OTTAWA AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
GLOUCESTER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL UNION
CANADIAN TIRE DEALERS' ASSOCIATION, OTTAWA VALLEY DEALER GROUP
CANADIAN BUSINESS FORMS ASSOCIATION
HOTELS, CLUBS, RESTAURANTS AND TAVERNS EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 261
ONTARIO CONFEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY FACULTY ASSOCIATIONS
RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION
CONTENTS
Tuesday 25 August 1992
Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 40
Ottawa and District Labour Council
Mohamad Alsadi, president
Gloucester Chamber of Commerce
Jacques de Courville Nicol, first vice-president
Canadian Union of Postal Workers
Evert Hoogers, national representative
Automotive Industries Association of Canada
Dean H. Wilson, president
A.J. Roberts, chairman, government relations committee
Public Service Alliance of Canada
Daryl Bean, national president
Transportation-Communications International Union, Canadian division
Don Bujold, national secretary-treasurer
Canadian Tire Dealers' Association, Ottawa Valley Dealer Group
Des Keon, chairman
Gord Reid, member
Rick Nelles, member
Canadian Business Forms Association
Albert Lacroix, executive director
Ray Coutu, director of public affairs, Canadian Printing Industries Association
Grace Streek, human resources specialist, The Print Key Inc
Hotels, Clubs, Restaurants and Taverns Employees Union, Local 261
John Kearney, vice-president
Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations
Dr Saul Ross, president
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union
Tom Collins, Canadian director
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:
*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L) for Mr Conway
*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Klopp
*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville / S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC) for Mr Turnbull
*Ward, Brad (Brantford ND) for Mr Waters
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Dean, Tony, administrator, office of collective bargaining information, Ministry of Labour
O'Neill, Yvonne (Ottawa-Rideau L)
*In attendance / présents
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Decker, Todd
Staff / Personnel:
Fenson, Avrum, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Kovacs, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
783
The committee met at 1332 in the Hilton, Ottawa.
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.
OTTAWA AND DISTRICT LABOUR COUNCIL
The Chair (Mr Peter Kormos): It's 1:30 and we're going to resume these hearings in Ottawa. The first participant is the Ottawa and District Labour Council. Would those people please come forward and have a seat. Your written submissions have been filed as an exhibit and they form part of the record. Please try to save the last half of the half-hour for questions and exchanges. Go ahead, gentlemen, please.
Mr Mohamad Alsadi: My name is Mohamad Alsadi. I'm with the Ottawa and District Labour Council. I would like to thank this committee for giving us the opportunity to speak to you today about a matter that we consider very important to the workers in this province.
We submitted in January a brief to the Minister of Labour, and I did not see any reason why we should submit a formal brief this time. I did give you notes about my submission to you today, but I don't think I'm going to go with them. I'm just going to speak to you from my heart about how I feel about the process, the way the opposition to this legislation has been conducting their affairs, the way they've been attacking this legislation and the way they've been hurting the economy in this province because of the negative campaign they've put out for the last two years.
Early in February 1992 the Ottawa-Carleton region human resources and legal department put out a recommendation opposed to almost 90% of the discussion paper. We had to lobby politicians on a daily basis. We had to spend lots of time explaining to them that most of the recommendations will have absolutely nothing to do with regional government, ie, the issue of the anti-scab legislation wouldn't have any effect on them whatsoever because of the fact that they don't have the right in the collective agreement to strike. But they're still opposed to the anti-scab legislation just because of the fact that they want to oppose the recommendation to reform the Labour Relations Act.
Mr Chairman, I'm quite upset at the process. I'm quite upset about the fact that we spent almost two years dealing with this damn legislation, and I'm sick and tired of it. I don't think it's fair to the workers in this province for many reasons. I think the Conservatives and the Liberals should have had the guts to do that since 1950 until now. If they really sincerely and honestly believe in collective bargaining, believe in the union's right to organize, believe in people having the right not to be discharged for no just cause, believe in organizing the people who want to be organized, then I think they should stand up and say it, unless privately they're saying that workers shouldn't be unionized and "Let's screw the union if we can."
The campaign that we've seen out there for the last two years was a campaign that hurt this province. It did not help the business community, it did not help the government, it did not help the Conservatives or the Liberals. I think they spent enough money on billboards to create 10,000 jobs in Ontario, and I think this is sick. I think they should have put their time and energy to look at ways to work on the economy in this province. One of the business leaders from the chamber of commerce suggested to a press conference early in January when the minister was around that investors are better off to go to Kuwait or Iraq. That's a businessman who's supposed to be smart.
I just received a fax from the Nepean Chamber of Commerce a couple of days ago. They didn't send it to me, but somebody did. They sent a notice to their people, to their employees, telling them, "the Labour Relations Act will prevent you from your democratic right to choose a union." Isn't that special? They're talking about democracy. I think they're far away from democracy. I can't see the chamber of commerce allowing their employees to be members of the chamber of commerce or the better business coalition or these big fat-pocket lawyers who have been hired to do the job for them.
The scare tactic they've been using all over the place is about the fact that there will be a loss of 295,000 jobs. I don't know where the hell they get these figures. I think one of them was sleeping at night and had a nice little dream, and then it turned to a nightmare; then he found out it's going to be a 295,000 job loss in Ontario and he said: "Okay, let's put it in the paper. You know the media; they wouldn't have any problem printing anything for our buddies in the business community."
My problem with the whole thing is the fact that the Liberals and the Conservatives are not really concerned much about the Labour Relations Act changes. I think they see blood with this legislation. I think they see it as the only way to go after the government in Ontario, and I think this is not fair to the workers in this province. I think they should try to realize and understand that there are flaws, there is a problem in this legislation.
What are you saying to me: that the big food chains like McDonald's, IGA and all these people, are going to move to Bangladesh to operate because of labour law reform? Are you saying to me that labour law reform will mean the economy is going to be dead?
1340
I'll tell you right now, and I'm speaking to our friends from the Conservatives, I think you should call your buddy Brian Mulroney and talk to him about free trade. I think this is what's killing the economy. Talk to him about the interest rates, talk to him about the other issues that are killing this country, like the GST. Labour law reform? What is so bad about the recommendation to allow people to organize if they can? Ninety-four per cent of the cleaners in this country cannot organize. Is that fair? Women who are unionized are earning 26% more than women who are not unionized. You have a problem with that? I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
Let's talk about part-time workers. Let's talk about security guards. Let's talk about the anti-scab legislation. Wow, anti-scab legislation. That's a very big step. They've done it in Quebec. In 1977, after a couple of workers got shot in a strike, the Parti québécois government decided: "Well, you know, enough is enough. We will have legislation to prevent the employer from hiring scabs."
You may tell me, "Well, give us examples of why the anti-scab legislation is important." I'm going to give the example to our friends from the Liberals and the Conservatives and the big business people: Eaton's. Mr Jordan, remember Eaton's? Mr McGuinty, remember Eaton's? I think everybody in this room remembers Eaton's. People decided they wanted a union, sir. They said, "We'd like to have a union." They signed cards, the majority of them. We had certification. Life is good; everything is going fine.
The employer said: "Well, hey, this Labour Relations Act is so weak that I could do all kinds of things if I wanted. First of all, they can't come inside my stores, because I'm inside a big shopping centre. That's a neat idea. The other thing is, well, let's just fire everybody and replace them with workers. The law will allow me to do that." So he did it. We had to have our picket signs on the highway, 200,000 km away from his shopping centre.
