying to get advisory committees working, management and labour. I asked them if this is something that should be expanded to deal with such issues, because local people live in the community; they don't want to be labelled as hurting themselves. I think I'm going to be pushing that and I'd like your opinion on it.

Mr Rach: Thank you for your support on pushing that. Where we're coming from is essentially that we're after a clarification of the wording so that there doesn't appear to be any doubt for municipalities once Bill 40 becomes law. We don't want to get into the situation where we're hamstrung after the legislation is cast in stone.

Mr Eddy: Thank you for your presentation. Having been subjected to vocal concerns expressed by elected councils in several areas regarding the same concerns, I certainly want to emphasize it, and thank you for bringing it forward.

You mentioned traffic signals, and I think that's a very important part too. Bare pavement is certainly very important in many areas. Not my own, of course; we're used to not seeing bare pavement most of the winter. But I think it's got to be worked out much beforehand, before the legislation takes effect, because there are so many concerns of municipalities, water services and sewer services as well as the roads and transportation facilities. It's really important to have it in place and to know what you can do before the need to do it takes place. That's really essential. I know we'll be hearing from some of the other associations in this regard. Things need to be put in place long before. I agree with your concerns. There will be many of them.

Mr Rach: To draw on another analogy, in a municipal strike our works department handles the supply of water and sewage with management staff. This, in my estimation, is the use of a replacement worker. During a municipal strike, how can you tell the population of your municipality, "You can't turn on the water tap" or "You can't flush"?

Mr Eddy: I know elected people are always ready to help out in situations like this, but you might not want them out there.

Mrs Cunningham: I was interested in your comment on page 2, at the bottom of the second paragraph, where you say, "Additional consideration is required in determining the impact in the provision of critical municipal services." Are you aware of any impact studies that have been done on any of the services you have mentioned in the following paragraph to that?

Mr Rach: I'm not aware of any specific impact studies at this time.

Mrs Cunningham: So we're talking here about withdrawal of services or work stoppage that could affect members of other unions within the same municipal offices, but you're not aware of any impact studies or any examples that would be helpful in this regard.

Ms Diana Summers: It may be that the Ministry of Labour did them. There were people looking only at the municipal aspects of the legislation, we understand, and we're given to understand that impact studies had been done but we haven't seen them.

Mrs Cunningham: So you think before any of this was put forth with regard at least to your concerns, because you did have discussions, that somebody somewhere within the ministry knows about some impact studies. Would that be your understanding?

Ms Summers: Yes.

Mrs Cunningham: That's the feeling you were given?

Ms Summers: Yes.

Mrs Cunningham: We could put a request through, Mr Chairman, if you will right now, so that we could have impact studies that would be done on any of the services listed on page 2 in paragraph 2, or it could be 3, depending, but you can see the list of services and perhaps we could have them before the committee, because I'm not aware of them either.

I also would like to commend you on coming forward to draw some of your concerns to our attention. Given the concerns of, I think, everybody, because we've even heard of concerns of members of unions -- the government purports to believe it is representing them fully and has addressed all of their concerns, but in fact we have had some concerns from union members as well -- and given the seriousness of this bill, you should also be aware that we've got I think over 1,000 more applications for presentations before the committee. I think I'm right on that, Mr Chairman. Am I correct?

The Vice-Chair: Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000.

Mrs Cunningham: Yes, maybe a bit more than that. Perhaps we're going to be looking at extended hearings. There's no doubt in my mind that we need some better information. But given all these concerns, I was wondering if you would think that it would be appropriate to have, separate from this, at the end of the committee hearings, some tripartite discussions with the business community, certainly the government, labour and other individual interests that have now been brought to our attention, and municipalities would be one of them.

Mr Rach: From the municipality perspective, we would welcome the opportunity to voice our opinions related to the legislation and we would hope that all the opinions of all the groups in Ontario are heard before the committee prior to introducing Bill 40 back into the House.

The Vice-Chair: Further questions? Thank you very much for taking the time to present here today. The views you've presented here are important not only to yourselves but to the people of Ontario and I thank you very much for participating in the process.

The next group is the Welland Chamber of Commerce. Are they present?

Mr Jackson: Mr Chair, I would move that we go to the next deputant and we can make up the time. They're here and they're ready and there's no sense holding them up.

The Vice-Chair: They may show up in five minutes.

Mr Jackson: They're here; good.

1550

WELLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

The Vice-Chair: I assume this is the Welland Chamber of Commerce delegation. Please introduce yourselves for the purposes of Hansard. You have half an hour and I think the committee would appreciate it if you would save about 15 minutes of that for questions. Proceed at your leisure.

Mr Mike Allen: Okay, we'll do our best. We have Dolores Fabiano with the chamber. We have Gerry Berkhout and myself, Mike Allen.

My name is, as I just said, Mike Allen. I'm a local real estate developer from Welland and I'll be talking to you a little bit this afternoon. When they first asked me to come in and do this, first of all, I thought the government doesn't really listen to anybody, does it? It just doesn't happen. Why do we go through these charades? Why do we bother showing up for these things? But I'd like to think it could have some effect.

The present government has surprised us before. I'm in the real estate development business and own shopping centres. Imagine how surprised I was when it was the NDP government that brought Sunday shopping in after all the years we've been talking about it.

Ms Murdock: Not as surprised as some of the members.

Mr Allen: We tried to get that through Welland council some years ago when Peter Kormos was on council, so he'll remember that fairly well. But it seems that either the government actually does listen or at least it has a really good sense of humour.

I've taken an increased interest in reading about this stuff since I agreed to come here and talk. I've noticed that this proposed legislation is driving a really bad wedge between business and labour. I know this comes to a bargaining part where when one side wins, the other side loses, but to a large extent we should be on the same team. In other words, if business does well, business has to employ people to do more things, and I'm sure I'm not the first guy to sit here and tell you that.

From what I've seen in the papers, there are a lot of people who are terrified. There are a lot of newspapers. The newspapers are exercising themselves every day, putting new stuff in the papers, and as Don Eastman of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce pointed out, a large part of this is fear of the unknown.

When I was a kid in high school, I didn't listen to the morning news every morning and wake up and hear that the London market had opened this way or I didn't watch the evening news and see that the Tokyo market just closed tomorrow, today, that way. We've noticed that with modern communications it's more and more of an international market and people can make decisions based on what's going on a lot more. If the international community sees us as trying to make some sort of socialist utopia in Ontario for we Ontarians, that might be good for the economy of British Columbia or New York or the Ruhr Valley or some other place, but it's not going to be good for our economy. Perceptions are really important.

We all keep watching and they're starting to use words like "triple dip" right now. I used to think that was something to do with ice cream until this current recession. But I don't think it's a good time to shake up the business community and I don't think it's a time to make us look worse in the eyes of the international guys who do money, or the flows are going to stop or they're sure going to slow down from where we are.

This isn't idle speculation. Some of the stuff I read when I was trying to do my homework for this thing was that Hayes-Dana has cancelled an $8-million plant expansion because of these proposed legislative changes and Ford is looking at $2 billion worth of expansions, and the kind of strange quote I read from one of the vice-presidents was, "We're reserving judgement till we see the final legislation."

People are noticing and people are getting scared. Those two examples were people inside. The people outside would just look at the brouhaha in Ontario and they'll go talk to Governor Cuomo and see what kind of a deal they can get there. The stuff that's happening is scaring those international people and I think we're hearing it.

I'm a poor real estate developer, not a lawyer in this area, but the changes to the Labour Relations Act seem to be affecting almost all areas of labour relations. From everything I read, whether it's reading bits and pieces of legislation or reading what I see in the papers, it's going to make us the most pro-union jurisdiction in North America.

Again, I'm sure I'm probably not the first person to quote this study to you, but Ernst and Young did a study and 85% of the companies surveyed expect the changes to weaken their ability to compete and 73% are predicting job losses. That same study predicted that 295,000 jobs would be lost in Ontario and I understand one of the leaders of the opposition parties had that at 588,000 jobs, but even if it's only 200,000 jobs, it's something we ought to be taking a really hard look at before we implement it. I hope -- all these people are coming in -- that you will take time to listen to it.

One of the greatest concerns we've discussed with the changes to the act is a proposal that would make it illegal, in most circumstances, to replace workers who have gone on strike, the rationale being that it will reduce picket line violence. The government has said that changes in the shift of power would be minuscule.

I'm sure you've read the article that was in the Globe and Mail on June 20, where they got an employer guy, a union guy and an objective guy -- I don't where they could find an objective guy but they claimed they had one -- and they looked at those labour disputes that had been around for a few years or been in the news in the last few years: the Toronto Star, Radio Shack and Eaton's. Those three people sort of agreed that there would be a massive shift in power to the unions and in each case the company would have to capitulate to demands.

There have been people in here who have said, yes, they probably should have capitulated and that would have been a good thing, but it does show that there are far-reaching implications in the legislation you are looking at, like driving out business and driving out jobs or making it more difficult for them to come here.

More simply put, if you make these changes as they are in draft form, the employer can either concede to demands or he can face the fact that his business will be shut down by strike action. I can't move. I'm in the real estate business and I can't take my buildings with me, but if somebody is thinking about setting up a plant or thinking about expanding, he can sure change his mind.

While businesses are being forced to shut down, employees on strike can receive tax deductible strike pay from the union and can go out and get other jobs. The proposed legislation restricts employees' rights as much as it does the rights of business. No longer will a union require support to go out on strike or to continue a strike. Under the new legislation there is no obligation on the union to go back to the employees to ask if they wish to accept the employer's final demand.

Currently, as I understand it, if a union strikes the employees can continue to work if they believe the final offer of the employer is better than striking. This freedom encourages the union to be reasonable. Finally, after a six-month strike, and I did not know this until I got into it, employees lose the right to claim their jobs back.

According to the new changes, it will be against the law for employees to go back to their jobs until the union says the strike is over. The union has no obligation to seek a strike vote on the employer's final offer and the six-month job guarantee is extended indefinitely. This kind of thing is going to scare away investment. Decisions are made in London and on Wall Street that affect us.

Good afternoon.

The Chair: Howdy.

Mr Allen: This sort of thing is going to scare away investment. For 10 years Quebec has had legislation that bans replacement workers and there are figures in our brief on what that has done. That has made unemployment in Ontario rise a little slower than in Quebec, and you cannot put it all on the legislation, but certainly there is a correlation here that you cannot miss.

The crucial thing is that strikes will increase since unions can effectively shut down an employer's operations. Nobody likes a strike. A strike means that everybody is screwed up. A strike means that management could not figure out what the unions were doing and the unions could not figure out what management was doing. We sure as heck all lose when that happens.

Quebec has the luxury of a resource-based economy. They can't take their hydro stations away, they can't take their trees away, they can't take their mines away and us guys in the real estate business can't take our buildings away, but anybody who is thinking about setting up a manufacturing operation, and that is where the action is, is going to have some options opened up to him. If we're the toughest place to do business in, we are going to have less and less of those guys around.

We're not demanding nor do we expect you to have a business agenda. You're a socialist government and you were elected to do some things and I guess you're going to try and do some of them. But right now, the best thing for you to do is to reassure business, reassure investment and reassure those foreign people who are thinking about parking their money someplace to make their widgets and convince them that Ontario is a place they can do business in.

The best way to convince them of that is to prove that you can listen to all these people who have been in, and I am sure there were people from the labour side who came in and talked a pretty different tale than what I am talking, but the best thing to do is to dump this bill or to alter it and change it a lot. But the best thing to do is dump it because sometimes with new information you have to change your minds and I hope you will think about that, and that is all I have to say. You told me to cut it down to 15 minutes and I did.

The Chair: Thank you kindly.

Mr Offer: Thank you very much. You spoke about relooking at this bill. Have you got any suggestions or proposals from your perspective as to how that can or should be accomplished?

Mr Allen: I have this written brief and then I have the real thrust of the way I feel about it, which is that we can't afford to scare people away from doing business here. The whole thrust of the thing is going to make this a difficult place to do business. Some guy with ice water in his veins who is sitting up on the 57th floor of the Trump Tower wondering where he is going to build his new widget plant can just as easily build it in Formosa as here.

We have some skills they do not have. We have one of the best skilled labour forces in the world in Ontario, but we have to encourage these people to do business here, and that means, don't give all the power to the other guys.

1600

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Karen Chalovich is the chairperson of the Cobourg-Port Hope government relations committee in the chamber of commerce in the Cobourg area. Apparently Gord Wilson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, spoke to the local chambers and actually promised that the legislation would not really go in and unionize in the small and medium-sized businesses in the retail service sector. I'm wondering, have you had any inkling of that kind of promise and, really, do you think that if there isn't a promise there, the legislation should specifically exclude these small businesses?

Mr Allen: It's not a promise; it's what the legislation says. If somebody is promising that he is going to do that, he should put his money where his mouth is, or his legislation where his promises are.

Mrs Fawcett: And make sure it is in the legislation.

Mr Allen: Right.

Mr Offer: I have a further question. One of the areas where there has been some issue of concern outside the legislation is the fact that there has apparently not been any impact study by the government dealing with how this bill may affect different sectors in the economy -- the retail, the manufacturing and the service sectors. I am wondering if you can share with us your thoughts as to the need and necessity for an economic analysis of --

Mr Allen: I guess this is your impact study that we're having here, isn't it? That is what we read in the newspapers every morning. As I say, my interest in this whole thing was piqued a little bit more when you asked me to come here and talk to you. There are lot of people who are scared.

There are other parts of what's going on. The increases in the minimum wage aren't the topic for today, but I was into my friendly, locally owned grocery store the other day and I mentioned to the guy who runs the place: "Gee, you know, the reason I keep coming back here is you can get me the heck out of this store quicker than any of the chains. Just in case you wonder why I come back here and drive all the way across Welland to do it, that's why I come here." He said, "I don't know how long that is going to take, because the minimum wage is about to go up and I don't know how much longer I can have these kids working on the takeout." How did I get on to that?

Mrs Cunningham: I enjoyed your opening comments with regard to whether you would be listened to when you came there. I can assure you you're not alone. People are walking through that door wondering if there is any use to it at all. The good news is that they are coming.

Mr Allen: Pardon me?

Mrs Cunningham: The good news is that in spite of their concerns about whether they are being listened to or not, it appears that they're coming before the committee.

Mr Allen: They're still coming anyway.

Mrs Cunningham: In fact we've got about 1,200 individual requests that at this point in time are not scheduled, and from what I've been able to learn in just the couple of days I've been here, we have a lot of work to do. I'm not sure that just four weeks of listening is going to be very helpful.

I'd be interested in your point of view with regard to how we could solve these problems. Obviously in this committee, after we finish our deliberations, there will be some recommendations hopefully for change, but we're not convinced that they will be inclusive with regard to the tremendous concerns -- from not only the business community, by the way. Today we heard from the education community that if the bus drivers go on strike with this law, the schools shut down because you can't have any replacement workers. If the itinerant teachers, the occasional teachers who belong to a CUPE union, go on strike, we can't get anybody to replace them in the classroom. The regular teachers can't replace them. So the schools shut down. With this law, that is what we were told. I'm wondering if you think --

Mr Allen: The government has shown that it can listen in the Sunday shopping issue, so maybe it can here.

Mrs Cunningham: That's my hope too. What about a tripartite committee looking at all the input -- business, labour, certainly government -- and maybe expanding it to other interest sectors like municipalities and education? Do you think that would be a useful way of coming to some conclusions?

Mr Allen: Isn't that what this committee does?

Mrs Cunningham: No, this is a government committee.

Interjection.

Mrs Cunningham: We'll see. There seems to be so much happening here. I'm not sure that we can in fact accomplish that.

Mr Allen: The business community is scared right now. I hope something happens to make this government listen.

Mrs Cunningham: The importance of business, of course, in the whole factoring of providing jobs in Ontario, is that government does provide a positive workplace and a positive, encouraging atmosphere. You're quite right. On a list of 17 concerns of the business community -- this book is about to be published by the University of Western Ontario -- this labour law is at the top of the list.

Mr Allen: With respect, the government doesn't provide the jobs; the private sector, in most cases, does.

Mrs Cunningham: That's right.

Mr Allen: It's mostly in small business where the growth in jobs has been. If you scare away small businesses -- it's real easy for a guy with a small manufacturing plant to pull up and move to New York. It does happen.

Mr Jackson: I have a quick question. I think, Mr Berkhout, we've met before. You're also in the real estate business; that's correct. I'm familiar with several companies that have moved from the Toronto area, Mississauga area to Welland to strategically position themselves. They've moved their plant operations there and they've said to me: "Cam, I'm moving there. I'm one step away from the US. I'm giving this province one last chance. I'm moving my plant there, starting fresh."

There are other reasons for it but they're able to do it. They're positioning themselves on the US border. I think what I get from your presentation, and what I hope we're all getting, is that we can break this bill down and simply look at it in terms of labour and management. But we have to pay attention to the fact that it is one more thing added to the concerns of business which is stifling this province. Welland was benefiting, in the last five or six years, from some pretty good industrial expansion and some opportunities.

Can you confirm to this committee that this is virtually dried up in terms of expansion? I know of the Hayes-Dana, because they have a plant in my riding as well. But there are a lot of other parties interested in plants and expansion -- not existing plants to expand, but to locate in Welland -- that have all been put on hold, and in the St Catharines area generally.

Mr Allen: I don't think there's been much new expansion lately. We can't blame everything on the poor government. There is a recession on that's largely outside of the decision-making side of the Ontario government.

Mr Jackson: But this legislation, in and of itself -- you've referenced the cause for concern that you're hearing from existing plants expanding. What I'm suggesting to you is that there is no new growth, that there are no companies wishing to locate. You also have the added problem of the GM plant looking at massive layoffs in your area.