The Conservatives and the Liberals always say in public, "We agree and believe in collective bargaining." I don't know what they say in private, but in public this is what they're saying. I honestly think the government of Ontario made one mistake. I think they should have bought tickets for all the Conservatives and Liberals and sent them to Europe for vacation. Let them work one day to look at what's going on in New Zealand, in Belgium: 54% of the people in Belgium are unionized, the economy is great and the relationship between employers and employees is very good. That says something to me. The same thing in New Zealand: 83% are unionized and the economy is very healthy.
Why do we always have to take the attitude that the union is coming to take over from us? Why do we always say, "It's impossible to have a good relationship between management and labour"? Why aren't my friends from the Liberals not talking about doing certain things to help minority people, women, part-time workers, the disabled? This legislation is not talking about people who work in big steel plants or auto industries. They already have all the benefits they require. This legislation is talking about the immigrant women who work as cleaners and whose employer could come in at any time with a security guard and walk them out of the job because somebody else gave him a better contract. Is that fair? I mean, come on now. Put on the side your political agenda and talk in a reasonable manner. Tell me that this is fair, and if you tell me this is fair, then I think I am in the wrong country, and I am sorry to say that.
Now there was a major campaign out there all over the province. We saw the big billboard in Toronto about Bob Rae. It was with Marx and talking about the Cold War. I'm just disappointed that these people don't know that the Cold War is over. There is no more Berlin Wall. It's gone. Try to find some other ways to go after the NDP government. Maybe you shouldn't use the workers to do that.
The consultation process -- I have to go back to it -- took a long time. I think it's enough of it and I think it's only fair to say that the negative campaign cost Ontario some investments. A recent public poll suggested the majority of Ontarians believe the negative business campaign has had a negative effect on the investment.
We have also become aware in recent years that flaws in current labour laws harm some of the more disadvantaged groups in our society more than others. As historian Desmond Morton suggested in an article to the Ottawa Citizen late last summer, "If the right to join a union and conduct free collective bargaining is still accepted in Ontario, and no party has denied it publicly, the act must change to fit a rapidly restructuring workforce."
There are changes in industry. Women are doing some different work than they were doing 10 or 16 years ago. The fact that we're dealing with people who are cashiers, accountants and some other people gives you the indication that you should look at the situation very carefully.
I know you're looking at your watch, Mr Chairman. I'm almost finished. I just want to get a little bit to the technical aspect of the recommendation.
There are a million people in this province who want to be unionized and they can't be unionized because of the flaws in the Labour Relations Act. I think somebody should look very seriously at that. Two out of five factory workers in the province belong to a union, but only one in six retail workers is unionized, and I think this is sick.
The people who work in these sectors are more likely these days to be named Abdullahi or Alberto Moravia or Omatandi than McGuinty, Conway or Jordan, for example. I think, very seriously, you should try to understand that in most of the service sectors there are lots of women and immigrants and disabled people who are telling you: "Recognize us. Recognize us, for God's sake, and look at our situation and allow us to have a union if we choose to do so."
Finally, I just want to say it's 1992; it's not 1892. I think the business community should smarten up. I think it should realize that there is lots of room to try to work together with the unions, and instead of all this backlashing and all this propaganda out there, you should definitely work to have a better relationship with unions and with your employers.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Three minutes per caucus.
1350
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I listened very closely to your presentation, Mr Alsadi, and let me indicate a couple of things by way of comment before I get into my question. The first is, I don't think you should have to worry about this bill becoming the law. As you know, we are in a time allocation motion by the government. The government has set forth an agenda that there shall only be five weeks of hearings, there will only be two weeks of clause-by-clause, there will only be two days of debate on third reading, and this bill is going to be law by the government by Thanksgiving, notwithstanding any of the concerns we have heard in our public hearing debate.
Mr Alsadi: And you're going to support it, of course.
Mr Offer: With respect to our concerns -- and I want to talk about the matters which you brought forward -- as we are entering now our fourth week of public hearings, this is not just what one would characterize as business on one side and labour on the other. We're hearing concerns from school boards. We're hearing concerns about the legislation from local hydro services. We've heard concerns about the legislation from the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies. They also have concerns about the legislation and what impact it will have on them.
My question to you is this: I agree. If somebody wants to join a union, he should be able to join a union. We have heard some of the problems that arise in the area of coercion and intimidation, all of those things, which you may be very well aware of. My suggestion to you is: If someone wants to join a union, if those men and women in the place want to be part of a union, would you support a free, secret ballot where the workers -- you're looking back. You must have been told that I might be asking the question, but that's okay.
Mr Alsadi: That's your famous question. We're going to write it in the Constitution, I think.
Mr Offer: I want to hear from you, if you'll give me permission, because we have heard that there has been coercion and intimidation. My question to you is: What if you don't need 40% signed up by petition? What if the trigger point is something in the area of 10%; 10% have to sign petition cards, or one petition card in any workforce, and then a process kicks into place where the workers are informed that there is an organizing drive, what it means to them, and that they, the men and the women in that workplace, are able to freely and secretly cast their vote, yes or no, in favour of a union, and if the majority say yes, then it's organized? What do you say to that?
Mr Alsadi: You want me to answer that now? Okay. I'm going to answer that to you by a real incident that could make it very easy for you to understand. Actually, I wish you guys could just come down with us when we organize one day and we'll show you what's happening down there, but I know you won't agree to do that because you have a busy schedule all the time.
The drivers in Peterborough decided they want to have a union. We went down there. They signed membership cards. They paid a dollar. Hopefully we won't have to charge them the dollar in future. They paid the dollar and we put the application in and notified the employer. The next day, actually only 12 hours after, from the 12 drivers, 10 were fired.
You're talking about sitting with an employer and trying to get the drivers to sit down in a meeting and decide whether they want to have a union or not. I think when you have 55% of the people who will tell you, on a card -- and if you know about organizing, sir, let me tell you how hard it is. The first thing you have to do when you're organizing is try to cut down on the fears the person you're organizing is having from the fact that his employer is going to go after him.
Another example, my friend, is three weeks ago -- that's a secret actually, but I have no problem saying it to you, even if it's going to go to the company -- we just started organizing Capital Taxi here in Ottawa. The drivers were called to the office 35 times in two weeks, not to intimidate them, just to tell them, "If you sign a card, we're going to fire you."
We're talking about democracy. Union is the organized drive that brought democracy to this country, whether you like it or not. I think it's only fair to understand that suggesting a vote where you have the employer sitting right there, and the union and the drivers, ain't going to do you any good.
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): My question will be short. Mr Alsadi, thank you for being here. You had a meeting with the Honourable Bob Mackenzie in January, I think I heard you say. Do you feel that what you saw in the legislation then and what you see in the legislation now is quite acceptable to you?
Mr Alsadi: No, I think it was moderate and it was watered down and I don't agree with watering down the legislation. I don't agree we have to go and get 60% to get a strike, I don't agree that somebody should be allowed to contract out during a strike and I don't agree that there are some other restrictions in some other areas.
Mr Villeneuve: Would you agree that when there's a work stoppage, if it's a lockout, the plant should not continue to operate, but if indeed it's a strike, be it legal or otherwise, would you consider that possibly the plant should be able to continue operation?
Mr Alsadi: If we're talking about managers being allowed to do the work, then I think it's already in the legislation. If the managers could do the job, I have no problem with that; on a temporary basis, of course.
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Thank you, sir, for your presentation. I might note that perhaps the tone of your presentation is not really conducive to getting together to talk about this, but be that as it may. I notice you seem to indicate that your target is the retail workers; that the large unions are now looking after the majority of other workers and the most positive result from this bill would be the organization of retail workers.
I represent the riding of Lanark-Renfrew, and I haven't received one complaint or one request to have labour law reformed or upgraded or however you want to present it. It's jobs they're looking for, not better working conditions. How do you explain it?