Again, when you look at the existing short supply of jobs, to the extent that you can identify businesses or sectors within your region which might be adversely affected by this legislation, it doesn't make much sense that we're going in that direction when you already have an uphill battle fighting the fact that the auto sector's been badly harmed, and so on and so forth, in your region. Regionally you're going to be hurt by this kind of legislation.

Mr Allen: That's right.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for your presentation. The Welland and District Labour Council is here. They represent a large number of workers in the Welland area and they're indicating strong support for this piece of legislation. Is the labour council wrong and the chamber right?

Mr Allen: That's right.

Mr Fletcher: Is that the way you feel? How come the Welland city council declined to even consider your resolution to oppose this legislation? Are they wrong and you're right?

Mr Allen: I think they could have and should have done that.

Mr Fletcher: But they didn't. They're a publicly elected body and they didn't do that.

Interjection.

Mr Fletcher: We looked at a lot of the rhetoric that goes on. If I can quote something from the Welland Tribune from Tuesday, August 4, this is really an out-and-out lie that was printed. It's from the chamber: "Unions will not have to go back to their members with the employers' final offer. They (unions) can say no. The members will be at the mercy of their union leaders."

It's simply not true that the employer or the employee can call for a government vote. When we talk about the rhetoric that's going on --

Mr Allen: Did you actually research that? You're saying that's a lie. What does your research say?

Ms Dolores Fabiano: The way we understand it, it is true. There are other organizations out there that are saying it is true.

1610

Mr Fletcher: You do have the right for a government vote no matter what, no matter who you are. The employees can call for a government vote; the employers can call for a government vote during a strike. That's the law. That's not a law we put in; it was put in before we came to power. That's the way it's been.

Mr Allen: The point is, this legislation is scaring the heck out of the business community. If you want people to stop locating in Ontario, passing this law in its present form would be a jolly way to do it.

Mr Fletcher: Were you misquoted as far as that was concerned, or is that the way you stand?

Ms Fabiano: That's the way we stand.

Mr Fletcher: Do you honestly believe that's the truth?

Ms Fabiano: Yes.

Mr Fletcher: You're putting that out into newspapers, telling people that's the way unions operate. You're scaring people.

Ms Fabiano: That's the way we understand --

Mr Allen: That's the way the legislation says; we're not saying that's the --

Mr Fletcher: That's the way your whole organization is. Obviously you haven't done your homework and you don't know what you're talking about.

The Chair: Thank you to the Welland Chamber of Commerce for coming to Toronto and participating in this process. You've made your views known. The committee appreciates your attending here, trusting that you will, of course, be monitoring the progress of Bill 40 as it goes through the committee process and keeping in touch with committee members.

A transcript of this attendance or of any other participation, of course, is available to people by writing to the clerk of the standing committee on resources development.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chair, if I could ask a question for research again, add it to the list. There was a difference of opinion here on this right to vote. I'm certain Mr Fletcher will make certain that we get the response, at least with regard to how he would ask the question. He may want to ask it, but I certainly would appreciate a clarification.

The Chair: You want research to determine the validity of the claim of the Welland Chamber of Commerce.

Mrs Cunningham: That's right. This quote is in the Hansard. I would like to know the status of that quote.

The Chair: The next participant is the International Beverage Dispensers' and Bartenders' Union. Come forward, please.

Mr Ferguson: Mr Chair, I have a question for the research people as well. I understand that Gunderson, Melino and Reid published an article, "The Effects of Canadian Labour Relations Legislation on Strike Incidence and Duration," in the Labor Law Journal of August 1990. They did a comparison of Quebec before and after.

I would like to know whether their comparison, which they suggest indicates that Quebec has more strikes and more strike dates after the legislation was passed in that province, included empirical data around the public sector as well as the private sector, or was it exclusively aimed at the private sector employers who have 500 or more employees?

The Chair: Research has noted your question. Research is working hard investigating all of the questions put to it by all of the members and is working especially hard at collecting as much data as possible in a comparison of Ontario and Quebec on the anti-replacement-worker legislation before and after.

INTERNATIONAL BEVERAGE DISPENSERS' AND BARTENDERS' UNION, LOCAL 280

The Chair: People, tell us your names, what your status is, if any, with the International Beverage Dispensers' and Bartenders' Union, Local 280. Tell us what you will and please leave some time for questions and exchange.

Mr James Jackson: James Jackson, secretary-treasurer, bartenders' union.

Ms Marlene Irwin: Marlene Irwin, recording secretary.

The Chair: Go ahead, please.

Ms Irwin: I just wanted to address one issue. While not referred to in the present form of Bill 40, I'd like to resubmit an issue directly linked to the administration of a trade union: union dues.

The amendment I am requesting you to consider is that employers who are not deducting and remitting union dues forthwith be in violation of subsection 44(1) and section 65 of the Labour Relations Act.

Union dues are the lifeline of local unions. The prompt deduction and remittance of union dues by the employer is essential to any local if they are to operate efficiently and give the representation and service to their members the members expect and deserve. This especially holds true for smaller locals and all locals representing employees in smaller workplaces, as companies downsize and new companies are mostly small workplaces. The number of small workplaces is increasing, as reported in the discussion paper from the Ministry of Labour, November 1991.

For example, in 1990-91 more than half of the bargaining units certified at the labour board had 20 or fewer employees. The workforce is changing. Workers in small workplaces, often women and minorities, are especially vulnerable. If these employees wish to be represented by a union, the deduction and remittance of union dues on a monthly basis is necessary. Subsection 44(1) of the Labour Relations Act provides that where a trade union requests, there shall be included in the collective agreement a provision requiring the employer to deduct and remit union dues to the trade union forthwith. According to the Gage Canadian Dictionary, the definition of the word "forthwith" means at once and immediately.

It is the board's ruling, however, that failure of the employer to deduct and remit union dues forthwith does not contravene the act and that such failure on the part of the employer must be dealt with through the grievance procedure of the respective collective agreements. In handing down their awards, arbitrators have stated that no union should have to proceed to arbitration to recover union dues owing. At the moment, it's the only option available.

It has been the experience over the last few years that locals of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union in Ontario who represent employees in smaller establishments have been plagued by employers who consistently do not remit union dues on a regular basis as required in their collective agreements. Grievances are filed and in some cases arbitration hearings are necessary to force employers to remit union dues owing. Invariably, the grievances filed are for the remittance of the dues deducted from the employees' wages.

The employer seems to have few problems with the deduction, only with the remittance. In one instance, we have a local with a membership of approximately 500 members employed in 52 establishments, 10 or even fewer employees per establishment. When an employer is delinquent in his remittance of dues for a period of three or four months, it becomes a losing cause to proceed to arbitration for recovery of moneys owing. But it is an action which must be taken, as the present act fails to recognize and protect the union and its members from the serious ramifications that can be caused by this blatant act of unfair labour practice.

In many, many instances, the cost of the arbitration far exceeds the recovery of dues owing. As stated previously, arbitrators have stated in their awards that no union should have to resort to the arbitration procedure to recover union dues owing. Although they are sympathetic to our problem, we still have to pay our share of the arbitrators' fees, which in many cases is more than the dues recovered.

There have been occasions, in attempts to circumvent the arbitration procedure to recover dues owed, when locals have preferred charges at the labour board under section 65 -- unfair labour practice -- the union's argument being that the employer, by not remitting union dues, was exercising undue influence by participating in the interference of the administration of the local union, causing financial hardship. The reply from the board was that the board is not a collection agency and that the arbitration procedure contained in the respective collective agreements was the proper course of action to be taken in these cases.

Of primary concern is that it would be feasible for a trade union to represent workers in a small workplace if they wished to be represented, so that workers who do wish to be represented by a trade union are not turned away because the workplace is too small. We therefore appeal once again to this government, and now to the standing committee on resources development, to reconsider and rethink the importance of this amendment to the Labour Relations Act.

Again, it is our submission that failure of the employer to comply, to deduct and remit union dues under the terms of the respective agreement, shall constitute an unfair labour practice and be in contravention of subsection 44(1) and section 65 of the Labour Relations Act.

In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for the time granted and trust that our concerns in regard to this matter be given consideration.

1620

Mrs Cunningham: Thank you. I wasn't aware of this. From what you've presented with regard to subsection 44(1), it appears to be quite clear to me. If you're getting an opposite point of view from arbitrators, I think it's worthy of some research on behalf of the committee. I don't think it relates to any new amendments to the act that we're studying right now. Am I correct on that?

Ms Irwin: It was submitted but it's not in Bill 40 in its present form.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, I think what they're asking for -- perhaps I could be corrected -- is the implementation as the bill reads now, fairly, by arbitrators of the collection of union dues. If they're complaining about that, perhaps that's something you could forward on behalf of the committee to the Minister of Labour as a concern.

The Chair: I know Ministry of Labour staff are here paying close attention and will take heed of that. As well, this group is, I'm sure, prepared to welcome that type of amendment from any member of the committee.

Mrs Cunningham: I'm not sure it requires amendment; that's my problem. Could we hear from somebody? We've got a little time.

The Chair: Research will inquire into that. Do you have anything further of these people, Mrs Cunningham?

Mrs Cunningham: No.

Mr Klopp: Am I interpreting this right? If I, as a bartender, an employee, belong to a collective group, a union, the employer takes off my cheque money that is supposedly to go to my organization, and it's not going there?

Ms Irwin: That's right. This happens on a regular basis. In the last two weeks, we have what? Six grievances?

Mr Klopp: What are they doing with it? Are they giving it back to me, as the worker?

Ms Irwin: No. We can't say what they're doing with it.

Mr Klopp: So I'm working long hours and I'm taking whatever it is, $5 or $2 -- it doesn't matter -- and the employer is taking the money and not passing it on through? That's bizarre.

You've had unions organized for a while. Have there been any strikes, or how has it been working? Since we've had organized labour in the workforce in bars, how's it been working?

Ms Irwin: You're asking us about strikes from our local?

Mr Klopp: Yes. I haven't heard of any but, if there have been, how have things worked out?

Mr James Jackson: We haven't had a strike since 1981. That time it involved approximately 25 establishments. There have been very few labour problems regarding collective agreements being ratified or negotiated in the hotel business. Things are so bad in the hotel business, it's getting to a point that we have to sign anything.

Mr Klopp: So labour and management have worked together fairly well. Collectively, they've recognized each other's plights as workers and as owners.

Mr James Jackson: Yes.

Ms Irwin: In larger hotels, you don't have this problem with their not remitting the union dues as much; it's more the taverns, the smaller hotels and the restaurants. In the larger hotels, you don't have this problem of their not remitting the dues for three or four months.

Mr Klopp: That's back to that other issue. What has made them start doing that?

Mr James Jackson: This isn't something new. This has been going on for some time, even during the good times; they hold it three or four months. In the smaller establishments, they probably owe you maybe $800, which doesn't seem like much. But our concern is that say a hotel association of some kind gets together and says: "Let's all withhold our dues for three or four months. Let this union chase us for its dues through arbitration. We can bring them to their knees." In the brief, it talks about the ramifications, and this is part of the ramifications that can happen.

Ms Murdock: Just for my clarification, there already exists under the present Labour Relations Act the section for deduction and remittance?

Ms Irwin: No, all it says is if the union so requests.

Mr James Jackson: It should be part of the collective agreement. That's all it says.

Ms Irwin: And you're supposed to use the grievance procedure and the arbitration.

Ms Murdock: Right, the arbitration process in order to get whatever has been deducted remitted to the union. What I'm hearing you ask for -- correct me if I'm wrong -- is that you want the jurisdiction of the board to be expanded to force them to do that without going through arbitration? Exactly how would you see that working?

Mr James Jackson: In one respect, yes. What we're saying is that withholding of the dues is an unfair labour practice, contrary to the act. So then we can file our charges at the board.

Ms Murdock: I discussed this with the policy people because I wasn't sure of the process, as I've never actually gone before the labour relations board for anything. You go through arbitration to the labour board on the grounds that it's an unfair labour practice. You end up going through that whole process, but at the end of the day, when all is said and done, you have an arbitrator's award or a board award stating that certainly the money has been deducted and is owed. If it still isn't paid, the process still means that you have to go through the court system to get it.

Mr James Jackson: Yes.

Ms Murdock: I'm wondering what difference it would make if you did put an amendment in to make it an unfair labour practice, as compared to having to go through a collective agreement grievance procedure.

Mr James Jackson: Approximately a $1,200 arbitration bill.

Ms Murdock: But you'd still have to go through both, would you not? You'd still have to put out costs to go before the labour board on an unfair labour practice.

Mr James Jackson: There's no cost for me to go to the board.

Ms Murdock: And appear on your own behalf.

Mr James Jackson: I don't have to pay an arbitrator, I don't have to pay the board to hear my case at the labour board, so I'm avoiding arbitration costs. This is the killer: the arbitration costs. Can you imagine paying arbitration costs of $1,000 to recover $500 worth of union dues?

Ms Murdock: I understand. Your argument was very forcefully made in terms of the costs, to get back costs that are owed to you.

Mr James Jackson: Exactly. It seems that when an employer gets a notice from a union, if it's arbitration or a grievance it's pooh-poohed, pushed aside, but when he gets a notice from the labour board, he thinks twice and usually does what he has to do to remedy the situation.

Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. You've spoken about a very specific issue. It just seems to me -- correct me if I'm wrong -- the point you're making with respect to union dues is that if the deduction and non-remittance of dues is an unfair labour practice, and by amendment deemed to be, then you would be able to go directly to the board if those dues are not remitted. If it is not, you still have the right to be heard but it would be through arbitration, for which you encounter an arbitration fee. So the question is, do we put the obligation of withholding and non-remission of dues as an unfair labour practice? Is that your position?

Mr James Jackson: Yes. What other reason would an employer have for withholding dues, knowing that if he's going to arbitration he has to pay an extra $800 or $900, whatever his share of the arbitration bill would be, over and above the union dues, unless it were to cause hardship to the local and interfere with the administration of that local? It's not that he forgot to remit. There has to be a reason behind it. To me, the whole thing smacks of unfair labour practice.

1630

Mr Offer: To carry on with your point, it would seem to me that in the practical sense it clearly doesn't happen only once; there's probably some history of this.

Mr James Jackson: Oh, definitely, yes.

Mr Offer: Which again not only makes your point but underlines the point you make. I just asked the question to make certain that I had it clear in my mind as to what it was you were requesting and why you were making that request. I thank you very much.

Mr James Jackson: Like we say, there's no problem in the deduction: The employer deducts. It's the remission. All we're asking is that failure to do so, under the terms of the collective agreement, is an unfair labour practice.

The Chair: You wanted to raise one more issue?

Ms Irwin: Yes, I just wanted to point out that when we go to the board through the grievance and the arbitration process, the board also has some costs. It's not just the union and the employer that share the bill. They pay for the grievance officer and they also do the setting up of the meetings between the two parties, so it's not that there will be costs for the board now that there weren't before. I don't think there's going to be much difference in costs to the board.

The Chair: I want to thank you for raising a very unique issue, one which had not been raised before this committee until your attendance here. You've obviously provoked a lot of thought and interest on the part of committee members. I'm sure you would be most pleased to see, as well as interest, some action. I trust you'll be monitoring the committee in that regard and keeping in touch. Thank you, International Beverage Dispensers' and Bartenders' Union, Local 280, thank you kindly.

In the evening sitting of Wednesday, August 5, 1992, Mr Turnbull moved the following motion:

"That the Minister of Labour table all documents, briefing notes, correspondence and memoranda in his possession or the Deputy Minister of Labour's possession from a meeting between the Deputy Minister of Labour and American business representatives that took place in Detroit, Michigan, on or about June 8, 1992. The material should include any briefing material prepared in advance of the meeting, including the list of participating American companies, and any summaries, comments or correspondence that were generated after the meeting took place."

That motion remains outstanding as currently on the floor, not having been voted upon. I understand, Mr Jackson, that you have authority to deal with that motion.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Yes. Mr Chairman, in order not to challenge your previous ruling and to be helpful to the ongoing activities of this committee, I am prepared on behalf of my colleague to withdraw the motion at this time, although it still stands as a request for information; it's just not put in a formal motion.

The Chair: Can you do that on behalf of Mr Turnbull, who moved the motion?

Mr Jackson: Oh, yes. I move to withdraw the motion at this time.

The Chair: That is your right on behalf of Mr Turnbull. There is now no motion on the floor.

Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, I'd like to resubmit the motion I raised earlier.

The Chair: You've prepared copies and they're being distributed to the members of the committee.

Mr Jackson moves that the committee request that legal staff of the Ministry of Labour attend public hearings of the committee on Bill 40 and be available to members of the committee to answer and clarify questions from members about the bill that may arise during the course of the committee's hearings on Bill 40.

Mr Jackson: As I indicated earlier, the task before this committee is to conduct public hearings which lead to at least, I understand, two weeks of clause-by-clause discussion, debate and voting by members of this committee. What appears to have emerged is a sort of ad hoc approach to getting information from the ministry regarding the specifics of the legislation. I respect that the parliamentary assistant is here and can deal with matters of a narrative nature, matters that deal with the politics of the issue, but frankly there have been some very specific points raised about legal clarification. It has been my experience in my almost eight years as a legislator that when before committees dealing with specific legislation -- not a committee doing an inquiry on a general subject area, but when we're dealing with specific legislation -- it is the government's wish at all times to ensure that all members are aware of the legal implications and the clarifications that are prevalent with one of its bills.

This is very technical information and it helps to elevate the debate from that of the theories and the fears being bandied from both sides to a level where, as is the case of Mr Bruce Stewart, legal counsel for the trustee associations in Ontario, it allows us to raise substantive questions about interpretation of specific clauses.

I hope that this custom and necessary courtesy would be extended to this committee, and therefore I put it in the form of a motion to formally request. I do not in any way, shape or form denigrate the presence of ministry personnel who monitor these hearings from time to time. I respect the minister's right to monitor hearings and to report back to the ministry.

What I'm asking for is that level of resource which allows the committee to complete its task, and that is not for someone from the political staff of the Ministry of Labour or someone who may be in an unrelated field but for someone who has specific working knowledge and has been working with the government in the legal department on this bill. That has been extended as a courtesy to committees and a custom around Queen's Park for many years.

I'm asking that it help the activities of this committee and move us away from some of the vitriolic approaches and move us more to some of the legal, clearly defined explanations of how specific sections of acts will work and affect workers and employers in this province.

The Chair: Ms Murdock, did you want to say, as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, that bureaucratic staff from the Ministry of Labour familiar with this legislation, including Jerry Kovacs, who is one of the counsel, are present in the committee chambers to be available to any member of this committee, regardless of caucus, for advice as to the impact of certain pieces or all of the pieces of the legislation and that those staff are here throughout the process to make their time available to any member of the committee? Did you want to say that on behalf of the Ministry of Labour?

Ms Murdock: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you. Is there anything else you wanted to say?

Ms Murdock: There is another concern, Mr Chair, and that is the fact that ministry staff, as we all know, are not usually involved in any partisan way. Albeit I understand what Mr Jackson has stated, they are nevertheless here for the information that we are asking of them on occasion, but they become at this process involved in the debate, which I don't think is part of their function at all. In fact, if anything, keep them out of it.

Mr Eddy: It's not the purpose or intent to be part of the debate; it's merely a point of information. I demand to be treated equally with other members of the committee who have information. I don't even know the questions, let alone the answers.

The Chair: If I've ever treated you any less than equally, Mr Eddy, I'm sure you'll let me know.

Ms Murdock: They're here for you the same as they're here for me.

Mr Eddy: But that is not proper.

Mr Ferguson: If anybody had a question of the legal staff, he could get out of his seat and go ask it of the legal staff, who have been here since day one. You're moving a motion requesting that legal staff be present. They've been here since the hearings started.

Mrs Cunningham: I appreciate what Mr Ferguson's saying, and I also appreciate that a lot of people have sat on this kind of a committee before. But normally the legal staff would sit at the front, and if I wanted to know if section 40 of the bill said that you have to have in your contract the responsibility for management to collect the dues -- this is the last issue here -- and I didn't know this and I didn't have the act in front of me, it would be a simple response from the legal staff. They, on the spot, right in front of these people, would have said. Mr Ferguson's going like this; Mr Fletcher's going, "There they are." But, Mr Chairman, with due respect, you haven't asked them to come to the front and answer the question.

I would like from now on to have them sit at the front and you, as you did in the committee hearings on the helmet and everything else, refer to the legal staff, in some cases the legislative research, and have the question answered. I think they deserve to have the status, if they have the information, of sitting there and advising all of us so that it's on the record.

1640

The Chair: Are you moving an amendment to the motion?

Mrs Cunningham: Is that the intent of the motion?

Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, if I may, implicit in the motion is the procedure which was followed most recently in Bill 121 when Dana Richardson from the Ministry of Housing was present for the hearings. Without in any way detracting from the time allocated to deputants, occasionally questions were directed to the ministry which then formed the basis for Hansard.

The importance of informing the basis of Hansard is that the government can put to rest any of the concerns that may arise from a given clause. Then you, as Chair, can rule that, as of three weeks ago or three days ago, learned counsel adjacent informed us on that matter. That becomes an assist to these hearings.

But in recognizing that in the government members we have all new members, I want to reaffirm that I am asking no more or no less than is the custom of the procedures for committees. As a committee Chair myself, I can assure you that this request is wholly in order.

The Chair: You've heard especially the government members' contribution to the debate on your motion, which indicates clearly what their interpretation of this motion is. Do you want to amend this motion to be more particular and more specific?

Mr Jackson: Well, if the Chair is helpful to me, and I know he will be, I understand that this motion will call upon the legal counsel of the Ministry of Labour to position themselves at the front, and they will be called upon, through the Chair, to offer clarification from time to time. It therefore becomes Hansard.

I do not wish in any way to suggest that when we have four deputants in front of the four microphones in front of us, they somehow have to muscle their way in in order to get on Hansard. That is why it's done that way, and there's no problem with them sitting there. If a member from the government wishes to walk up to the member and ask him a question, fine.

Mrs Cunningham: You want it on the record.

The Chair: Do you want to amend the motion to read "That the committee requests that legal staff of the Ministry of Labour attend public hearings and be seated at the table of the committee on Bill 40 and be available to all members of the committee"?

Mr Jackson: That is helpful, Mr Chair, and I accept that as the amendment, thank you.

The Chair: Further discussion?

Ms Murdock: I just have a point of clarification of Mr Jackson. One of the concerns that the ministry staff have is that, for example, if one of the presenters was making a statement in error on the record, then you're not seeing part of their function as correcting that? Only upon request of the Chair?

Mrs Cunningham: Only if they're asked.

Mr Jackson: In fairness, Ms Murdock has asked a good question, because how the process traditionally works is that the minister or the parliamentary assistant is positioned to assist at all times during the process, and the legal counsel then advises the minister or the deputy that there may be an erroneous statement. The minister then has the opportunity, through the Chair, to suggest that perhaps that information is incorrect.

That's how the tandem works, because it puts the bureaucrats in an awkward position to be interjecting with members of the public or other politicians. That's why the tandem works. I'm simply saying, at this point, that the legal counsel is there to assist the committee through the Chair, always through the Chair.

Ms Murdock: Okay, just as a point as well, I am taking some exception to the fact that it's automatically done that way. So far I've been through three bills, albeit I am a new member, Mr Jackson, and have only been around for 20-odd months, and I know that it has been done three different ways. As a consequence, there is no regular way of doing it.

The Chair: Ms Murdock, let me indicate to you that it is not unprecedented --

Ms Murdock: No, I understand that.

The Chair: -- listen to me for a moment -- for the parliamentary assistant or the deputy minister or the minister to be seated at the table, accompanied by either a senior policy person or by counsel, and for those persons to be seated at the table so that their comments, their responses to questions, are on the record. In previous instances it has, to the best of my knowledge, been done voluntarily by the ministry. The ministry obviously can decide to do that or not to do that. I indicate to you that there clearly is precedent for that happening.

Ms Murdock: I'm not questioning the precedent. I understand it but, as I've said, I've sat on three different committees now, going through a bill, and all three have been done it in different ways. One of the ways was to have them up there throughout the public hearings. Another time was not to have them during the public hearings, only during the clause-by-clause. I have no difficulty with their being available. My concern, and their concern, is that they would get involved in the debate, which is not the point.

Mr Jackson: No, they're not there to debate.

Ms Murdock: That's fine.

Mrs Cunningham: To speak in favour of the motion, I find that it would be much more helpful to all of us to have the clarifications from time to time immediately, so that we don't have to keep waiting. I think it's important, and to the deputants as well. I just find this very frustrating.

By the way, Mr Chairman, I think it's not appropriate that we get up from our chairs and move over there. I think even Ms Murdock missed half the other -- she would prefer to have her question answered. I know what she was asking, because I wanted to ask the same thing, and I think it would have been better if she had asked through the Chair and you could rule if it was too political or whatever.

Ms Murdock: But I don't want to use up the time of the presenters, and that's the concern.

Mrs Cunningham: We can do that at the end of the hearings.

Interjections.

The Chair: Please, are there any further persons wishing to engage in this discussion?

Mr Jackson: Finally, Mr Chair, I would only like to suggest that if the taxpayers are going to pay for the staff of the Ministry of Labour to attend these hearings, why not get value for the dollar and put them at the table so that they can assist this committee more effectively at this time? I would call the question as a recorded vote.

The Chair: The taxpayers have a number of ideas about how to get better value for their dollar. In any event, all those in favour please indicate. Keep your hand raised until your name is called.

The committee divided on Mr Jackson's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes--11

Cunningham, Eddy, Fawcett, Ferguson, Fletcher, Huget, Jackson, Klopp, Murdock (Sudbury), Offer, Ward (Brantford).

Nays--0

Mr Offer: Mr Chair, as that motion has now been carried, there is a further point.

The Chair: You might have made Ministry of Labour counsel's day.

Mr Offer: There is a further motion I would like this committee to consider. It is a matter which I brought forward earlier, and prior to moving it, I would like to make this statement.

We had heard that there were a number of individuals, groups and associations that were not able to get on the list to be heard. We have now had, and every day further evidence comes forward, more and a broader form of information dealing with this bill, of individuals' concerns with the legislation, their suggestions as to how it can be improved, rectified, remedied. It would seem to me that because we have had an overwhelming response of individuals who wish to come before the committee, we should be able to afford them, as best we can, the opportunity to be heard.

At this point in time, we are going to, I understand, be able to entertain about 25% of the individuals and groups that wish to be heard. Just as late as today, we heard from the Canadian Paperworkers Union, which indicated that it would like to have the opportunity of coming back to the committee as a result of issues which may have been brought up during the committee. I believe the point they made is very important and I believe we as a committee should do everything we can to attempt to meet that particular issue they brought forward.

So, Mr Chair, I will be moving a matter which I have previously moved, that the committee formally request of the three House leaders authority to extend our hearings on Bill 40.

The Chair: You're moving that now?

Mr Offer: Yes.

Mr Ferguson: That's really open-ended. Could we have some sort of indication of time or how many months?

The Chair: One moment. Does anybody want to address the propriety of the motion?

Ms Murdock: I've already addressed this. Our position has not changed.

The Chair: The propriety of the motion.

1650

Mr Ward: That is not in writing. I don't think --

The Chair: It's not mandatory that it be in writing.

Ms Murdock: I wonder as to the propriety of the motion only in the sense that we've already discussed this. We've already voted upon it and my reasons are on the record already as to why I didn't support it the last time and why I'm not supporting it this time.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, we were talking previously about precedent. During the deliberations of any committee, as people see a change because of requests from the public, there have been changes in sitting times, length of time for hearings. This is not new. To say now that we don't want to listen to these people given some of the good information that we've been getting, I think, is very much premature. We're into what, the second week of hearings? We'll be moving around the province soon, and if I could ask Mr Offer perhaps to wait for another week and see if these requests are still coming in, I think we owe the public an opportunity to be here.

Mr Ward: Speaking to the Chair's concern, I was wondering if he could rule on whether or not this committee has the power to overturn a decision that has already been negotiated with the three House leaders and already passed in the House.

The Chair: Are you speaking as to whether or not the motion is in order because it's identical to a motion that was defeated --

Mr Jackson: The question's already been decided.

The Chair: -- but a mere few days ago? Mr Offer, do you want to respond to that?

Mr Ward: And whether or not --

Mr Jackson: Mr Chairman, he asked you if the committee can overrule a previous motion and he asked the Chair to rule and you've asked Mr Offer to --

The Chair: Yes, and I'm giving Mr Offer an opportunity to respond before I rule.

Mr Jackson: That's not procedure, but I'm fascinated.

The Chair: Yes, it is. Today it is. Watch. Mr Offer.

Mr Offer: I think that some of the government members find this type of motion funny. The problem is --

Mr Ferguson: Mr Offer, come on.

Mr Offer: No, I'm sorry. The government members now are responding, but I think that the Chair gave me the opportunity to respond to the government members' request, so I think I would take advantage of that.

Ms Murdock: Well, do so.

Mr Offer: This is not a matter which should be taken lightly. We have heard a great many presentations on the bill, both for and against. People are coming before this committee who have concerns, and what is becoming quite evident is that a great many people wish to be heard, a substantial percentage of those groups are not going to be able to be heard and, third, that this bill is not just labour on one side and management on the other.

This is a bill which has garnered a great deal of concern from children's aid societies, school boards of this province, we have concerns from independent grocers, and these are people who are taking the time to come before this committee.

The reason that I make this motion is because I believe there are a number of individuals -- a substantial percentage; in the area of 75% -- who want to make that presentation but won't be able to, and then we as a committee will not have the opportunity of listening to their concerns, and I speak not only of those against the bill. I speak of, for instance, the Canadian Paperworkers Union. I speak of concerns made by the Steelworkers or the Ontario Federation of Labour.

I think that we as a committee, before we go into clause-by-clause, want to be very comfortable that we have heard a broad parameter of concern about the bill and about those who are in favour of the bill. I think we want to be very secure in what our position is --

The Chair: Mr Offer, all of that having been said, Mr Ward raised a question about whether or not that motion's in order. I invited you to respond to that. I would indicate to you that on August 5 in the evening you moved that this committee formally request of the three House leaders authority to extend its hearings on Bill 40. That motion was voted on and defeated, and I refer to standing order 49, which says that, "No motion, or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can be proposed during the same session." That is an identical motion to the one which was moved by you and decided upon on August 5. I'm determining that the motion is not in order. We're going to come back this evening. If you want to put another motion that isn't identical or close to the one that you put on August 5, then --

Mr Offer: I'm not going to challenge your ruling, Mr Chair, at all, but I would also understand that it would not be out of order for me to ask for unanimous consent --

The Chair: Then ask for it.

Mr Offer: -- of all members who feel that this motion

Mr Jackson: Point of order.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent that Mr Offer be permitted to proceed with this motion?

Interjections: No.

The Chair: There's not unanimous consent.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I have growing concern about the flamboyant style of the Chair at the moment. I'm not going to challenge your ruling, but I wish to draw to your attention that the rules indicate that if a motion is deemed to be out of order, the Chair is to rule immediately on it. I'm sorry that I did interject when I asked when Mr Ward legitimately asked if it was in order. You allowed the debate to go on.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Jackson: The time of this committee is at an absolute premium, and I frankly believe that, if you knew that was the rule, you've allowed for unnecessary debate. We're not prepared to challenge the Chair --

The Chair: That's your opinion and I appreciate you saying that. Is there any other business?

Mr Jackson: No, Mr Chairman, I'm on a point of order and --

The Chair: Another point of order?

Mr Jackson: The point of order is specifically, Mr Chair, that if you would give a higher regard for the rules to ensure that the debate is allowed to continue appropriately, I'd appreciate it.

The Chair: Your point is well made.

Mr Jackson: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Jackson. We're recessed until 6:30.

The committee recessed at 1657.

EVENING SITTING

The committee resumed at 1830.

MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION

The Chair: It's 6:30. We're ready to start. The first participant is the Municipal Electric Association. Would they please come forward, seat themselves at a microphone or microphones and tell us their names and their titles with their organization. Please try to leave the second half of the half-hour, at least, for questions and exchanges. Go ahead, gentlemen.

Mr Doug McCaig: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and good evening. My name is Doug McCaig and I'm the chair of the Municipal Electric Association. Joining me this evening are our president, Keith Matthews, our chief executive officer, Tony Jennings, and the chair of the Municipal Electric Association's labour relations program advisory committee, Jim MacKenzie. For the benefit of the committee members, Jim has assured me that he is not related to the Minister of Labour.

The Chair: Strange. He looks like him.

Mr McCaig: As a side note, I would like to point out a couple of things about myself personally. I'm a 30-year member of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and belonged on its negotiating team for several years. I was a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers for a few years and was relatively active in the IBEW. I would also like to point out that I was asked by the IBEW to run for the commission in Fort Frances. As a young person in Fort Frances, I can recall stories from my parents when a union hall was a woodshed. So, really, I have an understanding about what direction you want to go in and what you're trying to do. I respect that.

But I would caution at this time, again on a personal basis, that the government proceed with caution. We have to be very careful with some of the things that are happening in this day and age so that you don't inhibit the utilities in the delivery of a critical service such as electricity. I would like to leave that message with you just before I go on with my dissertation.

I have tabled with the clerk of the committee the Municipal Electric Association's written response to Bill 40. It is a rather extensive document. I trust the members of the committee will be able to review it. This evening I will briefly touch on some of the major points from our written presentation and I would welcome questions from members of the committee.

The Municipal Electric Association is the responsible voice of Ontario's 312 municipal electric utilities, representing 75% of the electricity consumers in this province. The MEA welcomes the opportunity to provide information to the resources development committee and to lend our voice to this discussion on Bill 40.

As an industry, the municipal electric utilities are heavily unionized. While our industry does experience strikes and lockouts, I am proud to state that over the years there has been a reasonably harmonious relationship between unions and management. The MEA, as the representative of the municipal utilities, is uniquely qualified to speak on certain aspects of Bill 40.

Much of the discussion and concerns which have been voiced around the changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act have been raised by the private sector business community. The perspective of the broader public sector has largely gone unnoticed. However, we at the municipal level also have concerns with the direction and the impact of the legislation. We would like to acknowledge that as a result of the discussion with the Ministry of Labour, some of the favourable adjustments were made. There is, however, need for further dialogue. There is more to be done.

Despite earlier sessions held with the ministry based on the discussion paper, the actual wording of Bill 40 has only been available since early June. This legislation is too important to rush.

Our industry's general view is that a number of the proposed reforms of the Labour Relations Act are not appropriate. The potential impact on our critical industry is disturbing. We appreciate the fact that one of the stated purposes of the reforms outlined in the discussion paper is to foster economic development. However, I should note that many of our locally elected commissioners believe that introduction of these changes under our current economic conditions will in fact have the opposite effect.

The Municipal Electric Association has identified three major concerns with Bill 40, the purpose clause, replacement workers, and finally, the definition of the "place of operation." The MEA has also identified a number of other concerns which are outlined in our written submission.

First, the purpose clause: Bill 40 would for the first time enshrine an extensive new and untested purpose clause in the legislation itself. We are advised that by including the purpose clause in the legislation, all other aspects of the legislation are affected. While the current preamble has been referred to for guidance by the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a number of years, its impact has been tempered by its position; that is, it has expressed intent but not been treated as part of the law. The MEA recommends that the purpose clause be placed in the preamble.

In our written brief we have also suggested two options for this preamble. The first option would amend the government's proposed wording. The second option provides the government with new wording.