Mr Alsadi: Mr Jordan, you and I know this is a very boring subject for people outside this room.
Mr Jordan: Not for my riding. I'm sorry.
Mr Alsadi: You and I know that people who read the paper, usually the last thing they read is labour law reform. If it wasn't for people like you, Mr Jordan, and the business community, I don't think that would have been a major issue. I think you should have been more concerned about the economy. I think you should have put the energy -- you've worked for the last two years, almost, on attacking this legislation and making it your major target -- to some other major issues that people are looking at: the recession, for one, and maybe lobbying Mr Mulroney to try to ease down on interest rates and some other issues.
I don't want to repeat myself, but I just want to make one comment about what you said in the beginning. I am a very friendly guy if you want to have a meeting with me, sir. I think I would like you to convince me that labour law reform will hurt this province. If you convince me, sir, then I think I'll be able to admit that to you in writing with no problem.
1400
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): To the Ottawa and District Labour Council, I'd like to thank you for a fine presentation. I think you represent your membership very well.
I'd like to focus on two areas. When we hear critics of Bill 40, they centre on these two areas, among others. The first one is investment, and you've touched on it to a degree in your presentation. In your experience, in the Ottawa area, has investment been harmed or has it dried up because of labour reform, even though the legislation is not in place yet?
The second issue deals with the perceived balance of power as far as the rights of employees and the rights of employers are concerned. The critics are saying to us to leave Bill 40 on the shelf, not implement it, because it is a level playing field under the existing act and Bill 40 would tilt the perceived balance of power towards the employees. What are your views on this level playing field and the rights of employees and employers under the existing act, and what impact would Bill 40 have?
So investment, and rights of employees and employers.
Mr Alsadi: My answer to your first part is that the perception out there -- the business community is saying that the economy would be really hurt and there would be a loss of jobs. The Construction Association of Ontario put up a billboard saying that there are 295,000 jobs, and some other people are saying the same thing. Mr Gary Carr, the Conservative critic, your colleague in the Legislature, was saying the same thing on Global television the other day about the fact that there will be a major loss of jobs and that nobody's going to invest.
But strangely enough, in his own riding, Ford just invested $3 billion, and another company just invested $440 million. I'm sure he notified them about labour law reform and how bad it is, unless he doesn't visit his riding; that's something else. I don't know.
I honestly don't think it's going to hurt the economy. I don't think it's going to hurt the investors. It worked beautifully in Quebec, if we're talking about the anti-scab legislation, and most of the changes that we have right now are in the federal government and in some other parts of the country.
Now, in answer to your last part, I think there is loss of jobs in the province. I think the reason there is lots of loss of jobs is because we have poor labour law.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to both of you gentlemen, Mr Alsadi and Mr Dale, for appearing here on behalf of the Ottawa and District Labour Council. You represent a significant constituency and you have spoken well on their behalf. We are grateful to you for participating. You are of course welcome to remain. There's coffee there for you and other participants and observers to make yourselves at home.
GLOUCESTER CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The next group is the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce, if they would come forward and have a seat. I want to remind people as well that there's simultaneous French-language translation, and the receiving devices and earphones are available at the table on your right, free of charge.
Sir, please tell us your name and your title. We've got your written submissions, which will form part of the record. Please try to save the last half of the half-hour for exchanges.
Mr Jacques de Courville Nicol: Notre présentation sera faite principalement en langue anglaise pour des raisons de temps. Par ailleurs, je suis tout à fait ouvert à toutes questions de la part de votre illustre panel dans la langue de Molière si le besoin s'en faisait sentir.
My name is Jacques de Courville Nicol. I am the first vice-president of the the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce. On behalf of our chamber's membership I've been mandated to present to you today our chamber's position on Bill 40 and its proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
The Gloucester Chamber of Commerce wishes to thank the Minister of Labour and members of the resources development committee and their colleagues for taking time off from their busy schedule to come to the national capital region and for giving us this opportunity to share with you some of the views and real concerns of our membership about the proposed law reform which is currently being contemplated by the Ontario government with reference to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
The Gloucester Chamber of Commerce is a very active and dynamic chamber which represents over 3,000 businesses. Our current membership shows roughly 800 active members, the vast majority of which fall within the small business category of 100 employees or less. Our chamber represents a lot of single business owners, private entrepreneurs, mom-and-pop operations and small family businesses of 10 employees or less than we do large businesses or highly paid corporate managers from large corporations.
Our members have suffered a great deal under the 1981-82 recession and they have gone from bad to worse in the second, 1989-92 and still ongoing, seemingly endless recession, the second in less than a decade. Given the potential negative impact of the proposed reform on a number of workers, unions, minority groups, non-profit organizations, essential public services, the business community generally and the province of Ontario's economy broadly, we wish to thank you for having given us a second opportunity to restate the deep concerns of our membership with reference to the proposed changes to OLRA.
Our chamber joins the growing number of concerned citizens and groups from all over Ontario who have recently expressed their strong opposition and/or reservations on the currently proposed reforms to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
The Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which represents over 65,000 large, medium and small businesses in Ontario, has publicly indicated its strong opposition to the reforms proposed by OLRA and has complained on numerous occasions, apparently with no results, that the Ontario government is totally ignoring the massive economic damage that Bill 40 will cause to Ontario investments, businesses and workers.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents over 40,000 Ontario manufacturers, construction companies, retailers and other firms, has indicated on the public record that it strongly objects to almost every aspect of the current OLRA proposal.
The Ontario Restaurant Association, which represents most Ontario restaurants, owners and operators, has expressed its concern that this proposed OLRA reform is "bringing in outdated smokestack industry concepts that will create, not solve, labour relations problems throughout the Ontario services industry."
Tourism Ontario, which represents the tourist industry in this province, complained, among other things, that this proposed ill-conceived labour law reform will prevent owners and employees in the tourism industry from protecting their companies and their jobs by forcing shutdowns during our very short Canadian summer tourist season, thereby exposing our industry to American unfair competition.
The Liberal Party of Ontario has indicated publicly that the current Ontario government's proposed Bill 40 legislation will drive workers and management apart at the very point in the economic recovery when they should be working together and that this bill will, without question, create a very negative economic climate in this province.
Not to be biased, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario has indicated that in its survey of over 50,000 large, medium and small businesses throughout Ontario over 70% of all respondents listed the economy and job creation as the two top issues facing the Ontario government today, while over 72% of those same businesses surveyed indicated that the proposed labour law reform was the most negative and least important priority which the government of Ontario should be addressing in today's recession-ravaged economy. For purposes of this brief, you will find the results of that survey appended.
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women publicly stated that it is extremely unlikely that even if all the OLRA proposal were implemented, women and visible minority workers would benefit to any significant extent from this reform.
The Municipal Electric Association publicly stated that Bill 40 might prevent electrical utilities from repairing street lights or maintaining essential electrical services during a strike or a lockout, possibly endangering public safety and critical industries.
Intercede, the Toronto organization for the protection of domestic workers' rights, complained that OLRA does nothing to help domestic employees, since the smallest bargaining unit allowable under OLRA is two people, because most domestic workers work alone.
I may point out here that during my last presentation before the Minister of Labour it had been indicated to me that there would be no indication of any type of labour organization at the level below 10 employees; I now see two people.
1410
The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union stated publicly that OLRA does nothing to assist garment home workers in that the proposed legislation offers only symbolic, not substantial, help to the mainly female employees.