MEA recommends the following wording: It is in the interest of the province of Ontario to further harmonious relationships and industrial peace between employers and employees by (1) ensuring that workers can freely exercise the right whether or not to organize and to be represented by a trade union of their choice and to participate in the lawful activities of the trade union; (2) encouraging the process of cooperative collective bargaining; (3) providing effective methods of joint problem-solving and dispute resolution.

Again, I stress the importance of moving the purpose clause out of the legislation and containing it in the preamble.

A second point, replacement workers: As providers of critical services, the MEA called on the government to include provisions within the legislation which would permit the use of replacement workers in order to ensure that critical services are maintained during a strike or lockout. I am certain that all members of the committee can appreciate the need to ensure that electric services are maintained for customers during a labour dispute. Members of the committee may be aware that the discussion paper was virtually silent on the issue of the use of replacement workers for critical services.

The MEA believes that earlier discussions with the Ministry of Labour contributed to subsections 73.2(2) and 73.2(3) of the legislation, which allow for the use of specified replacement workers in certain situations. The MEA understands that the government intends that municipal electric utilities will be permitted to use specified replacement workers under subsection 73.2(3). This allows for an employer to use replacement workers in order to prevent "(a) danger to life, health or safety; (b) the destruction or serious deterioration of machinery, equipment or premises; or (c) serious environmental damage."

The MEA finds that this section is still ambiguous and is an inadequate response to the situation. It is the nature of the electricity distribution business that it is virtually impossible to predict at what point these three definitions may occur. The MEA therefore recommends that electricity be included as an eighth item under subsection 72.2(2).

Members of the committee will appreciate the need to maintain electric services during a labour dispute. One has only to think about the consequences of extensive, frequent or lengthy power disruptions to a hospital, a nursing home, a sewage treatment plant, high-rise elevators or traffic light systems. Clearly, the need to maintain electric service is critical.

1840

Although the MEA is pleased to see a recognition of critical services, we also have concerns around the use of bargaining unit employees during labour disputes. The legislation provides that the union can give consent for bargaining unit employees to be used during labour disputes. The employer is required to use bargaining unit employees; however, the employees are allowed to decline. Nothing in the legislation precludes an employee from changing his or her mind as to whether he or she is willing to work. Similarly, even if the trade union consents to the use of bargaining unit employees, there is no obligation for the bargaining unit employees to fulfil this consent.

The MEA recommends that subsections 73.2(7), (8) and (9) be deleted.

Almost half of the MEA member utilities are public utility commissions which are responsible for the delivery of water. While some businesses and families have their own wells or other services, the supply of water, particularly in urban areas where there is a municipal service, should be considered as critical.

The provision of water should also be included under subsection 73.2(2).

Place of operation: The third concern of the MEA has been that Bill 40 has the ambiguous definition of the term "place of operation." A public utilities commission may have a number of locations or sites throughout a municipality; for example, a head office, a water plant, a works yard and an electrical substation. Many utility staff may have a base location, but their place of operation varies throughout the municipality wherever power lines run.

The MEA is seeking clarification of the term "place of operation." The MEA suggests that the government consider the definition of "establishment" as set out in the Pay Equity Act, RSO 1990. In the case of the municipal sector, the municipality was the boundary set for "establishment."

As I indicated earlier, the MEA has a number of other concerns about Bill 40. As time is limited this evening, I am not able to expand on all these concerns. I would urge all members of the committee to review our written brief.

I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to express views which I believe are shared by the broader public sector. I believe we have brought a unique perspective to these discussions and I trust the MEA has shed further light on some aspects. Since the government seems determined to proceed with Bill 40 at this time, we would encourage further consultation and we continue to be willing to assist.

Mr Chair, as an elected representative of many people, this completes our presentation. I would now welcome any questions from members of the committee, which I will deflect to either one of the experts to my left and right.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr McCaig. Mr Huget, five minutes, please.

Mr Huget: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for a very interesting presentation. It's nice to see many of you again. I am particularly interested in the discussions you had earlier with the ministry. I wonder if it would be safe to say that many of your concerns were addressed after those discussions in terms of their reflection in the new bill. Would that be a fair statement?

Mr McCaig: I think that would be a fair statement, yes.

Mr Tony Jennings: I think, Mr Huget, the point the chairman was making was that there has been some definite progress. There are still some great concerns with the wording that is in the bill now, but given where the discussion paper was at, the bill is some progress. I don't think we could say that the MEA committees are yet satisfied, but they're quite happy to work with whoever for further progress.

Mr Huget: The contents of this brief, I must say, are very constructive. There are issues raised here that I think are very important to the general public, certainly very important to all the member utilities.

When we look at work stoppages, I guess I would like from you what your experience has been and how you've worked with your bargaining unit people in the past in terms of work stoppage situations. I understand you have a fairly good record and there aren't that many stoppages, but what happens now when there is a stoppage?

Mr McCaig: I would like to deflect that question to Mr MacKenzie at this time.

Mr Jim MacKenzie: We do have labour disputes within the electrical utility industry and I've been in the position of experiencing a couple of strikes in my own career. Generally, in the discussions we've had with the unions involved, when it comes to a labour dispute where we've talked to them about providing critical services, the unions themselves are a little bit concerned about using unionized employees to conduct some of the work. I've been in a fortunate position where we've had qualified management people who were able to attend to the work.

Another issue we have to deal with, of course, is the qualifications of the people we have on staff in the supervisory and management area. They have to be qualified to do the work because we have to address ourselves to the requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I've been fortunate in the situations I've been involved in. We've had qualified management people to do the work and we've been able to continue to provide services, through the course of any labour dispute, with management people. The union people have not expressed any interest in performing any of the work we've had to perform to maintain service.

Mr Huget: I understand that same sort of cooperative approach would be used in Bill 40 as well, to determine what would happen during the work stoppage. Am I correct on that?

Mr MacKenzie: Under Bill 40, as I understand the legislation, we would discuss the provision of services with the union, but there does not appear within the bill to be any obligation on the part of the bargaining unit employees who are on strike to offer their services. There is provision within the bill for the trade union to suggest that, yes, they would make available or would agree to the use of bargaining unit employees, but there's no commitment within the bill for those bargaining unit employees to perform work. That's not evident to me when I read the legislation.

Mr Huget: Just one final point: Could I have a brief explanation of the problems you see in the definition of "place of operation"? You raised the point in your brief and I'd like some sort of a hands-on explanation of how you see problems in that area.

Mr MacKenzie: When we discussed this with some of the ministry staff, concerns were expressed by ministry staff about having people who are parachuted in, I guess, to operations and with respect to issues on a picket line where you've got unfamiliar faces. The legislation seems to address that.

Of course, in a municipality you could have, say, an engineering department working out of a head office. You could have other work sites, electrical substations in the case of electrical utilities, pole locations, because we have to work on individual poles when we're doing maintenance. In terms of water, it could be an engineer working in a city hall who may have to operate a water treatment plant if the municipal waterworkers were on strike.

We felt that the location description was very specific, whereas it should be broader because we provide service to the whole community, not just to one particular part. Our operation covers the whole community and that's why we suggested you use the term "establishment," as was used under the pay equity legislation.

Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation, certainly with respect to the areas you've addressed, and second, as to how you've addressed them by suggesting some ways the bill can be changed so as to meet, in this case, the concerns you've brought forward.

You've spoken very specifically about the legislation. I want to deal with the replacement worker issue and the issue of concern around the use of bargaining unit members and the whole process if there is a work stoppage. I think you've brought forward a new issue before the committee now.

My question is, could you please explain to the committee the dangers that you see with respect to the wording that now exists? I think we're talking about subsections 73.2(7), (8) and (9). What is it that you require where you require this change to take place, and why?

1850

Mr MacKenzie: We're asking that subsections 73.2(7), (8) and (9) be deleted. As we read the legislation, although the bargaining agent can agree that bargaining unit employees can provide services during the course of a labour dispute, there is nothing in there that suggests those employees are committed to providing those services. You could have, on the one hand, an agreement that employees will provide service, but when you need them to be available to provide that service -- and that typically is going to be an emergency where there's a power outage or an accident and you have wires down, that sort of thing, and you want to attend to that quickly -- there's no obligation on the part of the employees to attend. You could phone or get in touch with those people and all they have to do is say they're not available. There's no onus on them to be available.

Mr Offer: So now what we're talking about is that, in a work stoppage, some emergency arises: Lines are down; something of this nature which can affect a great many people. There is no security within this legislation, except, as you have indicated, the amendments that take place, which would be able to address that incident if it would occur.

Mr MacKenzie: I believe that's correct. Yes.

Mr Offer: In this whole area there's also no time frame. In other areas of the bill, we talk about a board making decisions and things like this within 15 days or 30 days. There's nothing here that talks about the days or the hours upon which a union and management have to have these decisions made. When those things are left out, it causes a further uncertainty which I think is also problematic, certainly in the area you have uncovered. Have you taken a look at the process under which this could evolve?

Mr MacKenzie: We don't see that there is a process there right now. It's very open-ended, from our point of view. I would agree with you with respect to the time. There doesn't appear to be an onus on anybody to get back to somebody and say, "We'll reach an agreement by such and such a point in time." It's too loose for us and I don't think we could really respond to your question because it's so open. I think we'd have to look at a whole different set of circumstances.

Mr Offer: Thank you very much, once more. You spoke about, if I might just say, the provision of water should also be included. You've also alluded earlier to the fact that you've had meetings with ministry officials. Was this issue made known to them earlier on?

Mr Jennings: I think it's probably been mentioned in passing because about a third of our members are PUCs and also deliver water. In the discussions with the ministry, one of the issues which gave rise to this was that a lot of it comes around to an "it depends" type of answer. In some places people have their own wells and obviously water isn't an issue. In Napanee, where I used to live, there's a spring in the park. Everybody can get water there if they need it. But if you're living in downtown Toronto it's a different kettle of fish.

One of the difficulties for both electricity and water in this type of a situation is not being quite sure what the ground rules are because it varies. Whether it's a hot summer or a cold winter or spring may affect the need for either electricity or water. A whole bunch of conditions can vary things.

We've tried to respond. I think the Municipal Electric Association's representatives have tried to respond, in the same way the bill has been put together, with a whole series of things affecting each other. They've suggested that electricity be viewed as the essential service rather than the danger and risk. They've then said, "Let's deal differently with the issue of bargaining unit employees." As was already mentioned, in most cases it would appear that the unions to date have not pushed for the use of their employees in those kinds of situations, nor would the managers support it usually.

The Chair: Thank you. Charles Harnick, QC, welcome to the committee.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Thank you. I appreciate that. Dealing with the purpose clause for a moment, I recognize that it's a matter of balance that we're concerned with, and it's primarily subsections 2.1(1) and (2) that you're concerned with. What do you think the ramifications of leaving those sections as they now stand in this act will be some years down the road?

Mr McCaig: I'll turn that over to Jim again. There are other opinions across the table, but we'll start with Jim.

Mr MacKenzie: The concern we have with the purpose clause is that, as Doug has already mentioned, by placing it within the act itself, as opposed to the preamble where it currently is, when issues go before an arbitrator, an arbitration panel or the Ontario Labour Relations Board, they have to deal with that when they're dealing with other aspects of the act. It certainly will impose itself on the rest of the legislation much more significantly than the current preamble.

Subsection 2.1(2) talks about:

"To encourage the process of collective bargaining so as to enhance,

"i. the ability of employees to negotiate with their employer for the purpose of improving their terms and conditions of employment."

It suggests to us that, quite frankly, when employers are either trying to negotiate a set of conditions which may result in some concessions or some drawing back from a current set of conditions under a collective agreement, or wanting to maintain the status quo in terms of the collective agreement, the employees through the trade union can look at that and can certainly take this to the board and say that the employer is bargaining in bad faith, and that is certainly a significant concern for us.

We don't know how an arbitrator or how the board is going to deal with this particular part of the legislation. Once you have it in the act, he or she or the board has to the deal with that as part of the act. It really covers the rest of the act and we're really quite concerned about that.

Mr Harnick: My concern is that if you go ahead and put this even in a preamble, as you're suggesting, you're still recommending a situation where bias can be prevalent in terms of the mind of the chairman of the board. My feeling is, and I'd like your comment, that one of the things we could always appeal, by way of a decision of the labour board, was a decision where we could prove bias. Now what you're doing is you're statutorily creating a situation where bias is okay. It seems to me to be contrary to every rule of fundamental fairness and procedure that we've always operated under, particularly in the development of boards and tribunals in Ontario. Do you have any comment about that?

Mr McCaig: I think we have to look at that word "improve." Nothing guarantees that every time you walk into negotiations, situations are going to improve. I can remember when I was 18 years old in a paper mill. That particular paper mill, owned by Amanda, went on short time. We negotiated with the company, and we went down to four days a week, 32 hours a week, so we could all work.

The situation does not improve every time you walk into negotiations. You have to take into consideration what is happening in this province with the recession. Some of you people who are with the Ministry of Energy are very much aware of the energy conservation program. If in fact some of the goals were reached and some of the substitutions went into effect, there's a very distinct possibility that some of the utilities would have to negotiate. Some of the smaller utilities, particularly in the north, are going to have to negotiate something down, perhaps to avoid layoffs. If every time you use the word "improve" it's going to be left open to someone else to interpret it, God only knows what happens five or 10 years down the road.

1900

Mr MacKenzie: Can I perhaps get back to the question as well? In summary, I would agree with you. If you look at our brief and the comments our chairman made earlier, I think we have not suggested that the existing wording be taken out and become the preamble. We have suggested several options for the government and this committee to consider which would amend the wording to reflect, I think, the unbiased nature the board should conduct itself in.

We think the real purpose of the act, as stated in the existing preamble, is to provide a harmonious environment for employees, trade unions and employers to operate in. It allows for negotiations and joint problem-solving, and that's what we think the bill and the act should focus on. The existing wording does a lot more than that.

Mr Jennings: One of the last points on this that a number of our people raised was the question of how the words would be interpreted, particularly if it's kept in the bill. I hadn't thought of it, but with regard to, for instance, the increased employee participation, which isn't focused on very much, five or 10 years from now could that mean that a union which resists employees serving on some committee would be bargaining in bad faith? I'm sure that's not the intent, but the way the words are, there is some question of interpretation that could cause problems.

The Chair: Mr Jennings, Mr MacKenzie, Mr McCaig and Mr Matthews, we want to thank you for appearing here today on behalf of the Municipal Electric Association. You've made a valuable contribution and we thank you for taking the time. Take care.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL COUNCIL OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA

The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario provincial council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Please come forward and seat yourselves. There's coffee -- fresh coffee, as a matter of fact -- and soft drinks at the side of the room, so you can make yourselves feel comfortable. Please partake.

As well, the committee has just been provided with the August 11, 1992, memo by our research officers, Avrum Fenson and Anne Anderson, which analysed the data coming out of Quebec both before and after its anti-replacement worker legislation, comparing it to a similar time frame in Ontario. I trust that will be the subject matter of a whole lot of commentary and discussion. As with other documents, members of the public can obtain this by writing to the clerk of the resources development committee at Queen's Park.

Gentlemen, please give us your names and titles, if any. Proceed with your comments. We've got half an hour. Please try to save the second half for exchanges and questions.

Mr David McKee: Mr Chair, we'll be quite brief. My name's David McKee. I'm counsel to the Ontario provincial council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Quintin Begg is the president of the Ontario provincial council and Bryon Black is the secretary-treasurer of the OPC.

Our comments tonight will be quite brief. They're being distributed now. Much of that is material that I don't intend to cover tonight. They are submissions that have been made earlier to the minister, and I'll refer to them later for a specific purpose.

Before I begin, perhaps I can explain who we are. The Ontario provincial council of the united brotherhood is the provincial coordinating body of the union, representing 23 carpenters' locals and eight millwrights' locals in the province of Ontario. The combined membership is roughly 23,000 carpenters and millwrights, making the united brotherhood one of the largest building trades unions in the province.

The Ontario provincial council of carpenters wishes to state that in our view the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act are fair and reasonable. They address areas that have cried out for reform for many years and, if adopted, should expedite the resolution of any labour problems and encourage cooperation and dispute resolution.

However, and I don't mean this critically, we would point out to this committee and to this government, and more particularly perhaps to the employer groups that have criticized Bill 40, that there is little, really, that is new or innovative. Most of the provisions and the concepts in Bill 40 have been part of the legislation in other jurisdictions in this country for years.

I'm afraid I haven't had the opportunity of seeing the hot-off-the-press, up-to-date data from the province of Quebec, but certainly the replacement worker provisions contained in the proposed section 73.2 are simply a detailed statement of the principles contained in the Quebec labour code and enunciated by the Quebec labour court over the years. Our anecdotal information, which of course isn't nearly as detailed as the statistical information you have, is that lo and behold, businesses continue to function in the province of Quebec. That has not spelled the end of any commerce east of the Ottawa River.

Similarly, the struck work provisions in an earlier portion of proposed section 73.1 have been part of the Canada Labour Code for the past 20 years. Again, business hasn't ground to a halt in the airlines and other transportation industries. The successor employer amendments to the Employment Standards Act reflect, in fact, although not in a statutory form, the jurisprudence of the Quebec labour court on successorship in a general fashion. It is much more restricted in Bill 40 but it is not a new concept. Again, businesses have continued to operate in the province of Quebec.

Finally -- and this gave me some concern when I realized it -- the so-called increased power of arbitrators to deal effectively with the real substance of grievance disputes is something that could even be found in various BC statutes, both before and after they were revised by the Vander Zalm government. It made me think that perhaps something had gone wrong here, but in fact I think all it represents is a level of common sense that appeals to a wide spectrum of political views.

Our response to the employer groups that have criticized Bill 40 is that there is nothing in this bill that is going to hamper your ability to do business in Ontario. These concepts, these provisions, didn't cause industry and commerce to grind to a halt in Quebec, in British Columbia and in the federal sector, that is, unless an employer's idea of efficient operation is that giving any rights at all to workers to organize and bargain collectively is hampering business. None of the concepts in Bill 40 have caused businesses to flee any one particular jurisdiction, be it Quebec, BC or otherwise, nor, in our view, will they cause any such flight of business from Ontario. Indeed, if Bill 40 does discourage investment in Ontario, which is the other threat that has been made -- that is something we doubt very much, but if that does happen it will be because of the scaremongering and distortion of what is contained in Bill 40 rather than because of anything of substance in this bill.

To this government, and hopefully at the end of the process to the Legislature, we say congratulations on recognizing and addressing the issues contained in Bill 40. What this does, we recognize, is to bring Ontario legislation in line with some of the more progressive labour legislation in Canada. While you are to be applauded for that, Bill 40 is hardly the end of the matter. There is room for innovation, there is room for further reform.

What we as a union active primarily in the construction industry note is that there is a number of issues relevant to the construction industry which are not addressed in Bill 40, nor are they addressed in Bill 80, which obviously we are not going to deal with tonight. That is really an internal matter rather than dealing with broader labour relations issues. Quite frankly, the needs of workers and unions in the construction industry have been somewhat ignored in Bill 40.

What I have attached as an appendix to these comments are submissions that were made to the Minister of Labour during what seemed to me to be a long consultation process, hardly one that has been rushed. It contains a discussion of issues that the Ontario provincial council believes must be addressed at some point in the process of labour law reform.

Again, just to outline them briefly, because I don't propose to deal with them here tonight, the issues are in summary:

1. A need to tighten by legislation the fairly broad exceptions to the related employer provision of subsection 1(4) of the act. This is a provision which is of crucial importance in the construction industry. Employers are basically possessed of few, if any, fixed assets, and for good commercial reasons have multiple corporate vehicles, so that is of crucial importance in this industry.

2. The need to give the labour relations board the power to require unions who are reluctant to become involved in private jurisdictional dispute tribunals to join the bandwagon, so that we're not left with two out of 13 trades that refuse to participate and thereby bring a private process to a halt.

3. The need to give construction trade unions back the power to decide their own ratification procedures, because those are defined in the act in certain circumstances.

1910

4. The need to redefine "strike" so as not to penalize workers who are confronted with an employer who just isn't paying all of the wages. If my contributions to a pension and welfare fund aren't being made, I can quit; there's no problem. But if I say to you, "I'm not going to do any more work until you make those payments," I am on strike. The reality is that that may be the only leverage I've got with an employer who is going to disappear after the project is gone.

However, much as we believe those issues are important, we recognize the realities of the legislative process and we also recognize the need to complete debate on what already exists in Bill 40. Accordingly, we do not seek to add these further issues to the discussion at this time but we do wish to highlight them for this committee and for this government so that we are all aware of what further work lies ahead beyond Bill 40.

In summary, we support Bill 40 as a good beginning. We say to employers that your fears are unfounded and your criticism is unjust, and to this government we simply say that Bill 40 represents a good beginning but there is much more to do.

Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to get a clarification prior to getting into some questions on your presentation.

In your commendation for Bill 40, you've spoken about a submission -- and you've attached to your presentation -- made to the Minister of Labour in February. Forgive me, but I've been moving fairly rapidly through that. It appears that the issues which you brought forward in your submission to the minister of February 1992 are not contained in Bill 40. I'm wondering if you can help me out on that.

Mr McKee: I didn't draft Bill 40 so --

Mr Offer: No, no. I haven't been able to go through it in the time we have here, but when I do go through it I want in my mind to be able to characterize it as issues which are important to you but in essence are not matters which are yet contained in the changes to the Labour Relations Act.

Mr McKee: That's correct; that is, they aren't dealt with positively or negatively, they're simply issues that remain to be dealt with.

Mr Offer: Dealing with the first part of your submission, you've spoken about the powers of the board. I believe that is a very important area; it has been, as we deal with these hearings, addressed by more and more individuals. I would like to get from you an expansion on your thoughts as to the powers of the arbitration board to deal with the substance of the issues and whether, in your opinion, that really does seem to fly in the face of due process.

Mr McKee: I would find it odd to think that someone who deals with the real dispute and the real issue that has caused parties to be at odds is somehow flying in the face of due process. I have certainly been in the position where, for one reason or another, someone is trying to revive something that died two years ago. Even under Bill 40, I would not expect an arbitrator to listen to me for very long. Remember, we're in the construction industry; two years ago means that the job is long done, everyone is gone, the bills have been paid. And remember that, by and large, arbitrations in the construction industry are done by the labour relations board itself. So in theory you could say, yes, we'll go back two years; in practice, nobody is that insensitive to the realities of the world.

Issues of timeliness and issues of process through a grievance procedure aren't big issues in construction industry grievances. Most collective agreements have a fairly limited process and fairly lengthy time limits. In fact, there are times when my clients or I have missed those time limits and nobody really gets particularly concerned. It's a commonsense world we operate in. If it were two years ago and everyone's gone, no one is going to listen to you; if you missed it by a few days, there's no real prejudice. So I don't see that as a problem of due process.

Mr Offer: I understand the example you bring forward, which is a time limit of two years' expiration --

Mr McKee: No, I don't have any grievance with two-year limits, believe me.

Mr Offer: I understand the example that you bring forward. None the less, when we talk about a piece of legislation and its general application, I'm wondering if there is a concern that you have that the types of issues might be a touch finer than the type of example which you've brought forward, where for one party or another there may be a real problem that has been brought forward because of this unlimited and, in many ways, undefined type of powers given to the arbitration board.

Mr McKee: Again, it's difficult to hypothesize without particular concrete examples. I think the way most arbitrators, whether it's the labour relations board sitting as an arbitrator or private consensual arbitrators, deal with that kind of problem when there isn't a specific statutory or contractual limitation on their jurisdiction is to say: "Look, what makes sense here? Are you prejudiced by the fact that this happened two years ago? If you are, and you can demonstrate that to me, then fine. McKee, why should I listen to something that happened two years ago?" I've had that said to me and I've yet to think of a good answer, frankly.

Mr Harnick: This question may, on the surface, seem a little out of sorts, based on the recession and particularly the way it's hit the construction trades.

Let's go back to a period such as 1983 to 1986, when employment was, particularly in the carpenter trades, I believe, almost full employment. Let's say we have a situation of a strike under the circumstances set out in Bill 40, where the employer really can't carry on his business because of the strikebreaker provisions. We have also a situation of full employment, a situation where carpenters might be on strike at one job but it's pretty easy, because of the demand for carpenters, to get other jobs while the strike is going on. In order to level the playing field so that everybody is facing the same difficulties during a strike, would you see anything wrong with an amendment to this legislation preventing workers who were on strike from obtaining alternate employment in the trade in which they're on strike?

Mr McKee: I think that yes, we would. The reality of strikes in the construction industry -- and certainly province-wide in the industrial-commercial and institutional sector there have been strikes in 1978, 1980 and a number of times during the 1980s -- is that job sites shut down. That's what happens in construction simply as a matter of practice, for any number of practical rather than legal reasons.

What that means is that in a particularly long strike -- people have to pay the mortgage. They have to pay the rent. They have to buy food. They will work at other jobs, which may or may not be carpentry jobs, during that period of time.

Mr Harnick: Do you not think that employers have expenses? They may have a mortgage on the building. They may have a mortgage on the equipment. They may have a mortgage on the vehicles. They may have other staff whom they want to retain, who have to be paid salaries. Why is it not a level playing field? Why is it not equal for one as it would be for the other?

I think, if you'll just let me finish, your attitude typifies the very unbalanced approach that I believe this legislation indicates: the fact that the playing field for the worker can't be the same level playing field as the playing field for the employer. I don't understand why everybody can't live under the same rules. You really haven't touched on that, because the employers have expenses as well.

Mr McKee: Two responses. First of all, you're assuming a vast and endlessly available amount of work.

Mr Harnick: No, I'm just saying there are times when you might have full employment.

1920

Mr McKee: Yes, and what I'm saying is, that doesn't mean everyone who's on strike can't also work elsewhere. That isn't going to be an opportunity in the real world available to every single member of the carpenters' union who goes out on strike.

Yes, I recognize that employers have expenses, continuing expenses. Again, it's somewhat different in the construction industry where you don't have a vast amount of fixed assets. There may be problems, and I don't mean to minimize them. There are problems for owners who have mortgage payments that have to be made or loans that have been extended on the expectation of a tenant occupancy by a particular date, but there is a difference between saying what happens to the financial health of this company and saying what happens to the physical health of my children. We're not talking about putting food on the table of a corporate entity the way you're talking about putting food on the table of a carpenter or his or her family.

Mr Harnick: I beg to differ, you know, because I can certainly see that when the company is going broke, the people -- the managers who work there, the white-collar workers who run the office, the secretaries, as the company cannot generate any more income and they use up their reserves -- go hungry too. So why is it that only the union can go out and find other jobs as they were able to do in 1983, 1984, 1985? But I've heard your answer and I respect what you say while I don't agree with you.

The other question is, this legislation is silent in terms of dealing with some of the democratic rights of workers, the right to have secret-ballot voting on certification, whether an offer is a good offer. Do you not think this legislation and workers in this province would be well served if we had enshrined in this legislation those very basic democratic rights that almost all organizations, save and except for trade unions, have available to them? Would you have any objection to that?

Mr McKee: I won't rise to the bait at the end of that question. The democratic right of workers to organize is enshrined in the current legislation and will still be there once Bill 40 is passed; that is, a majority of employees must decide in favour of a union before --

Mr Harnick: What about the secret ballot?

Mr McKee: Why would you assume that a secret ballot is the only way of registering the views and wishes of an employee? You and I have something in common, I suspect: We're both members of a political party. I became a member of a party the same way you did: by signing a membership card. I would find it offensive if someone told me I was too stupid or that you were too stupid to know what you were doing when you signed it. Why wouldn't you extend that courtesy to every worker in the province of Ontario?

Mr Harnick: It's one thing to join an organization; it's another thing to have the opportunity to vote. If you're going to try and tell me that there is never coercion, that there is never anything hanging over a worker's head --

Mr McKee: Employers do it all the time.

Mr Harnick: -- there are never divisive issues, there are never problems within trade unions that would perhaps cause someone some discomfort to really speak their mind, what do trade unions have to lose by having a secret ballot?

Mr McKee: What you're saying is that you prefer that way of having an employee express his or her wishes about union representation. You then moved on to, well, what about the union member who's a member of a union and doesn't like what's going on inside that union? That's a matter of internal union affairs, something --

Mr Harnick: Well --

The Chair: And that's an appropriate time to turn the floor over to Mr Ferguson, who's already given you a couple of minutes of his time, Mr Harnick.

Mr Harnick: I appreciate that, Mr Ferguson.

Mr Ferguson: I hope we didn't drag Mr Harnick off the beach for this. I certainly would support sending him back.

The Chair: Mr Harnick is welcome here.

Mr Ferguson: Absolutely. I do want to welcome the gentlemen here this evening. We certainly appreciated their short but concise presentation to the committee.

Some of the members of the committee who were here yesterday may recall that the learned professor talked at length about individuals being able to offer their services if, in fact, they found themselves in a strike position. It was their opinion, and I think it bears repeating and is worth repeating, that the only asset a worker has to offer is his or her labour. A lot of companies out there have assets as well, and while a worker can sell his or her labour, a company has the option of selling its assets as well during a strike if it so desires. There is a big difference here, Mr Chair.

I want to get on to this whole question of investment. I'm sure you gentlemen will not be surprised to learn that the Council of Ontario Construction Associations as well as the employer coordinating council obviously disagree with your position.

Mr McKee: We've heard their views.

Mr Ferguson: You heard that. They have suggested that employers and workers of Ontario -- this is a quote from their letter -- do not need the government meddling in their relations. In your view, is this government meddling in your relations with the various companies you have contractual obligations with?

Mr McKee: From the perspective of construction trade unions, it doesn't affect to any great extent relations between employers who are bound by existing collective agreements and the united brotherhood. Those relationships will continue on much as they have continued on, and I don't see anything in Bill 40 that's going to significantly affect that.

Mr Ferguson: Some of us are having a little bit of difficulty with this whole investment perspective, because we have heard a number of times that it's going to affect investment in Canada. If you can trust Statistics Canada, on February 27 it released its public and private investment table, which indicates that some $20-billion worth of investment came to Ontario in 1991. That's out of $45 billion across the nation as a whole. So we're having a little bit of difficulty with that, and I'll explain further.

Continually we are hearing from representatives and delegations before this committee that they have talked to a lawyer, who spoke to somebody else and perhaps acted on behalf of a third party, that a company has decided not to locate here in Ontario because of what it perceives as a potential problem maybe possibly down the road with the Labour Relations Act. You represent 23,000 people out there across the entire province, no doubt working in a number of projects across the province. My question is this: Are you aware of any projects that shut down once we announced our intention to amend the Labour Relations Act? That's my first question.

My second question is this: I know you have affiliates across the country. Included in that, of course, would be Quebec. Back in 1978 Quebec brought in its legislation, which this is obviously modelled after and similar to. Are you aware in that province of any companies or firms or construction projects that came to a grinding halt because the government of the day decided to change the rules on how employees and employers ought to relate to each other?

Mr McKee: I think the reference to the province of Quebec is particularly apt. The position of building trades unions under the Quebec labour code is far stronger than it is under the current Ontario Labour Relations Act, and will be even if everything in Bill 40 is added to the Labour Relations Act. There is virtually no non-union construction in Quebec. That can't be said of Ontario.

Certainly those measures and the obligation of every construction worker to designate a union to which he or she would pay dues were something designed to put an end to fairly endemic struggles and violence in the construction industry in Quebec. That happened in the early 1980s. Quebec did just as well as Ontario and the rest of the country during the late 1980s. Its construction industry was just as strong as in Ontario.

1930

Yes, we represent 23,000 people. A lot of those people are unemployed. A very large percentage of those people are unemployed. They're unemployed because of a recession, because of a free trade agreement, because of any number of things. They are not unemployed because there is a bill before this Legislature.

Quite frankly, to get back perhaps to your first question, the reason you hear so much about investment from COCA is that it isn't really affected particularly. That may be a complaint we have. They aren't particularly affected by Bill 40, so they're simply saying, "This is bad for other people and we build their buildings." But the fact is that they're pointing to harm to somebody else, not to themselves.

The Chair: I've got to interrupt and say thank you to the Ontario provincial council of carpenters. Mr Black, Mr McKee, Mr Begg, we appreciate very much your taking the time to be here this evening, preparing, as you did, submissions which I'm sure will be valuable to all members of the committee as they deal with this piece of legislation. We thank you for your interest and trust that you'll keep in touch.

Mr McKee: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. Take care.

MARION THOMAS

The Chair: Our next participant is Marion Thomas. Ms Thomas, please seat yourself. There were over 1,100 groups and individuals who applied to participate in these hearings. So far, because of the five-week schedule of the committee, in excess of perhaps 240 or 250 will have been accommodated. Priority has been given to groups, in view of the fact that they represent numbers of people, not necessarily large but at least numbers. You are one of the few individuals and we're interested in hearing what you have to say. If you want to tell us a little bit about yourself before you start your submission, feel free. Do it in whatever manner you wish.

Ms Marion Thomas: First of all, I really appreciate the opportunity of being able to speak with you tonight. I didn't know if I would be able to. I know how difficult it is to get into a hearing of this sort, so I really appreciate the opportunity.

My name's Marion Thomas. I am a former IBM part-time employee. I believe that I lost my job as a direct result of the proposed reforms to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening to tell you about my experience. The events that led to my appearance here today I hope will reveal the necessity of changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

IBM is a large corporate company that believed in respect for the individual, and this belief has always looked after employees, to the extent that unions have never been a serious consideration. I had been employed by IBM as a contract temp on call, working almost full-time from 1980 to July 1989.

This was a choice decision. As a busy mother with young children, it allowed me to give both the job of caring for my family and my career at IBM my best effort. I was able to schedule my family commitments to best mesh with work requirements. When necessary, specifically at year-end situations, I put in hundreds of hours of overtime, to the detriment of my family life. I felt I had an obligation to a company that rewarded me with recognition and substantial remuneration for a job well done. In other words, the job responsibilities did come first.

Contract positions were usually for a one-year term, with theoretically a two-year break between assignments. I always worked beyond these guidelines, in one particular instance from June 1985 to July 1989 continuously.

The problem with this arrangement is that one never knew from one day to the next how long it would continue. By this time, I was also realizing that I needed some stability in my life. My family had grown and I needed the security of a pension etc. I applied and was accepted into the category of a special part-time employee in August 1990.

The creation of a special part-time status had won sound approval from both employees and management. In a nutshell, employees would work 50% of the time and receive 50% of the benefits afforded for full-time personnel. An outline of this program appears in Insight, an IBM publication, of April 1991. This article describes how IBM has responded to the needs of employees to balance careers, home and community demands.

Many full-time personnel jumped at the opportunity. While I don't have any statistics to back up this statement, it would not be unreasonable to assume that the greater majority are mothers with children. I believe we had a false sense of security in that we thought that if we performed our job well and the position was still required, our future was assured. I don't believe this was an unreasonable assumption. It is unfortunate we didn't heed the warning in the last paragraph of this article. According to Pat Reiniger, "The needs of the business must be met and our practices in adapting to employee needs must also consider the need to remain productive and profitable."

In November 1991, the needs of the business -- in other words, productive and profitable -- emerged the winner. Under the guise of downsizing, approximately 300 special part-time employees were informed that their services were no longer required. Unlike their full-time counterparts, no package was prepared to inform the employees if or how much their severance would be.