Finally, ladies and gentlemen, even the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies raised fears publicly and condemned the proposed labour law reform on the basis that under OLRA, children's agencies will not be able to operate during a strike or lockout, and that as a consequence children will take second place to union demands and, we might add, as appeared to be the case throughout the public schools' bargaining system, as witnessed during recent strike action by school teachers throughout the national capital region recently.
Having said this, we wish to state for the public record that our membership is most angry and disappointed that none of the many concerns, suggestions and recommendations which were made by our chamber during the January 1992 OLRA consultation hearings here in this region seem to have been accepted or followed by the Minister of Labour or by the Ontario government.
Our members have heard many broken promises from politicians in all parties. They have seen many of their hopes for growth and profit fade away. They have seen a great many of their friends and colleagues lose everything and go into bankruptcy with no help whatsoever from their Ontario government, while at the same time their neighbouring Quebec government, through the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, was pouring more than $100 million in special loans, grants and special assistance to help Quebec's small businesses get through the recession.
"Where was our Ontario government when we needed them?" they asked us at the chamber. "Writing more untimely, crippling and costly labour legislation to strangle us," replied many of our disenchanted members.
The business community is fully aware that more than 550,000 workers in Ontario are currently without work, and that more than 280,000 Ontario businesses have been forced to close their doors since the beginning of this second recession.
Business is also fully aware that Ontario's annual debt went from $39.3 billion in 1989 to $42.3 billion in 1990 to $53.1 in 1991 to $62.8 in 1992, and that the current forecast is to reach $77.9 billion by 1994, a record, massive increase of almost 100% in less than five years.
Finally, business is also fully aware that the Ontario deficit has gone from zero in 1989 to a fast-deteriorating deficit of $3 billion in 1990, $10.9 billion in 1991 and a projected $9.9 billion to $11 billion in 1992, while during that same period federal transfers to Ontario increased from $5.4 billion in 1989 to a record $7.7 billion in 1992, a net increase of 70.13% over that very short three-year period.
Confronted by this sad and most worrisome provincial economic performance, the members of the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce must, in all fairness, ask the Ontario government for what possible reason on earth it has chosen to make this unpopular and most untimely reform to the Ontario Labour Relations Act its number one legislative priority when the economy and the financial health of this province are in such a shambles. What the whole business community needs is all the assistance and support it can get from both government and labour just to stay afloat and survive.
We must seriously worry about and question the Ontario government's sense of direction when we see this type of legislative priority being set during these times of broad economic hardship. Our members are mad as hell with the current economic situation and with the political leadership in this province. They are in a very nasty mood. They are no longer very patient. Many have become cynical and intolerant with the growing number of impractical concessions, costly decisions of their politicians, with the heavy-handedness of some of their bureaucrats, with the overzealousness and/or militancy of their union organizers, with the aggressiveness of their tax collector, and with the unreasonable and ever-increasing costs of doing business in this province.
Now, our members just want to be left alone to do their thing and, hopefully, survive and grow within what is left of the free marketplace in Ontario. The last thing Ontario businesses need right now is more interventions, more controls and more costs from big government and organized labour.
Our members are most concerned that your proposed reforms to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, which outline some 61 proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, only reflect the recommendations which were contained in a report presented solely by trade union representatives who participated in your government's internal review of the Labour Relations Act.
We repeat once again that we are most concerned that the business sector input on the OLRA still appears not to have been taken into account by the current Ontario government, and more specifically by the Minister of Labour.
We have also had the opportunity to review briefly a discussion paper presented by the Ontario Ministry of Labour dated November 1991, which put forward some 47 preferred options and raised some 87 very pertinent questions. We do wish to share with you today our views and concerns with reference to some of the major proposals, the preferred options, which were contained in this aforementioned document.
Before doing this, however, we would like to state at the outset that our presentation today is based on four fundamental guiding principles.
First, in order for free enterprise to develop fully, it must be as free as possible from outside intervention and control from both government and labour.
Second, in order for a free enterprise economy to remain healthy and competitive within a fast-changing world economy, it must be able to replace, by a modern, innovative and more cooperative system, the existing rigid, negative, costly and outdated adversarial system of government-business-labour confrontation, which historically has led to the development of too many unfortunate wide-ranging confrontations between labour and government and between labour and business in this province.
Third, government, business and labour must be able to build a new partnership to ensure that Ontario is able to compete profitably, effectively and efficiently with the other provincial and world economies.
Fourth and last, business, government and labour must be able to find appropriate and immediate ways to stimulate and support the establishment, development and growth of our country's major job generators, our small businesses, which have been responsible for over 80% of all new jobs created in Ontario and Canada since 1978.
Having said this, the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce wishes to make it clear for the public record that it does not support the proposed government reform to the Ontario Labour Relations Act during these specific times of economic hardship and recession and, more specifically, it does not support the following OLRA proposals which it feels will be most prejudicial to the resurgence of positive market conditions, to the long-awaited economic turnaround and to the badly needed development of businesses in Ontario.
More specifically, our chamber opposes the proposed expansion in the classification of employees who would be eligible to join unions, including supervisory personnel, domestics, food processing workers, security guards, and professionals including doctors, dentists and lawyers, given that it is not established that such a one-sided decision would be in the best interests of those individuals and groups it purports to include, nor is it established that it would be in the best interests of the communities and businesses that they serve.
Second, our chamber opposes the proposed amendment to prevent a unionized worker at a strikebound plant from crossing the picket line to return to work, particularly if that worker decides to return to work out of his or her own free will.
Third, our chamber opposes the proposed ban on the shifting of workers within a company from a non-striking workplace into a strikebound plant, particularly if those workers agree to such a shift of their own free will. Surely, we're still in a democracy.
Fourth, our chamber opposes the proposed increase in rights for employees engaged in union organizing, given that it is far from established that the extension of such rights are in the best general interest of business, the owners and the employees in our free enterprise society.
Fifth, our chamber opposes the proposed easier certification of unions, including the lowering of the level of support required for automatic certification to a simple majority and the elimination of petitions opposing certification, on the basis that such a move would only serve to increase tensions between business and labour, resulting in further deterioration of an already poor business climate in a deeply recessive economy.
1420
Sixth, our chamber opposes the proposed increasing of powers of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, amendments to dramatically expand the role of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to empower it to impose every term of the collective bargaining agreement and to order full disclosure of any information held by an employer that is relevant to issues in dispute in bargaining, including full disclosure of strategic internal, confidential, corporate financial information, in that it is far from established that such additional empowerment would be in the best interests of business, business owners and employees.
Seventh, our chamber opposes the banning of replacement workers.
Eighth, the chamber opposes the right to picket on third-party property.
Our chamber opposes the loss of a worker's right to change his or her mind after signing a union card. Our chamber opposes the lack of exemptions in the bill to allow for the continuing provision of critical and essential public services.
Unfortunately, the business community is led to believe that the proposal to increase even further the powers of the pro-labour Ontario Labour Relations Board only serves to demonstrate that an attempt is being made by this government to turn the Ontario Labour Relations Board from its expected role as an impartial adjudicator into an outright advocate for organized labour.
The Gloucester Chamber of Commerce wishes to add its full support to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce in voicing its strongest opposition to the current proposals as submitted by the Ministry of Labour to reform the Ontario Labour Relations Act:
1. Because it is estimated that these proposals alone would cost an additional $8.5 million over and above existing expenditures for their implementation during the next three years and would require the hiring of 55 new civil servants in the Ministry of Labour, some, if not most, to be involved in an extensive public relations campaign to promote all of these negative changes. We believe the province of Ontario cannot afford such a luxury at this time.
2. Because these proposals will have a negative impact on job creation and economic growth throughout Ontario, because they send the wrong signals at the wrong time.