It was mid-January that I discovered I was entitled to nothing. For others who had converted from full-time to special part-time it was worse. They received one week for every year instead of the two being offered to full-time employees. Then it was calculated at 50% of their weekly salary; in other words, approximately 25% of their enticement to retirement package. Employees who had many full-time years were sincerely regretting the decision to convert to part-time. I personally viewed this as an attack specifically targeted at women with children.

I realized that IBM was suffering the same effects from recession, GST and the free trade agreement that were hitting almost all Canadian businesses, but I could not understand why they were cutting their lower-paid employees, employees who were only paid for time worked, and I kept wondering who would do the work. I was told it would be done by full-time staff, but I doubted this.

Towards the end of February it became apparent that I was correct. Indeed, many special part-time staff are still working at IBM, doing the same job at the same rate of pay, reporting to the same manager. The only difference is that now there are no benefits, no pension plan, no pay for IBM floater holidays and remuneration is provided by a third party; in other words, their contractors.

I don't believe IBM did this just to avoid paying a few benefits to a few employees, although there is possibly some merit to this. I do believe this was damage control in that IBM perceived that this group of employees might take advantage of the new labour reform laws to form a union to represent them. Indeed, had it been easier to organize, I'm certain this action would have been initiated.

In this regard, I believe it is essential, for employees who want a union to represent them, that employers be required to provide a list of employees, their home addresses and a designated area close to the workplace for union organizers to communicate with employees.

In March 1992, an article in Toronto Computes describes how 100 high-tech companies represented by CATA, Canadian Advanced Technology Association, affiliated themselves with Project Economic Growth, now representing more than 400 Ontario companies, to form a coalition opposed to labour reform. Surely employees should have the same right to unite to better represent their position.

There has been much discussion in the news lately about the lack of consumer confidence. Housing prices and mortgage rates are the lowest in many years, yet few are buying. In my opinion, this is a direct result of the preferential practice of hiring contract workers to be replaced in a few years' time with yet another contract worker.

The unfortunate result of this is that without the security of full-time employment, the people performing these jobs are unable to obtain mortgages. They live from contract to contract without pension or sick benefits. It's no wonder they have no confidence. Representation by a union can definitely have an impact in this regard and ultimately this would be reflected in renewed economic growth.

Ms Murdock: I want to thank you very much for appearing and taking time out. One of the benefits of night sittings is that we are able to hear from a lot of the women's groups, because actually that's what's been happening.

Ms Thomas: Yes, it is, most definitely.

Ms Murdock: We've had representations from the Child Care Coalition and we'll be hearing later on tonight. It's about the only time most women can appear. So I thank you for taking that time and for putting this together.

I would like to get, first of all, the distinction between contract employees and part-time employees because it's evident from your presentation that as a part-timer you could have organized under Bill 40 and you can't now; is that correct?

1940

Ms Thomas: Actually, I would think it's impossible to organize now in there because the women who have remained behind are now working for another company. They are essentially contracted to IBM but they're paid by a third party.

Ms Murdock: Okay. I want to go to the bottom of page 3, I believe, in terms of providing the list of employees, their home addresses and a designated area close to the workplace. We've had a number of presentations -- I believe one from the independent grocers -- that were quite concerned about producing a list of employees' names, particularly where most of the employees were women, and having that out there available to people who are not the employer or for reasons of deductions and so on. Could I have your views on that?

Ms Thomas: I can understand the concern for safety but you have to understand the large framework of a company the size of IBM. Actually, until I read this article, I didn't even know there were 300 special part-time people at IBM, so it's very difficult to get any idea of contact; ff that can't be possible, perhaps communication within the system, within IBM. I'm sure there are other companies with similar setups. A list of names without addresses; but that would mean you would be infringing on the employer's time, to communicate with these people. How do you contact people when the organization is so big if you don't have a list of names and addresses?

Ms Murdock: One of the suggestions, which is not in Bill 40 but was originally in the discussion paper, was access to the employer's property for the purposes of organizing. During the consultations, we heard numerous presentations that really frowned upon that whole aspect and so it is not in Bill 40; it is not part of the amendments. Am I hearing you say that you think they should be allowed to organize on the employer's property.

Ms Thomas: I would think that would be an infringement of the employer's rights, but perhaps an area of the parking lot or something like that. I can only really refer to the situation at IBM as I know it. I wouldn't think it would be fair to be using the employer's time; that's my personal opinion.

Ms Murdock: Good. I want to thank you again. I don't know if anybody else has any questions.

Mr Fletcher: Thank you for appearing today. I was just curious, as far as your opening statement is concerned, about when you said, "I believe I lost my job as a direct result of the proposed reforms." Would you tell me why, other than going right back into your submission?

Ms Thomas: What I was trying to say is that there are no IBM special part-time people left. They are still working there but they're employed by somebody else. I don't think the numbers changed significantly at IBM in spite of the 2,000 people who disappeared or who were supposed to disappear. Essentially, what they became were contract workers for another company. So now you'll have one manager with 12 people reporting to him, but of those 12 people maybe only five of them will be IBMers. The remainder will be working for different companies or maybe on one-year contracts.

Essentially I think that even if a union were formed and a strike were called, IBM could still function quite well with the remaining employees from other companies, and the full-time employees were treated very fairly.

Mr Ward: One quick question: Do you think it's fair what IBM did to you and the others?

Ms Thomas: No, but I think there were other cases that were much more unfair. I did have breaks in service during that time frame.

Mr Ward: I don't know if you can answer this or not, but what effects do you think it had on the people who were let go and their families?

Ms Thomas: It was a very stressful situation, especially for women who had converted from full-time to part-time. Had they stayed two or three more years as full-time people, they would have been eligible for a very substantial severance package. They felt they'd been suckered is what it came down to.

Mr Ward: By IBM?

Ms Thomas: Yes, just suckered into taking a program that allowed them to strike a balance and then out the door.

Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I was going through it with my colleague. You started off as a contract temp.

Ms Thomas: That's right. I worked as a temp on call but I worked there full-time. It was just a status that they had.

Mr Offer: But as it turned out, for whatever reason, it was almost like a full-time position but it was still contract temp?

Ms Thomas: That's right.

Mr Offer: Then you made a choice to go from contract temp to special part-time. I think that was done for family reasons. Isn't that what you said? Instead of being full-time, it was just special part-time?

Ms Thomas: No, I was looking for some stability. I wanted the pension benefits. I realized I'd worked all this time and really had nothing put in the bank to show for it. This program existed, but initially, when it came in, the jobs that were available in this program were basically answering the telephone and the somewhat more menial jobs, and I wasn't really interested at that time. Later on, they expanded to incorporate jobs that were a little more demanding.

Mr Offer: If you'll pardon me, Mr Chair, I just want to try to get a real understanding of what in fact exactly happened, because I think this is very important. So just as you made that choice to go from contract temp to special part-time, I think you also said that there were some full-time that made the choice to go to special part-time.

Ms Thomas: Oh yes, that's right.

Mr Offer: And in the end result there were about 300 in the pool called special part-time.

Ms Thomas: That's correct.

Mr Offer: And then the 300 were let go.

Ms Thomas: That's correct.

Mr Offer: When you went from contract to special part-time, were you given an indication as to what you were getting when you went in there?

Ms Thomas: Yes. We still were required to sign a contract, and the contract was based on a yearly basis, but it also had indication that unless the business needs changed there was some stability in that job. I'd always had a good experience working for IBM until this point. To be fair to them, I was always treated with the utmost dignity and respect.

Mr Offer: I know what you've said in the submission. Is there something that maybe should be in the Employment Standards Act that would give you the type of protections you say are required, just to make sure that this type of disclosure and information is provided? Should there be something in the Employment Standards Act?

Ms Thomas: Essentially, nothing would have changed for me had I remained a contract worker and not gone to special part-time. But the implication is there that, by being special part-time and offering you benefits and offering medical, dental and all those things, there is some stability.

1950

Mr Offer: Do I have a few more minutes? Is there now the opportunity -- I just ask this -- to be again contract temp, to go back to how it started out, the position that you had, the contract temp?

Ms Thomas: I'm not certain if that exists or not. I know that all their part-time people are hired by different organizations. One is ISM. There were job offers through Burns Security. Some of the receptionists are working through Burns, but they're still doing essentially the same job. If the job still exists, there has to be a better reason for letting people go.

Mr Offer: I think you make a very good case. The thing that's running through my mind is the emphasis that when we hear this matter which you have brought forward, maybe we should be directing our minds to the Employment Standards Act just to make certain that the protection that should be there is there, and the enforcement agency that should be there is doing that job.

Ms Thomas: Actually, I checked with employment standards, and everything they did was legal. There is no recourse.

Mr Offer: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Thomas, for providing us with yet another very novel and unique insight into the working world and into what this legislation means to some people at least. Thank you kindly for taking the time to be here. You've provided a unique and valuable contribution.

Ms Thomas: Thank you very much.

The Chair: We trust you'll keep in touch with us.

Ms Thomas: I'll try.

The Chair: Good luck to you.

Ms Thomas: I'll be watching.

The Chair: As will, I hope, others, because these are public hearings at Queen's Park. We're at Toronto for the balance of the week, through till Thursday, starting at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning and then 10 o'clock Thursday. Of course, people are entitled and encouraged to come to Queen's Park, room 151, the Amethyst Room, to watch these proceedings in person. There are accommodations for them, among other things.

QUEBEC AND ONTARIO PAPER CO LTD

The Chair: The next participants are here. They are the Quebec and Ontario Paper Co Ltd from Thorold, in the heart of the Niagara Peninsula. Gentlemen, please seat yourselves in front of a microphone and give us your names and your titles, if any, with the company.

Mr David Strathern: A little show and tell.

The Chair: Good stuff. The one important thing is that somebody's got to keep close to a mike to be recorded.

Mr Strathern: That's fine. I'll speak sitting down.

The Chair: A copy of that same chart has been distributed to members of the committee.

Mr Strathern: No charge.

The Chair: Transcripts, by way of Hansard, of any of the submissions, including yours or any others, are available to members of the public free of charge by writing to the clerk of the standing committee on resources development here at Queen's Park or to any MPP's office. Similarly, copies of any of the submissions or reports that have been filed and form exhibits to these proceedings are available to members of the public. Most of them are extremely valuable bits of insight and research.

Mr Strathern: These have been handed out then?

The Chair: Yes, sir. Everybody has copies of the written material.

Mr Strathern: Okay. My name is Dave Strathern, and I'm the director of mill operations at Quebec and Ontario Paper in Thorold. My friend here is George Gasbarrino, and he's superintendent of labour relations.

We'd like to start by first thanking the committee for an opportunity to speak. We started some time ago, working through Marg Harrington in Niagara Falls, to make such a presentation. This is almost the third presentation we've made, so we're getting better at it, I hope.

After we presented to Marg, she suggested that we see Peter and the Niagara regional caucus meeting of the NDP members of provincial Parliament, and we gave a presentation similar to the one we're giving today. It was through Peter's encouragement that we've come to this committee.

I'd like to start by introducing the company. Quebec and Ontario Paper was originally founded in 1913 by the Chicago Tribune and was built to supply newsprint to the Chicago Tribune, and expanded over the years from 1913 to a five-newsprint-machine mill in the 1950s. In the mid-1970s a decision was made that the mill either had to close or modernize because the equipment was getting old and non-competitive.

Around 1978 or 1979 a decision was made to modernize the mill and in 1982 a brand-new mill was built in Thorold. The two newsprint machines that were erected in Thorold, Ontario, were the only two high-speed newsprint machines built in Canada in the 1980s at one site.

In 1982, we also started recycling newsprint and became the first newsprint recyclers in Canada. At this point in the game we are currently recycling 60% of our fibre supply, or nearly 600 tonnes a day of newsprint is recycled in our mill. We're expanding to 750 tonnes this coming November, which will represent over 70% of the fibre supplied to the machines. The machines run approximately 1,000 tonnes of newsprint a day.

During all of this modernization, you can imagine that there was a downsizing of the operation and we shrank from about 2,300 employees, in the heyday of Quebec and Ontario Paper, down to the current manpower complement of around 700.

I've put up on the board here a little structure of the company and I'm going to get into that. This is the key element of my presentation here today.

Perhaps I should say a few words about myself so you know who you're listening to. I'm a graduate chemical engineer from the University of Toronto, and in fact I used to drink a few drafts over at The Bull and The Bear in 1970. That's gone now.

After graduation, I entered the pulp and paper industry, worked three years with CIP in Timiskaming, Quebec, in Dalhousie, New Brunswick, and in Gatineau, Quebec. I left CIP and worked with Nova Scotia Forest Industries in Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia, where I worked four years and one year additional in Sweden, and managed to pick up a second language while I was working there.

Then I moved to the southern climates of Kapuskasing, Ontario, and worked in Kapuskasing and became paper-mill superintendent of that mill. Of course, so many of you know Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co Ltd and all the anguish that this company has gone through over the last little while. It turned out that one of my lead hands in the paper mill, who was a millwright lead hand -- I think his name's Len Wood -- actually graduated to this august company that we have here today. Len and I used to argue about the maintenance on my paper machines and we also used to have a few drinks at the curling club together; it's been known to happen. In 1984, I came to Quebec and Ontario Paper as the director of mill operations and have been there ever since.

My presentation here today is on three issues. I'd like to spend about 90% of my time on the first and 5% of my time on the last two.

I'd like to suggest to the committee that Bill 40 is like a game of solitaire and you have to have 52 cards in the deck in order to win the game. If there's one card missing, you'll continue to play the game but you'll never win. I think that I have identified, in my wisdom, the missing card. My suggestion to the committee is that there needs to be a mechanism to manage a business that has multiple unions involved in it.

When I came to Thorold in 1984, we had 10 unions represented at that site. Now we have nine unions represented at the site. I handed out a little handout and I've put it up there on the board. Maybe I can refer to my notes just so I get the numbers right.

2000

We have 493 unionized workers at Thorold, represented by nine locals. As I indicate in my presentation, the 493 employees at the site are represented by 42 union executives who are members of the executive of the unions that are at Thorold, 15 union executives who are not employees at the site, and one of our unions has had the foresight to hire a consultant. The consultant is working on their behalf, and we get to speak to him regarding issues in one of the locals. We don't get to speak to our employees, we get to speak to the consultant, because the employees have designated the consultant as their spokesperson.

I thought was going to be an octopus diagram, but there are nine tentacles, so I think it's a ninopus you end up with here. The only thing lacking on this diagram is an arrow. There should be an arrow pointing outwards from each of these locals, because all of these locals are moving in different directions. As the director of mill operations, I have the enviable task of coordinating much of this activity.

I'd like all of you to have a chance to come and visit me. Any time you'd like to come and visit the mill, you're more than welcome. We've had Peter over a couple of times. In fact, Bob was over before he was --

The Chair: That's Bob, the Premier.

Mr Strathern: Bob, the Premier. I gave Bob the first piece of 100% recycled newsprint. We'd done an experiment the night before -- purely coincidental -- and I gave Bob the sheet of paper. I said: "This is the first 100% recycled newsprint ever produced in the province of Ontario; for that matter, ever produced in Canada. Should you decide to keep it, it might be worth something one day, and should you decide not to keep it, put it in the blue box and we'll convert it back into newsprint again."

The Chair: And it was a pristine, clear, white, untrammelled piece of paper.

Mr Strathern: Pure as the driven snow.

The Chair: It could have been the first and last time.

Mr Strathern: I'd like to refer back to my ninopus diagram here. We have three CPU locals that work out of the Thorold division: Local 35, which is the steam plant, has 24 members; Local 101, which is the papermakers, has 102 members; Local 84, which is a myriad number of operations types plus millwrights, has the largest number of members, 250. As you can see, they are all CPU locals except for Local 101, which has the consultant. We get to speak to the consultant because there's a bit of an internal problem there; we're not quite sure what it is, because we're not allowed to learn that kind of stuff.

There's the International Longshoremen's Association, Local 1477. As you might expect, that local used to load boats at Thorold. The last boat we loaded at the Thorold mill was in the mid-1970s, 17 years ago. That's when the last boat was loaded. The president of Local 1477 retired in 1987 and continues to fulfil his role as president, so his current information about the ongoing activities of the business is somewhat restricted because he doesn't work there. The vice-president of Local 1477 is retiring in two months' time, on October 1, so they'll have two executives of the local who are retired and don't work at the company. But we continue to try to develop a working relationship with them.

UPGWA, Local 1971, is the plant guards. There are 10 of them, and of course they have some affiliation with General Motors. They have a plant guard union there. There's a local committee, but the senior executive of that local doesn't work at our company.

The plumbers and pipefitters union, Local 666 -- I think there was a book about that -- has 39 employees. Those are the pipefitters, and of course they're part of a construction trades local.

Then we have the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 268; there are 20 of them, and they're welders and machinists.

Then we have the IBEW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 914; there are 30 of them at the site, and they're instrument mechanics and electricians.

Then the people who were two ahead of us -- I didn't realize, but possibly one of the fellows is a member of the executive -- the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. We have five members of Local 2737.

I'm not being facetious when I make this presentation. I see a lot of you laughing. It's not a laughing matter. As the director of mill operations, I have to try to establish working relationships with these people, I have to communicate with them so they understand what some of the issues are, and you can imagine that we are drawn from pillar to post with all these unions here. If we talk to one union: "Why didn't you talk to this union? How come you talked to that union first and you didn't talk to us first? We thought it was more important to us than them." No matter what we do, someone can sit back and criticize us.

With this number of executives, 57 executive members of the locals and one consultant, would someone please provide me with some guidance? You'll have a chance to ask me some questions later, so maybe you can help me out as to how to develop a working relationship with these people.