3. Because to the best of our knowledge the government has not done an appropriate economic impact study and is therefore not in a position to be able to determine the negative effect these proposed changes will have on our economy and our business.
4. Because these proposals will take away many individual workers' rights. Employees will have no right to know how much the unions will cost them. Employees will have no right to know what kinds of settlements the unions will have made with other companies. Employees will not be given the right to change their minds once they've signed a union card. Employees will not be given the right to a cooling-off period. Employees will not be given the right to have a vote on whether or not to have a union. Employees will not be given the right to make use of secret ballot votes, one of the major cornerstones of our democratic tradition. Last, if half the employees sign a union card in an establishment, department or whatever unit the union chooses, then there would automatically be a union. We can't help but ask ourselves, whatever happened to democracy?
5. Because the Ontario labour and employment laws are already uncompetitive with other jurisdictions.
6. Because the province of Ontario is currently facing major economic challenges, such as the huge current multibillion-dollar deficit, the devastating ongoing impact of the recession, the very high and ever-increasing unemployment rate, the ever-growing free trade irritants, the tough demands on new global competition, the weak state of our current economy and the exceedingly high levels of taxation. Simply put, existing Ontario businesses cannot afford additional costs, cannot afford additional taxes, additional government regulations and restrictions, or additional labour strikes and confrontation.
7. Because the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act are expected to have a very negative impact on labour-management relations throughout the province, in that we believe that they entrench out-of-date attitudes relative to the role of each worker in the workplace.
In conclusion, we suggest that if such sweeping proposals and changes are to be considered for Ontario, a few weeks of public consultation is not enough time to adequately consider the implications and impact of such a dramatic reform.
Second, we strongly recommend that these proposals be immediately withdrawn from consideration by the government and that instead a major consultation process be allowed to take place between government, business and labour to deal with the problems the proposed OLRA is currently attempting to address.
Third, we believe quite strongly that only entrepreneurship, innovation, freedom to trade and carry on business in the marketplace, and the preservation of the free-enterprise system can effectively and efficiently lead the way to create new jobs and prosperity in this province. Simply put, the freedom to develop and carry on business, job creation and economic growth should be our first business and economic priority in Ontario.
Fourth, we believe that the proposed reform to the Ontario Labour Relations Act does not address the real issues facing business and economic prosperity in Ontario.
Last -- and I apologize for having being so lengthy -- we feel that the OLRA proposals, if implemented in their current form, will only serve to make the business and economic situation in Ontario a lot worse than it currently is. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. We have 45 seconds per caucus. If you put questions briefly, this gentleman will have time to answer them, otherwise you can make a statement.
Mr Villeneuve: Monsieur de Courville Nicol, thank you for your presentation. Did the Minister of Labour, when you met with him in January, incorporate any of your suggestions in what you see as the second reading of Bill 40?
Mr de Courville Nicol: There are some. Obviously, there is a continuing consultation process. There are some minor changes that have been made. However, we feel that globally the intent and the timing of the act is bad. It's improper in terms of what this province needs within the type of economic recessive economy we have, and therefore we feel that those changes have limited impact, if you wish, in creating a positive climate for Ontario at this time.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Thank you for your presentation. On page 4 of your presentation you refer to the ministry not listening to any of the suggestions you made.
Just for the record, on page 8 of your presentation you refer to supervisory personnel still being included. It is not. That's been dropped.
On page 9 of your presentation, point 5, you refer to "lowering the level of support required for automatic certification." That is also not correct. It remains at 55%.
Point 6: You refer to "full disclosure of information held by an employer that is relevant to issues in dispute and bargaining, including full disclosure of strategic financial information." That is not in the bill, sir.
On page 12 of your presentation --
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Huget. Mr Daigeler.
Mr de Courville Nicol: If I may be allowed, Mr Chairman, I was referring to specific documents that were published and distributed by the Ministry of Labour and not to the changes that have been made since.
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): The government says these reforms will improve the partnership between business and workers. These first two presentations we've had here in Ottawa worry me, frankly, because they're coming from such polarized positions. I'm very concerned that rather than improve the partnership, it will worsen it.
Let me ask you, because I don't want to be only negative towards these reforms, is there any effort on behalf of the chambers here in the Ottawa area to talk with the district labour council? You probably were here when the presentation was made, and you heard how strident the gentleman was. Is there any effort for you two to come together rather than government and politicians being squeezed in the middle?
1430
Mr de Courville Nicol: Certainly we are not in favour of legislated solutions, because we feel that they're very inflexible.
Secondly, I might say that there are some very good models at the federal level where business, labour and government are working together, particularly in the training field. I think the province of Ontario could follow that kind of example.
Thirdly, certainly we would be more than happy to meet with the local labour organizations to discuss those concerns we have in business and their concerns and see how we can come to grips with those, but certainly it should be outside of the legislative arena. That's our suggestion.
The Chair: I want to thank you, Mr de Courville Nicol, for appearing here today on behalf of the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce. You've made a very adequate and eloquent presentation and obviously have piqued the interest of all the members of the committee. I know that Ms O'Neill, who represents part of your community as a part of her riding, is pleased as well to have been able to be here with you today. Thank you, sir.
Mr de Courville Nicol: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Take care.
CANADIAN UNION OF POSTAL WORKERS
The Chair: The next participant is the Canadian Union of Postal Workers national headquarters. Please come forward, have a seat and give us your names and titles, if any. We've got your written submissions, which will be made exhibits and form a part of the record. Go ahead with your comments. Please try to keep the last half of the half-hour for comments and exchanges.
Mr Evert Hoogers: Mr Chairperson and members of the committee, first of all I want to apologize for not being Darrell Tingley. He's not able to be here today due to work that has resulted from the recent signing of a collective agreement, finally, after many years, between Canada Post Corp and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. You're going to have to put up with me instead.
The second thing, by way of aside, that I'd like to say is that I got into the room just as the previous speaker was quoting the remarks of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women criticizing the labour law reform that's being introduced by this government. He indicated something to the effect that they had stated that women and visible minorities would not be terribly well served by this legislation.
I assume, as a result of his comments, that the Gloucester Chamber of Commerce will also be in favour of the methods by which the National Action Committee on the Status of Women suggested that this labour law could be reformed to ensure that the rights of women and visible minorities will be advanced in the labour force, including making sure that there is a lot more access to women and visible minorities in shopping malls and things of that sort and including that the isolation of part-time workers, who are mainly women, will be overcome in the new legislation.
Having said that, I'll simply get on with the remarks of our union. We're pleased to be able to come before this committee and bring our views on the proposed labour law reform to this panel.
Of the 46,000 members of CUPW, 18,000 work in Ontario. Most postal workers are covered by federal labour legislation, but some CUPW members, approximately 60 post office cleaners, fall under the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
As this committee is aware, the corporate community is campaigning hard against the proposed amendments. The anti-Bill 40 hysteria is totally unwarranted. We believe that significant, radical changes are needed to the OLRA. Our problem with the proposed reforms is that in our view they just don't go far enough. We support the proposed amendments, but wish to make it clear that they are not the fundamental changes that are needed.
There is an imbalance in power relations between workers and employers in this country. Even if the labour law reforms that we propose were adopted, they would have no significant impact on the ability of private corporations with their unfettered power to introduce new technology, to relocate facilities or to stop production altogether.
The proposed changes do not alter the structure of bargaining in this province either. The growth of the service sector and a multitude of technological innovations have changed the workforce and workplaces. Today, two thirds of Ontarians work in small workplaces where pay is lower than in larger establishments, the rate of unionization is low and the percentage of workers who are women and visible minorities is relatively high. These vulnerable workers should have the same right to organize as workers in large plants, but these workers must contend with an OLRA that was designed when a large manufacturing plant was the typical workplace.