I attended a union-management teamwork conference held in Toronto about a year ago. This was unions and management coming together and talking about how to foster teamwork. I stood up and asked a question: "Excuse me, sir, could one of you people give me some advice as to how to deal with this situation?" I ran over the same list. The union president from the Dow Chemical workers' union in Sarnia responded on behalf of the panel members, "You've got a real problem."

So here we are, looking for help. Incidentally -- I don't think I'll do this, eh, Peter?

The Chair: Be my guest.

Mr Strathern: Okay. I happened to bring the collective agreements along of all the locals we have. I won't pass them out because they're collector's items. That's what we have to work with.

These yellow ones are similar. "They're almost the same," you say; somebody's going to say that. "How come they're all the same colour?" Well, they're the same colour at their request. Should one of the locals decide to bargain separately from this group, off they go. That's what happened to the ILA; they used to belong to this collective agreement but now they have their own collective agreement, so now we've got to know what this one is.

Interjection: What is the other one?

Mr Strathern: This is Local 84, CPU. In this collective agreement, Local 35, they work 12-hour shifts, a very complicated schedule: one on, two off; two on, one off. That's CPU. This is CPU too; these guys are against 12-hour shifts. These guys are for it. These guys are against it. What do they stand for? These guys want six/three. These guys want five/two. These guys want an eight-hour work day. These guys want a 12-hour work day. We need help. It is only you and the opportunity that presents itself with Bill 40 that can help us.

I want to stress what the company's position is on unions, because some of you might be making the wrong assumption here by my frivolity. Our company has had unions since 1915; we are not anti-union at our company. We've got all sorts of unions at our company. We're not against unions. What we're against is the complexity that's created when you have this situation to manage.

2010

Incidentally, not wanting to ruin a good story by lack of embellishment, this is a union of accountants, which we don't have right now but which we might. This is a union of technicians, which we don't have right now but which we might. This is a union of clerks, which we don't have right now but which we might. And this is a union of engineers; I'm an engineer, but I don't think I'll join. I had one made up called Union of Supervisors but I tore that up because I understand that's been dropped, and we were very happy to hear that.

In the pulp and paper industry, competition in the 1990s has changed. It's not the good old days it was in the 1950s where, if you could roll the roll of newsprint, you could sell it in the United States for big money and make all sorts of money doing it. What's happened to our industry? The United States producers are taking over.

I saw this coming 10 years ago when I was in Kapuskasing. That bothered me up there. I could not get a straight answer from Kimberly-Clark, which owned the Spruce Falls mill. The question I asked was, "What are you going to do when salesmen go to these newspaper publishers in the US and say, `Buy American, don't buy export Canadian'?"

Lo and behold, what has happened? The newsprint growth in North America is focused in the United States. The use of virgin fibre in newsprint is dying. Why? Technology has changed. You can make newsprint out of garbage now. We do it every day. We collect it here in Toronto from the blue box program. You don't have to have virgin forest any longer.

Where's the best site for newsprint in North America? Dayton, Ohio, is the best location for a new newsprint mill. Why would anybody build a newsprint mill in Dayton, Ohio? You're close to Cincinnati, you're close to Cleveland, you're close to Columbus, you're close to Dayton, you're close to Pittsburgh. Why is that important? Because of all the waste paper that's down there. Bring it to Dayton, convert it into newsprint and send it back to the cities in the US.

Our industry is in trouble and we've got to react to that. How are we trying to react? Since 1984 our company has been trying to work on team work, employee involvement: "Get involved. Help us solve our problem." At one point we had eight of the nine unions involved in our quality improvement program and one out. Where do you think we are now? Now we have one union in and the other eight out. Why? For political reasons. What are they concerned about? They don't want management getting too close to the union workers. These fears have to stop.

I want to give a couple of examples of strife we've personally had at the mill. We took a one-day strike in 1987. The International Association of Machinists shut us down: 20 men. We lost $500,000. We were down for about two days. All the other unions signed up; these guys didn't.

In 1990 we made the papers; we were pretty popular in 1990. In fact, I think we even got a little government funding on the waste paper storage. We were down for four and a half months at Thorold on strikes. As time goes by, it seems that the issue was more inter-union rivalry than it was anything we had offered at the bargaining table. Because I sat on the negotiating committee and I know what was said and what wasn't said. There wasn't a lot said, I'll tell you that right now, and we were out four months and so many days.

I guess I have a couple more minutes. I want to tell you some experiences we had on the picket lines at Thorold. I had the record: two hours and 10 minutes to get into work. We weren't shipping paper. We weren't making paper. We weren't doing anything. The salaried staff were trying to get into work.

Do you people want any videotape of police officers standing beside strikers drinking beer in the middle of the street? We've got it. That's there. Do you want see strikers obstructing the flow of traffic on a public highway? We've got that too. That's there. Somebody tried to smash my window out on my car. Why would they do that, a nice guy like me, director of mill operations, just trying to make a buck? It's hard to believe, eh, Peter? The reason they did that was that they were a little offended, because around November 15 we had to bring somebody in from the outside, one of our retired employees, who was the steam plant superintendent a couple of years before he retired. He was a man of about 68 years of age. We brought him in to start the steam plant up so that we could protect the jobs of the salaried staff.

I want to say a little bit about the replacement workers in Quebec. We had a strike at a sawmill in Quebec. The Quebec legislation has been held out that it solves some of the labour strife. We had the salaried workers who work at the sawmill going into work in a bus, and the bus was shot up with high-powered rifles. Bullets going through the bus: That's how peaceful the strike was.

If you've got problems with strife on the picket line, enforce the law.

I have one last thing I'd like to talk about, and that is security guards. Our position on security guards is that you can't have one person in a union ratting on his brother. These people have got to be held separate.

What are we asking for? We're asking for help. We need some mechanism to allow unions to amalgamate in the workplace or we will continue to be in a terrible situation. We're budgeting to lose $15 million at Thorold this year, and our company is budgeting to lose $70 million this year. We've got problems, and we need help from the committee. That's all I have to say.

Mr Ferguson: I certainly appreciate your presentation, which has been most interesting. To be fair, I think all members of the committee certainly appreciate the problem you're faced with, and I can only think at this point you would be in support of giving the board the power, at the request of the company, to combine bargaining units.

Mr Strathern: I've read some of the language on that issue, and it seems that not only is it giving the board the power, but there's a little problem there. I understood, and maybe you can help me with this, that the workers themselves must show an indication or a desire to amalgamate. The workers must show that desire as well. I'm not sure if it's completely structured from without. If you're expecting the workers spontaneously to rally to one flag, I don't think it's going to happen.

Mr Ferguson: Can we just have legislative counsel clarify that? It was my understanding that when either side applied, the board would be able to make a determination and ruling on the matter.

The Chair: Do you want to sit beside Mr Gasbarrino, please, Mr Kovacs.

Mr Jerry Kovacs: If you look at page 5 of Bill 40, at section 8 of Bill 40, which sets out the consolidation provisions, you'll see in the very first subsection that the application may be made by the employer or the trade union. There isn't any further requirement of employee involvement.

Mr Strathern: That it be supported by one party or the other.

Mr Offer: They have to be represented by the same trade union.

Mr Kovacs: That's correct.

Mr Offer: The issue that has been so forcefully brought forward is that the provision under Bill 40 will not help the issue that has been brought forward and represented. There is certainly the right to combine units, and it can be at the request of either the employer or trade union, but the fact of the matter is that it must be the same trade union, and what we have heard today is that we don't have one trade union; we have a myriad of trade unions, which is causing this difficulty. I don't mind referring to the bill, but the bill just, I don't believe --

The Chair: Mr Kovacs is speaking of its applicability to three CPU locals, so you're quite right in that regard. Mr Ferguson, go ahead. Thank you, Mr Kovacs.

2020

Mr Ferguson: Thank you for that clarification. Let me tell you, whether Bill 40 is before the committee today or not, you still face the problems that you face. It's the result of about 85 years of history that you are now asking us to deal with, to resolve problems that didn't occur as a result of Bill 40, nor did they occur as a result of the existing legislation. To be fair, it's something that's developed over time, which I think most of us would recognize is a pretty unfair situation to ask anybody to operate or work under.

Mr Strathern: Again, if this is being considered as legislation, this is the time to address this type of issue. We stress the position that we're not anti-union; we're just trying to get something that we can manage here, and it is damned difficult. I'd defy anyone to know everything that's in these agreements. My friends in labour relations don't even know that.

Mr Fletcher: This is a quick comment on that. I know you almost had another union with what was going on with the CPU in Bill 101, so you could have been with the International Woodworkers also. As a former CPU member, I know exactly what you're going through. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the labour movement has to get its act together and this sort of thing shouldn't be going on. That's something that has to be worked out also.

As far as consolidating the three CPU locals, that's a possibility. As far as the other ones --

Mr Strathern: We feel that's a very small improvement to what really needs to be attended to here, because I think that the concern is bringing some kind of representation to people who don't have it. We've got it coming out our ears.

Mr Fletcher: Yes, you have.

Mr Strathern: Can you imagine how inefficient that must be? You talk about overhead: 493 employees, 58 union executive. Is that overhead?

Mr Fletcher: I sympathize with you wholeheartedly, I really do. I honestly do believe, as I said before, it's about time that the house of labour got its act together also. Hopefully, what will begin to happen if you can get the three CPUs consolidated, and that's something that can happen, is that the others could start to fall in line. I'm not going to say it's going to happen overnight, but hopefully something will happen.

Mr Strathern: We'd like to encourage the committee to give the consideration to providing a mechanism so that they will fall in line, not that they might fall in line, because promises are not well received by the Chicago Tribune, which is our owner, and we, the Canadian operation, are going to lose as much money in Canada as the Chicago Tribune is going to make in all of its operations in the United States.

Mr Fletcher: Let me just say this: If there's a way we can go along with this, then we'll certainly take a look at it and see what we can do.

Mr Strathern: Anything that I can do to be of help in that matter, just give me a call.

Mr Fletcher: You're an expert; we'll be calling on you.

Mr Strathern: I've got a pager; 127, day or night.

Mr Offer: Thank you for the presentation. I think we're clear that Bill 40 does not address the issue you brought forward, but that wasn't the only issue you brought forward. You were talking about playing solitaire and all of those things; when you took out the collective agreement it looked like you had a deck of 52. But you did bring up an issue of extreme concern and that was your personal experience during a strike, what it meant on the line. There are provisions here with respect to the prohibition of replacement workers. You have given us an example where there was the need in a strike to bring in someone.

Mr Strathern: To meet our obligations under the Boilers and Pressure Vessels Act in Ontario to run our steam plant to protect the facility while the strike was on -- not to go back into operation, I might add.

Interjection.

Mr Strathern: Yes. We don't want the place to freeze or the bearings to rot.

Mr Offer: Have you seen that particular provision of the act which speaks to the exemptions to the prohibition speaking about the destruction of machinery, equipment or premises? Do you feel that, in your example, that may be addressed by this provision?

Mr Strathern: I felt that the conduct of the picket line was unacceptable. There may be provisions in whatever act you people want to pass, but if the police do not enforce the law, then we've got a problem. I believe that the problems at our picket line were driven by a failure to enforce the law -- that simple. If the law had been enforced, it wouldn't have taken me two hours and 10 minutes to bring somebody in to work.

Mr Offer: I would like to thank you very much for your presentation. You not only bring forward very important issues but you certainly do it with a long history of the reality of what's going on. This will be very, very helpful to us. I just want to thank you for your presentation today.

Mr Strathern: It's important to hear what's happening in the trenches, because we're in a deep trench.

Mr Harnick: I too would like to thank you for your presentation. I think that you've attempted to come here and provide some balance to Bill 40. One of the things that you touched upon was your ability to maintain your commitments to your customers. Can you tell us whether this bill in any way will facilitate your ability, in a strike situation, to get the strike resolved any more quickly? And if the strike doesn't get resolved, what happens in terms of your relationship with your customers and your ability to maintain those customers?

Mr Strathern: In our four-month strike we lost customers, as you might expect. We lost them to our American competition. I'm not an expert on Bill 40. I don't know all of the intricacies of Bill 40. I came here to the committee to address three issues. I'm an operations person. I am charged with operating that plant and getting the most out of it for the owner and trying to maintain peace and harmony and goodwill and all that kind of stuff.

I came here on behalf of Quebec and Ontario Paper to discuss our multiunion situation. I think I'd like to decline as to my in-depth knowledge of Bill 40.

The Chair: David Strathern and George Gasbarrino, thank you very much. You've made a very effective presentation. Your style and content has obviously left an impact on the members of the committee. We want to thank you for appearing on behalf of Quebec and Ontario Paper Co Ltd. We're confident you'll be following the process of this bill through the committee process and back into the Legislature, confident that you'll be keeping in touch with your own MPP as well as with other people on this committee who have demonstrated and indicated interest in the status of Quebec and Ontario.

Mr Strathern: Thank you, Peter, and I thank the committee very much for its interest on this item. It's an item that's very unique to our industry, our company. It is something that's restricting our ability to provide job security and growth. That's something that's sorely lacking in our province. I think that your committee and the work that's going on here provide a mechanism for that issue to be addressed. Thank you very much for your interest and the opportunity of hearing my problems.

The Chair: Thanks, gentlemen. Have a safe trip back home.

The next participant is the Coalition for Fair Wages and Working Conditions for Home Workers. Would the people who are going to speak on behalf of -- as a matter of fact, anybody who is here on behalf of that group, come up and find yourself a seat at the microphone. There are coffee and soft drinks over at the side. Make yourself at home. You're welcome to and encouraged to partake of them.

We appreciate your patience in the fact that we're a couple of minutes behind schedule. But that's fine; you'll have a full half-hour, as you were promised. Your written material is being distributed and it will be made an exhibit to this committee process. Take a seat, please.

2030

Mr Strathern: Here, you can have that.

The Chair: Thank you kindly. We want to thank legislative broadcast for its skilful handling of the cameras during your presentation. It was a somewhat animated presentation by Quebec and Ontario Paper, and legislative broadcast lived up to its usual high standards in making sure none of it escaped the eye of the cameras.

I'll just mention once again during this hiatus that these are public hearings and that people are entitled and encouraged to come to Queen's Park and observe them. We're back here tomorrow morning at 10 am and on Thursday morning at 10 am and sitting through until 6 pm. As a matter of fact, parking should be relatively simple around Queen's Park because the House isn't sitting. There's all sorts of spaces that can accommodate visitors who want to park in the MPPs' parking spots.

Mrs Fawcett: As long as you can fight it out with the guard.

The Chair: Well, you just tell the guard that you're with Ron Eddy's office and they'll take care of you.

COALITION FOR FAIR WAGES AND WORKING CONDITIONS FOR HOME WORKERS

The Chair: People, please tell us who you are, your titles, if any. Others, if you can hear a little better by coming forward and sitting in the front rows, come on up and tell us what you will. Please start.

Ms Deena Ladd: My name's Deena Ladd and I work for the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union. I'm also involved in the coalition and I'm organizing a conference on home working for November.

The Chair: Yes, the Coalition for Fair Wages and Working Conditions for Home Workers.

Ms Ladd: That's it.

Ms Pik-Yu Tsui: My name is Pik-Yu Tsui and I am a home worker.

Ms Teresa Mak: My name is Teresa Mak and I'm a researcher of ILGWU, doing some home working and also some campaigning for home working.

Ms Cindy Wong: My name is Cindy Wong. I am a home worker.

Ms Sheila Cuthbertson: I'm Sheila Cuthbertson. I'm a staff lawyer at Parkdale Community Legal Services. Parkdale is also a member of the coalition.

The Chair: Welcome to all of you. Please go ahead and tell us what you will.

Ms Ladd: As you know, we represent the coalition and the coalition was formed in November last year, when a research study was released by the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union documenting the conditions that home workers were experiencing. You have a copy of that research study. We've handed that out, as well as the original brief that we presented to the Minister of Labour last year in November. We've also included an article, "Sewing Pains," that came out in Our Times, which is a labour magazine. That should give you an idea of some of the experiences home workers go through, and of course we have our brief on Bill 40.

The coalition was formed basically because of the conditions home workers were experiencing. We felt it was an issue that definitely had to be addressed, and not just by the labour community but by all the communities. The coalition represents women's groups, visible minority groups, immigrant groups, community groups like Parkdale Community Legal Services, and of course different organizations that represent workers, like the Workers' Information and Action Centre of Toronto, the Chinese Workers' Association and the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union.

A lot of the stuff we've been involved in since we formed has been lobbying the Minister of Labour to address the issues in the Employment Standards Act which legislate a lot of the areas that home workers come under.

Bill 40 is extremely important and definitely needs to be passed. We applaud this committee for getting as much input as it has from the community, but it must remember that home workers are extremely vulnerable in terms of where they are in precarious employment. They're at the low end of this sector and are in positions where they can be extremely exploited. As you'll find, the research study showed this to a great extent.

We feel that Bill 40 does not go far enough in terms of legislative changes. The legislative changes will not make a big impact on immigrant workers, and especially women workers. We feel that the bill should be taken further and looked at in its original form in the original discussion paper. I guess we're going to be talking about a few of those legislative changes that we feel need to be addressed.

The reason we feel these should be addressed is that there are many myths around home working that a lot of people have. If women work in the home, there's this conception that women will have control over their own environment and that they'll be able to look after their children and do work; it's fairly relaxed and they have control. However, this isn't the case. In fact, it's the opposite.

Because women are isolated and forced to work at home by themselves, they have no contact, they have no bargaining power, they have no right to negotiate when they're given the rates they're given when they're doing piecework in the home. They're often very vulnerable to threats by contractors, and that is something we'll talk about later. That is why legislation addressing home workers needs to be stronger.

Home workers are forced to work in the home because of the lack of affordable child care in this country and also because there aren't many opportunities to get language training and many of these women do not have many English skills and are immigrants and very new to the country so they are forced to work at home. Also, we found that women with disabilities who often can't get work in the workforce are forced to work at home. Again, the bargaining power these women have is extremely little.