We would like to be able to celebrate the fact that domestics, surely one of the most exploited groups of workers, will gain the right to organize once Bill 40 is enacted, but without appropriate bargaining mechanisms, this victory is hollow.
We endorse the Ontario Federation of Labour's call for a full-scale study on broader-based bargaining. The current study of bargaining structures for domestics and home workers in the garment industry should be complemented by a study of small workplaces and service sectors.
In our brief we'd like to focus on some of the amendments where CUPW has significant direct experience and which we feel would be of interest to this panel.
Anti-scab legislation: We strongly support the legislation prohibiting the use of scabs during labour disputes. Post office workers know from bitter experience the legacy of violence, injuries, arrests and disciplinary penalties which have resulted from the decisions of Canada Post management to use scab labour nationally during the 1987 and 1991 postal strikes. As well, postal plants were the scene of confrontations when scab labour was brought in by Canada Post cleaning contractors in 1986 and 1987 in Toronto.
It is the right to strike and to lock out which provides both union and management with leverage at the bargaining table. The ability to cause economic hardship is tempered by the corresponding cost of such action. The use of scab labour overturns any semblance of a balance of power. At the south central postal plant in Toronto, CUPW cleaners struck for five and a half months because the employer was able to use scab labour instead of negotiating with the union. We believe that anti-scab legislation would help to reduce the number of industrial conflicts. Such legislation would ensure that employers bargain with their unions instead of succumbing to the temptation to use scab labour to avoid their obligations to negotiate.
Our experience with the use of scab labour is that the individuals prepared to engage in this activity usually only do so out of dire need for employment and often only from fear of being cut off from unemployment insurance or welfare. We don't believe that employers should be able to exploit such economic hardship and insecurity to induce workers to engage in activities which create long-standing hostilities among working people.
In Ontario, at the end of the 13-day 1991 strike, 29 post office workers faced criminal charges, 48 employees had been fired and 53 workers faced suspensions. Many of the employees targeted for disciplinary action were union activists. The unjustness of Canada Post's action is shown by the results of the arbitrations in these cases. Arbitrators reinstated the employees to their jobs in all cases that were heard. In fact Canada Post later reinstated all the workers fired for strike activity when it settled the new collective agreement.
Unfortunately, no decision of any arbitrator can compensate for the disadvantages and insecurity which result from having one's income disrupted as a result of unjust disciplinary action. All of this hardship would have been avoided had Canada Post been prohibited by law from using scab labour.
The contrast between the 1991 and 1987 strikes and the 1981 strike is a case in point.
In 1981 the Treasury Board and CUPW were unable to come to a collective agreement. The major issues in dispute in this strike were paid maternity leave, vacation leave and health and safety protections. The strike lasted for 42 days. During the entire period, the post office did not use scabs and ceased to operate, with the exception of the delivery of pension and social welfare cheques. CUPW members lost six weeks of wages. There were no injuries, no violence, no criminal charges and no suspensions or discharges of employees. In the end, both parties made the necessary compromises and a settlement was reached.
For all these reasons, CUPW believes that the prohibition of scabs can only help the labour relations climate in Ontario. We favour strong, unequivocal legislation which would eliminate any opportunities for employers to sidestep its provisions.
We are therefore strongly opposed to the provisions of the proposed legislation that permit employers to contract out and to transfer work to new facilities. This exemption makes scabbing possible for any employer who is capable and willing to transfer its operations.
Contrary to the proposed law, CUPW believes that management personnel should not be able to perform struck work unless the union agrees.
During each of our strikes, CUPW has been prepared to take measures to preserve the public welfare. We believe that unions are responsible organizations capable of identifying and negotiating provisions for the continuation of important services.
1440
If any of the committee members here followed the recent strike in 1991, they would have seen the kind of activities that took place between the corporation and the union when, at the beginning of the strike, we encouraged that the corporation allow us to deliver welfare and social insurance cheques and that sort of thing. We saw the result of the corporation deliberately attempting to prevent that activity from taking place in the form of seniors fainting on the street in the summer sun of 1991.
Permitting management to perform struck work would only encourage anti-union employers to hire non-union personnel to circumvent the law.
Contract tendering in the contract service sector: The special problems facing workers in the contract service sector are well known to CUPW. The absence of effective successor rights legislation has resulted in strikes, wage cuts and layoffs of post office cleaners in a number of locations in Ontario.
Before 1986, cleaners in the post office were employees of the Department of Public Works. They received decent wages and benefits and were represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada. In 1986, at the request of Canada Post management, the cleaning function was contracted out. Employees of the private sector cleaning companies were not represented by a union and received minimum wage and minimal benefits.
Recognizing the deplorable condition of these workers, the CUPW began an organizing campaign. The union successfully organized cleaners in Ottawa, Kitchener and at three major plants in the Toronto area. We were certified and negotiated collective agreements for these workers, only to lose bargaining rights when the cleaning contract was retendered. Today, the union continues to represent cleaners in the Gateway and south central plants. The certificates in Kitchener and Ottawa were lost when we couldn't force the new contractor to recognize the union.
The loophole in the existing successor rights provision means that cleaners' jobs are never secure because the collective agreement can be voided at any time if a new cleaning company gets the contract to clean an establishment. At the south central plant, the CUPW had to recertify cleaners whose collective agreement was voided when a cleaning contractor lost his cleaning contract through the tendering process.
The CUPW strongly supports the amendments to the OLRA and to the Employment Standards Act that protect the jobs and working conditions of cleaners and other similar service workers. We note that this amendment is very narrow in that it does not apply successor rights in an initial contracting-out situation, only in subsequent retenderings of work that have already been contracted out.
More could be done to protect service contract workers. The CUPW prefer to see a system in which non-union employers will no longer be able to use poverty-level wages to undercut union contracts. For this union, the preferred system would be the introduction of a broader-based decree system in which unions and employers engage in broader-based bargaining than the terms of the settlement which could be imposed throughout the industry.
The certification process: We are pleased that the organization and certification process has been simplified and streamlined. The CUPW has had its own experiences with employers gerrymandering full-time and part-time employee lists in an attempt to thwart certification.
We note that anti-union petitions during organizing drives have only been curtailed rather than entirely abolished. In our experience, petitions are always management-inspired. The process of proving this to a panel is a time-consuming exercise that delays certification and poisons the workplace environment at a critical time in the development of the collective bargaining relationship.
Access to third-party property: The CUPW supports the proposed amendments to the OLRA that address the pressing issue of access to third-party property. Increasingly, retail and other kinds of work is being located in malls or industrial parks. We believe that unions should have the right to access, including the right to leaflet or picket at entrances to workplaces, wherever they are located.
We are concerned, however, that the OLRB has been given the discretion to limit access "as it considers appropriate in order to prevent the undue disruption of operation" of an employer. We also believe that during organizing drives unions should have the right of access to non-production areas in the workplace such as cafeterias.
The CUPW strongly supports the amendment that allows picketing of third parties during strikes. Given that the proposed anti-scab law has been weakened to allow contracting out and off-premise production, this amendment has become even more important.
Notice and obligations to negotiate technological change: The CUPW has considerable experience with the introduction of technological change during a collective agreement. The first wave of technological change in the post office began in the 1970s with the introduction of the postal code and the equipment that could read it.
The CUPW, through public campaigns and the use of its right to strike, was successful in obtaining the excellent technological-change contract language that requires the employer to give the union notice, constructively consult with the union and to eliminate any adverse effects on the employees. But in the 1990s, as the new generation of mail processing equipment is being introduced, we are painfully aware that contract language by itself is not enough.