Also, in terms of the employers and the people who give work to home workers, in terms of the research study we did last year and the home workers we've talked to who have joined the home workers association, many of these women did not have any benefits that they're legally entitled to like Canada pension plan and unemployment insurance. Benefits they should be entitled to such as minimum wage and vacation pay and good health and safety conditions they do not have. I think that illustrates just how vulnerable they are and just how much legislation is needed to protect them.

Ms Mak: We have two home workers here and maybe they can talk about their feelings and their working conditions. The first one is Kitty Tsui. She has been a home worker for a long time.

Ms Tsui: Hi everybody. My name is Kitty Pik-Yu Tsui. My English is not very good. I hope you understand. I feel so nervous now. I've worked at home about 10 years as a sewing machine operator. I always work at home with no benefits, no UIC and CPP, no 4% vacation pay, low pay because we do piecework, and no minimum wage. I need to make long working hours because they send me the job but it's not stable. Sometimes they are busy and they push me to work hard. I need to work about 16 hours a day. I hope I can get some benefits. At the end of the year, they send me a T-4A form. We are not self-employed or subcontractors; we're just home workers.

2040

Ms Mak: Maybe I could try to explain a little bit. Most of the home workers were accused by the employers of being subcontractors. That means she's self-employed, right? So at the end of the year they got T-4As. They pay the tax, but they get no benefits.

Ms Tsui: Our working conditions are very bad and they give me short notice. We cannot control the time because sometimes it's very busy and sometimes there's no job and we stay home a long time.

Ms Mak: On this point, sometimes the employers deliver the materials on Friday and want it by next Monday. That means they must work on the weekend and have long working hours. She mentioned short notice.

Ms Tsui: I have problems with the payment too, because they give me the payment every two weeks. They send me the material I need to work with and say, "I will send the paycheque for you next time." But sometimes they say, "I forgot," and then "next time" will be about one month to get paid. Sometimes the store closes. I didn't know. I didn't get paid about $2,000 yet.

I don't know how to say it because I always work at home and I don't know which person to talk to. I just feel, myself, like a silent cow and always look after the children and work hard on the farm.

Ms Mak: A cow in China must work very hard on the farm. So when she said "silent," that means she has no complaint. She cannot say anything, but she must work hard and look after children too.

The next one is Cindy.

Ms Wong: Hi. I'm a home worker. I'm a legal immigrant and also a home worker. I worked really hard, but my employer also, because I don't know labour law and English, always paid me less than what I was supposed to get. I hope the government can protect our home workers. Also, retailers should take the responsibility to stop competitors abusing our home workers. Thank you.

Ms Mak: Maybe I can try to explain a little bit. Cindy Wong is a new immigrant from Hong Kong. She came here around two years ago and she is a home worker. She feels her employers always take advantage of her, because she cannot get what she's supposed to get. She thinks retailers should take the responsibility because they could control the contractors who are abusing the home workers.

Ms Cuthbertson: The agencies, organizations, clinics and groups that make up the coalition all advocate on behalf of non-unionized workers, and we can't pretend to speak for them because they're not organized. Collectively, though, the coalition represents hundreds and hundreds of workers who are casualties of this recession, but also of the province's labour laws that no longer meet nor suit the changing workforce and workplace labour market.

We hear their stories, like tonight; like the domestic worker who worked for four years, seven days a week, 15 hours a day, and he was paid $900; like the other domestic worker who was paid $12 a month; like the woman who suffered relentless and ruthless sexual harassment but couldn't do anything about it because she needed her job; like the innumerable workers who can't complain about the lack of minimum employment standards in the workplace nor about the fact that their health and safety is being risked every day because of the fear of losing their jobs.

The solution is not to say, "Well, we should just unionize all these people." The solution is to say, "If these people want to unionize, let's make it so that they can unionize." The people we see are not in unions, not because they don't want to be in unions but because they can't get into unions.

The coalition supports the government's move to amend the laws. It also strongly urges the government to remember the changing workforce, the changing workplace, which the amendments are meant to address. To this end, and it's in the paper we distributed, tonight we want to address those amendments which go into helping workers organize themselves into unions when they want to be unionized.

Employers must be prohibited from disciplining or discharging employees during an organizing drive without the explicit permission of the OLRB. Too many times, organizing drives are cut down because workers are frightened of losing their jobs.

Because of the changing workplaces in the province today, unions should have access to employer property which is on someone else's property. Unions should also have access to employee lists. I know some employers have talked about privacy, but for every election there are lists of voters with their addresses and their names on every telephone pole across this province.

Further, the bargaining unit structure: The configuration of the bargaining unit has to be given a structure so that people can easily organize into bargaining units that suit the needs of the workplace. In our view, this should not be left up to the Ontario Labour Relations Board but rather should be directed through the legislation.

The government must contemplate broad-based bargaining, because it's only through broad-based bargaining that women -- like the women who talked to you tonight; like domestic workers who are single workers in a household -- can organize themselves into unions.

Further, the coalition believes that effective enforcement of minimum standards legislation has to happen in order to affect unionization. That also includes health and safety laws in this province.

We urge the government to create a task force on broad-based bargaining, and we also urge the government to pass Labour Relations Act amendments according to the timetable.

As a result of economic restructuring and continental integration, the labour market has become polarized. The government must be committed to a labour market strategy that addresses this polarization, that addresses the good job-bad job phenomenon that is happening. We urge the government to pass amendments that address the realities. The government must not kowtow to business demands and further water down the amendments.

Thousands of people are not being heard, and they're not being heard because they do not have a chamber of commerce and they do not have a professional society and they don't have the organization nor the money to put billboards up on Bay Street. They are not being heard because they have no way to be heard, but their silence can't be mistaken for acquiescence or apathy. The people who are non-unionized in this province want labour law amendments and want them to help them. We ask that the people whom the coalition represents and advocates on behalf of be recognized and put in the equation.

Subject to any questions, that's our submission.

2050

The Chair: I'm sure there are questions. Mr Offer. We're going to make sure these people get their full half-hour.

Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. There are two areas I want to explore with you. The first deals specifically with the issue of the home worker. As you have rightly said, it's not an issue as to whether unionization is better or not; it's an issue as to whether those individuals, as home workers, have a legitimate and real ability to make that choice. That's clear.

My question to you is, in the provisions of Bill 40, it seems the only way in which that type of ability to make a choice will be there is if there is something of a sectoral nature, and that is not in Bill 40. I know you're calling for the task force to deal with that issue. At this point in time, apart from your suggestion on the task force for sectoral bargaining, should we be looking in a real way at the Employment Standards Act?

We've got to deal with the issues you've brought forward. There is no way anybody should be working in whatever setting in the conditions which you have exemplified today. If it's through the Employment Standards Act, then so be it, and let's deal with that.

Ms Cuthbertson: The coalition has spoken on many occasions with the Ministry of Labour with respect to the Employment Standards Act. It's our view that the Employment Standards Act needs to be amended in some critical areas, particularly the exclusions from the act.

But importantly, in the Employment Standards Act there's some great stuff to enforce it. If there's the political will to enforce that act, the teeth are there. We have asked the Ministry of Labour on several occasions to enforce its act, to kick up the non-reprisal sections that exist, to institute prosecutions against employers, to enable people -- again, when you're dealing with non-unionized workers, their greatest fear, especially today, is losing their job.

If a client comes into Parkdale, for instance, and says, "I want to assert my rights," I have to say, "Well, these are your rights but I should tell you that if you enforce them, you might lose your job, and it will take me six months to a year to get you any compensation, and I'm not going to be able to get your job back for you." So, yes, the coalition urges the government to effectively enforce that act, because you can, given what already exists there.

Mrs Fawcett: First of all, I want to thank you for coming and really commend you for telling us your story. You have done exceptionally well. I know you were probably very nervous, but possibly not any more nervous than a lot of us have been at various times, and I just want to commend you.

I certainly do sympathize with the exploitation that is going on. While I realize that you are asking for Bill 40 to be enacted as soon as possible, my fear is that is not going to produce the changes you think it will. I guess I'm more inclined to agree with my colleague that maybe we should look at several fronts to make sure you get what you deserve. I just really wanted to say that, and to thank you very much for coming.

Mr Harnick: Coming at this from the perspective of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union and the history that it has in developing labour relations over the years, this is another major and very legitimate battle that primarily this union has taken on. With their history, I quite suspect they will develop better laws in time to combat some of the difficulties of home workers.

But I'm somewhat distressed when I read your brief, and I'm looking at the paragraph under "Conclusion," where it states:

"While some of the government's proposals will facilitate organizing and collective bargaining, we believe that it is extremely unlikely that even if all of the proposals are implemented that women and visible minority workers will benefit to any significant extent. In fact, none of these proposals will do much to protect home workers from unscrupulous employers, let alone help them unionize."

From reading that, I get the impression that there's an assumption that the number of non-union workers is really not going to change in terms of numbers, and it seems to me, carrying on from what Steve was dealing with, that really the prime focus has to be protection of non-unionized employees who are home workers; in other words, the specific development of legislation dealing with home workers, the ability of the Employment Standards Act to specifically recognize that class of workers. I wonder if you could provide me with some comments about that.

Ms Ladd: As Sheila has explained, I think the Employment Standards Act definitely needs to be enforced. I think that in terms of what we stated in the brief, there are many forms of precarious employment that exist. Especially at this time we've seen the issue of part-time workers, and again, as we've seen, the changes in the workforce. Women and immigrant workers and visible minorities are forced into those types of employment, as well as domestic work, as well as home work. Issues such as broader-based bargaining and protection during organizing drives from threats from employers are the things that need to be enforced, which I think Bill 40 addresses in some ways.

If I could give an example of a recent organizing drive, we were talking to some home workers in terms of joining the association we've formed through the coalition. Some of the workers, who were Taiwanese, had been told by their employer that we were only trying to organize the Taiwanese workers. So they were trying to divide the people up, and they were being threatened at home by phone calls saying: "Are you trying to join a union? We'll take your jobs away."

When you've got women in the home by themselves getting a call, as you can imagine, this is very scary, and that further enforces the women not even having the perception that they could join some organization that would represent their interests, that this would be wrong and that even just talking to someone would lose their jobs.

That's why we feel Bill 40 is important, but it still needs to be taken further and there are many other changes, like the task force, like revamping the ESA and enforcing the legislation there. I don't know if that answered your question.

Mr Harnick: Why do you suppose that the act, if you can be specific and help us out, will not facilitate in any significant degree -- I think that's what you're saying under your "Conclusion" heading -- those home workers who wish to really join a union and become unionized?

Ms Cuthbertson: Because of the particular bargaining unit configurations which are used by the labour relations board, it would be very difficult, for instance, for a domestic worker, who can now organize into a union, to become a member of a union and strike an employer effectively. After all, there's just one and you need two in order to organize into a union. With the home workers it's the same situation.

2100

It would be very hard to say what the labour relations board would do in terms of bargaining units. If you haven't got bargaining unit strength you haven't got an effective union, which is the big problem. That's our concern, which is why we're really urging the government to look at broad-based bargaining. This is the way you scoop up these workers.

Just to go along with your point, we think that non-unionized workers will stay at the same rate. We don't think it has to be that way. I don't think it would be so terrible to say that the coalition endorses and condones unionization among employees. We think it's a good thing for employees to organize into unions.

We want an amendment package which will facilitate that, not perhaps at this point for home workers and domestic workers because, unless you have a more sexual approach, it's going to be difficult. But in terms of other non-unionized workers, you've got to give some teeth to these amendments so that those folks can organize if that's what they want to do.

Mr Huget: Thank you very much for your presentation. This has been an interesting experience for me regarding the retail industry. On the introduction page of your brief here you use an example of someone who had to work in the basement because of a hearing disability and was paid $1 an hour. Yet Dylex was here earlier and suggested that the relationship in the retail sector, particularly around garment workers in their operation, was one big, happy family. We're getting two very different opinions on the actual conditions here.

I personally am outraged that today someone has to work in a basement anywhere for $1 an hour. I think that's a sad reflection on where we are as a society. I think there's a heck of a lot of work that's got to be done in a number of areas to correct that situation. It's certainly nothing that anyone in this room would be proud of and, I'm sure, nothing that anyone condones.

What I need to know from you is, first of all: How many home workers are there, in your estimation, in the province of Ontario now? How many do you expect to see? How many of them do you think, or know, are in the same condition and working, in the same conditions as that person with a hearing disability, in a basement for a buck an hour?

Ms Ladd: I think Barbara Cameron, who was the researcher who researched the original documents -- in terms of what we've seen in the industry and in terms of what we've generally seen in the Metro Toronto area, our estimates are 2,000 to 3,000 home workers. I would say it's a reasonable assumption to say that. I think home working will increase. I think you just have to look into any newspaper. At the back, in the classifieds, you see many different ads asking, "Would you like to work at home?"

If you phone up those numbers and if you follow those leads you'll find lots of women do phone those numbers. Especially the women we've talked to have phoned those numbers and have been exploited by the people who do place those ads, because then they end up getting about $1 an hour. Or they get ridiculously low piece rates to either sew garments -- or now it's proliferating into many different areas of work like assembling products at home, welding, electrical engineering, soldering, many different types of home work.

I think it will definitely increase. I don't know what estimates there are in Ontario; do you? No?

Ms Mak: I think nobody knows the exact numbers, because the home workers are really afraid to talk to us. I did interviewing last year and I found 30 women. It's really hard to find them. I really hope the government can do some more detailed research to find out the facts. What we are finding is that women are getting $1 an hour and working in the basement in horrible working conditions.

Mr Huget: Can you tell me what happens when someone decides to take some action, decides to organize or join others or try and correct what is an obvious total injustice? Could you tell me some of the mechanics around the intimidation of that person? Are we talking about threats here? Are we talking about somebody saying -- what? You allude to it in your presentation, but I'd like to know, at least one -- if you have it -- example of how you're threatened when you try and improve your lot.

Ms Mak: I think the better thing is to let the home workers talk about what they are feeling, of what they are afraid. Is it okay?

Mr Huget: Yes, please.

Ms Tsui: Okay. I try to explain. I have some friends, they are home workers too, but they don't know what is a union. They are always scared to talk to somebody. They just talk to the friend. Sometimes they give me a call, they don't like the employer. Because everything, if they don't like it, they don't know how to say to a rich person, because most of the home workers, their English is very bad. And always they worry about, if they talk too much there will be no job to send to you.

Mr Huget: Somebody will take away your $1 an hour.

Ms Tsui: Yes.

Mr Huget: Are they afraid?

Ms Tsui: Oh, yes. So they always work; they think better than none. So they try to keep working.

The Chair: I want to thank you, Deena Ladd, Teresa Mak, Sheila Cuthbertson, Cindy Wong and Kitty Pik-Yu Tsui, for coming here on behalf of the Coalition for Fair Wages and Working Conditions for Home Workers.

In thanking you, I feel compelled to indicate that means thanking the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Workers' Information and Action Centre of Toronto, Chinese Workers' Association, Parkdale Community Legal Services, which is a long-standing institution which continues to provide leadership in areas where it's needed, Ontario Coalition of Visible Minority Women, Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, the Trinity-Spadina Riding Association, Ecumenical Coalition for Social Justice, National Action Committee on the Status of Women, Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto and York Region, School Sisters of Notre Dame and the Workers' Educational Association, because those are the organizations that make up the coalition.

I should tell you that a Hansard transcript of your presentation is available to you, as well as a copy of the videotape recording. Call your MPP's office, and if he or she won't or doesn't know how to get it, tell him or her to call my office. Along with any of the other presentations, of course, a copy of the videotape may prove useful to you as a document of your attendance here and perhaps a historical record of your participation.

So I want to thank you very kindly for coming here. You've made an important contribution to this very important process. I trust that you, along with all the other people who participated in and will participate in these hearings, won't stop at one half-hour presentation but that you'll continue to knock on MPPs' doors and sit in their offices wanting to talk to them about things that concern you. I say that to you and every other organization, group and individual that's been here. So thank you, people. God bless.

Mr Ferguson: I really view this as a problem-solving exercise. Although we are here to listen to concerns specifically about Bill 40, this is a problem that obviously has been presented to all members of the committee that has much broader implications. They are desperately looking for a solution. I hope members of the committee would spend time, perhaps at the end of the hearings, about what we could recommend to the ministry to resolve some of the specific concerns we heard tonight. I hope these individuals who took time to appear wouldn't leave here and think: "Well, that's it. We've demonstrated and put forth the problem without any real or practical solutions." Let's face it: This hasn't exactly been capitalism's finest hour.

The Chair: You're right, Mr Ferguson. The committee can make recommendations and individuals can make recommendations. I trust a whole lot of people are expecting to see a whole lot of amendments to the bill from all caucuses at the committee.

Mr Offer: I listened intently to the last comment by Mr Ferguson. I wholeheartedly agree that this is certainly an area we must address -- and I'm talking about the Employment Standards Act. Maybe it would be important at this time if we could request from the Ministry of Labour where it is with respect to this particular issue, because we're aware from earlier submissions that this issue was made plain to the ministry in December 1991. I think we should use this committee and make a formal request of the minister or the Ministry of Labour to provide an update as to what they have done with respect to these very valid concerns we have heard this evening.

The Chair: Okay. That request is noted and I'm confident will be conveyed promptly to the bureaucrats et al at the Ministry of Labour whose job it is to respond to comments like that.

I want to thank the committee members for their cooperation, the staff, of course, the translation people who have kept up with sometimes speedy dialogue and simultaneous dialogue, the legislative broadcast service, the Hansard people, the research people, the office of the Clerk and all those people who were here at Queen's Park watching this happen this morning, this afternoon, this evening and those who're going to come in the two days to come in Toronto. Thank you, people.

We're adjourned until tomorrow morning, 10 am.

The committee adjourned at 2113.