Our collective agreement provisions have often been violated by Canada Post. Arbitrators, though willing to recognize violations of the contract, have been much less willing to order the employer to reinstate the situation as it was prior to the violation.
What is necessary is legislation that would provide unions with the right to strike over all significant technological changes. We believe such a provision would not necessarily impede the introduction of new technology. It would, however, have the effect of requiring both parties to reach agreement on the terms and conditions under which technological changes could be introduced.
Our experience is that such a procedure would be workable. In the past, when Canada Post management was attempting to improve relations with CUPW, we were able to reach agreements with management on numerous programs involving the introduction of new technology.
Providing unions with an unencumbered right to strike over significant technological change would encourage employers to inform, negotiate and work together with their unions to ensure that all parties share in the benefits of automation.
Conclusion: Although we have not addressed the majority of proposed amendments to the OLRA, this should not be taken as a lack of support for them.
In closing, we wish to reaffirm our strong belief that significant radical changes are desperately needed to the OLRA. CUPW recognizes the current economic difficulties experienced in Ontario. We believe that major changes in economic and social policies are necessary to alleviate the economic devastation caused by years of neoconservatism practised by the pro-business Liberal and Conservative governments.
We recognize that the corporate community is strongly opposed to any legislative initiative that would impede its ability to maximize profits. Every day, we hear more threats of investment strikes from corporate leaders who are clearly devoid of any sense of community responsibility. Through these statements, these business leaders are revealing that the social costs of attracting their investment dollars are simply too high.
We ask the government not to succumb to these blatant attempts of economic blackmail. The needs of Ontario working people are too great to be put on hold.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Thank you, sir. Questions?
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you very much for coming forward and for your time and effort in putting together a written brief, as well as bringing it forward.
I notice that on page 1, you mention that one of the problems you have is that the legislation doesn't go far enough. Is it your opinion that, when the consultation took place in January and February with the Minister of Labour and the parliamentary assistant, it was watered down too much?
Mr Hoogers: Yes, certainly in the areas we've mentioned in the brief, particularly around the areas of what we consider to be loopholes in the anti-scab legislation and contract-tendering in the contract service sector. I want to re-emphasize that we believe the legislation should cover that initial contracting out of work, not just the retendering process.
We pointed out in the document that cleaners in Canada Post across this country were unionized members who received decent wages and benefits. Once the decision to contract out was made, cleaners in the post office became minimum-wage employees who were victims of whatever whim their contract employer decided to impose on them.
Mr Wood: I also notice on page 5, on petitions, from what I can gather, you are saying you feel petitions should be abolished entirely, that there should be no mention of petitions in the new Bill 40 as it's brought in for third reading.
Mr Hoogers: Yes. Our position is that our experience has been that petitions are always initiated by the employer as an attempt to delay or prevent the organization of workers into a bargaining unit.
1450
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. I want to address this issue of the anti-replacement workers provision and I'll have a question for you at the end.
It would seem to me that at the present time, one of the things we're concerned with as legislators is putting into place more laws. At present there is a law, as you well know, which prohibits assaults, for instance, on a picket line, there is a law prohibiting damage to property and there is a law prohibiting intimidation and threatening. Of course, that's all found within the Criminal Code. That's my first point.
My second point is that we've been advised by the Ministry of Labour that of the 94 strikes held in Ontario last year, only 19 would be affected by this anti-replacement worker provision. I'm not sure how many out of those 19 actually involved some degree of violence. So that, to my mind, brings into question the justification for the anti-replacement worker provision.
My question for you is, first of all, why do you think it's justifiable and, second, should the sanction that is to apply to replacement workers be the same for those who are not members of unions as to those who are members of unions; for instance, if someone is caught up in the union formation process and as a result becomes a member of a union against his or her wishes and then ultimately is caught up in a strike and wishes to continue to work? Could you address that for me?
Mr Hoogers: Yes, I can address two or three of those points, and I thank you for your question.
I'm a worker, and I think most workers have the same response as me when they see, as a result of the courts, the government, the legislation and the employer working in collusion, the ability of other people to come in and take my job. Presumably we don't live in a jungle. Presumably we live in a world of civility, a world of democracy, and I'll get to the point later when we talk about the right of other people to cross picket lines.
The reality is that there is no activity I can think of which would in any way result in the kind of emotional feelings that are the result of workers watching someone else go in to work and do their work when in fact they are attempting to come to a collective agreement with the employer. It's taking the bread off their table.
That, taken in connection with the recent experience we've had in Toronto during our strike in 1991 where, on the one hand, there were scabs and there were also anti-picketing injunctions brought down by the courts, we saw a strike being a farce. We saw a situation where, when workers were trying to use their labour power to bring about a collective agreement, the courts, the government and the employer completely took away any power whatsoever. The result, of course, as is well known here, was that three of our members in Toronto went to jail simply for standing up for the rights of workers to negotiate with their employer and the rights of workers to engage in a legal strike.
We think strikes, when they are operated on the basis of a real negotiation process in which both the employer and the union members are required to make compromises, are the way to resolve those disputes that can't be resolved through negotiations prior to it.
As to the question of individuals in a union who aren't in favour of a strike, well, democracy cuts both ways. The fact of the matter is that in the case of our union, for example, when you have 86% of the membership deciding that the way we're going to bring about a collective agreement with the employer is to exercise our legal right to strike, we do expect our members to abide by that. Laws which say that individuals who don't agree with that can go in simply make a mockery of the entire process.
Mr Jordan: Thank you, sir, for your presentation this afternoon. I would like your assessment or opinion of this: Suppose I'm a small businessman in the area and I employ 10 to 12 people. You talk about balance of power throughout your presentation. As the owner of the business with the capital investment and the responsibility and so on, what rights do you see that I should have relative to my 10 or 12 employees? I'm hearing that I shouldn't have any rights whatsoever.
Mr Hoogers: I certainly hope that that wasn't the impression that I gave. If it was, I apologize. I think you have the right to explain to your members what your economic situation is. You have the right to open your books to them and tell them what the results would be of a strike. My experience with workers is that they're pretty intelligent people. They don't want to lose their jobs. If the employer is open with them and presents things to them in such a way that there is an understanding that things are honest and aboveboard, I don't think that as a small businessman you're going to run into any trouble.
Mr Jordan: You're expecting me, if I'm running a small family business, to lay my whole operation in front of my employees in order to satisfy their interest, so that they are in a better position to accept my labour policy that I see as equitable and reasonable for the type of operation I operate? Surely that isn't what you're trying to tell me.
Mr Hoogers: I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. I believe small businesses are, obviously, often in a very different situation from larger businesses --
Mr Jordan: But they provide 85% of the employment.
Mr Hoogers: Yes. I believe there is no reason why employees of small businesses can't legitimately be members of a union and collectively bargain with their employers. I said to you that you have the right, and in my view the obligation, to make it clear to your members exactly what your economic situation is. As I said before, I don't believe workers are about to shoot themselves in the foot. When you explain to them what your situation is and they are aware it's honest and aboveboard, then I think real negotiations take place. I think we see that quite regularly, as there are a lot of small businesses in this province and elsewhere in this country that have union contracts and that get on fairly well on that basis.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. I'd like to thank the Canadian Union of Postal Workers for appearing before the committee, and both of you for eloquently putting forward CUPW's views on this issue. Thank you very much.
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
The Vice-Chair: The next group is the Automotive Industries Association of Canada, if they could come forward. Welcome. You have been allocated a half-hour for your presentation, and I know the committee members would appreciate a portion of that for questions and answers, so if you could leave some time for questions, we'd appreciate it. Proceed at your leisure.
Mr Dean Wilson: Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your group. My name is Dean Wilson and I'm the president of the Automotive Industries Association of Canada. With me is Tony Roberts, who is the president of Gates Canada. Tony is also a member of our board of directors and the chairman of our government relations committee.
AIA is a national trade association. We represent suppliers, distributors, wholesalers and retailers of automotive after-market parts, accessories, tools and equipment. In other words, we represent all levels of our industry, which is the people who distribute parts and are responsible for servicing vehicles on the road. About 40% of our members, in terms of employment, are located in Ontario, so we certainly represent a significant share of the Ontario economy.
In summary, we urge you to cancel or delay passage of Bill 40 until the amendments are revised to be acceptable to all of the people concerned: labour, business and government. We don't believe that is the case with the bill in its present form.
In our opinion, Canada is in the worst recession since the 1930s, and it's far from over. Ontario has been particularly hard hit. At the present time, we need government action that encourages investment in Ontario and makes it easier for industry to do business.
At this point, I'd like to call on Tony to give you some direct experiences from his own company.
1500
Mr Tony Roberts: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I want to speak purely from the perspective of a manufacturing business based in Ontario. Gates Canada is a subsidiary of the Gates Rubber Company of Denver, Colorado, and we have been established in Ontario since 1954.
We operate two manufacturing plants in Brantford and the main distribution centre, and we employ between 650 and 700 people. Our main products are power transmission belts and rubber hoses, with which we supply the automotive industry, both the major car factories and also the Canadian replacement market. We also supply quite significant volumes to the US market.
I'm pretty happy to say that Gates has not been downsizing its Canadian operations during this recession. Over the last three years, capital expenditure has been at record levels for the company and we have invested in a new plant and in new state-of-the-art equipment. In fact our payroll has actually increased since the end of 1990.
We are currently in the process of preparing a five-year investment plan to modernize and increase the capacity of our Canadian plants. This is additional investment over and above replacement and repair, between $8 and $10 million. This would put Gates Canada in the forefront, as far as technology is concerned, for the parts we produce. This will also enable us to double exports to the USA, which are currently running at about $15 million a year. It would also result in Gates Canada being given the mandate for certain products where we would supply the whole North American market.
The biggest single obstacle I have to overcome is the perception -- and I would stress the word "perception" -- among our US board that Bill 40, the amendments to the Labour Relations Act, will substantially reduce the competitiveness of Canadian manufacturers by increasing the power of unions, while at the same time doing little to improve the democratic rights of workers.
This opinion is not just limited to our parent company but is shared by most of the industry associates with whom I work, particularly those working for foreign-owned companies. Whether we like it or not, the majority of manufacturing industry, major industry, in Ontario is foreign-owned. Thus, the final decision for new manufacturing investment in Ontario is not made in Ontario and it's not made in Canada; it's made in Japan, in the US or in Europe and very often by business managers who may know where Canada is on the map, but who probably could not find Ontario and they certainly have not visited Canada. But again they will base their decisions on costs, sentiment and perception.
As I said earlier, the current perception in the outside world is that if the amendments to the bill are passed, then the productivity and competitiveness of Canadian plants will be diminished and result in cancellation of future investments and therefore even greater job losses. To my mind, there is not the remotest chance that the proposed labour reforms will create any new investments or any new jobs in Ontario.
I'd just like to read verbatim a note I had from my board in the US. I quote, "We are committing some new investments to Canada and need to be particularly watchful that we get a current reading on the temperature of your government and on expected future trends in management-labour relations in Ontario."
Gates Canada is unionized, and over recent years we have developed very harmonious and productive relations with the United Rubber Workers. We have been assisted very much by the RBO, the relationship by objectives program of the Ministry of Labour. Our aim is to build on these relationships to create a safe and secure environment for all employees, while at the same time meeting the competitive challenges from our overseas competitors.
Neither the company nor our employees can afford a strike. In the unlikely -- I'll stress again "unlikely" -- event of a strike, we would not consider bringing in outside workers, simply because the basic training time needed to train them on equipment and safety would be approximately eight to 10 weeks. The result would be that products produced in Canada would be switched to US manufacturing plants and I don't think we would get them back. I believe the proposal to ban the use of replacement workers is basically irrelevant and only serves to reinforce a perception that Canada and the environment here are not friendly to future investment.
In conclusion, I believe the Ontario government should concentrate its efforts on strike avoidance, safeguarding the democratic rights of workers by legislating secret ballots and by supporting business to improve productivity and to improve competitiveness, which are the only means by which we are going to maintain and create new jobs.
Mr Wilson: In my letter to you, we stress seven points. We see the changes to the bill as setting up labour and business as adversaries, which seems to be the opposite effect of what you want, which is legislation that encourages a partnership between labour and business so that we can be more competitive internationally.
We also see the bill as promoting the interests of unions and making organization and certification easier. Labour law must be fair and balanced, favouring neither unions nor employers. We need balanced information to make independent choices, preferably through secret ballot if you want to protect the democratic process.
We are also against banning the use of replacement workers and other offsite employees during strikes, giving unions effective power to shut down businesses and prevent them from servicing customers, which could result in bankruptcy, which certainly does not benefit the workers.
We're also against allowing unions to form strike picket lines on third-party property, such as business exits and entrances to malls. Such action would block customers and negatively impact surrounding businesses. Anyway, it's a violation of basic workplace rights.
We're against allowing security guards in the same union as other workers in the workplace, which would make it very difficult for a business to protect its property.
We're also against fundamentally altering the role of the Ontario Labour Relations Board from a referee to a labour advocate. We need an evenhanded role between labour and business.
Finally, we're against giving greatly increased powers to this politically appointed board in areas such as the imposition of first contracts, the consolidation of bargaining units and the imposition of terms in other collective agreements.
In summary, we believe that we're at a critical crossroads and we need to protect business in the province and we need to encourage more investment. The only way to do that is to have everybody buying into amendments that make sense to labour, business and government alike. Thank you for listening.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Questions, Mr Offer? Approximately six minutes per caucus.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much for your presentation. You're certainly discussing an area which has come before the committee earlier on. That is, for want of a better word, the just-in-time segment of the economy, especially as it relates to the automobile industry.
I want to ask a question about that, but before I do so I must comment on two points where you've asked for the cancellation or the delay of the passage of this bill. Though I think there is ample reason that this bill should be further studied and delayed in terms of the concerns reached, you will know that the government has already passed a motion which really puts us in lockstep. This thing is going to be the law by Thanksgiving. What we are doing is trying to persuade the government that there are some very valid concerns out there that are not just from the so-called business sector but from a variety of other people.
The second area I'd like to talk about is the secret ballot. I've asked this question a number of times and as everyone speaks about the rights of workers to decide whether to join a union or not -- boy, you mention the words "secret ballot" and the reaction is like, I don't know. However, I'm a little concerned whether that will be acceptable by the government. Certainly, if there's any indication so far, it is about as unacceptable as one can get in determining the rights and wishes of the workers in the workplace, which I think the general public would find quite at odds.
My question to you is about your particular business and just-in-time. You have indicated Gates transmission. Could you explain to the committee some aspect of what it means, some of the economic imperatives that you're confronted with nowadays and how it could be affected by this bill?
Mr Roberts: Certainly. The car manufacturers in North America, in their studies of what made the Japanese so competitive, found that the Japanese were not carrying huge inventories of product and therefore having to build huge warehouses to carry them.
What the tradition has been in Japan and is now taking place in North America is that the manufacturer produces a product and supplies it directly on to the production line of the car factory. No more is it going to the warehouse, then going through various hands and then being picked and put on the production line. You're going directly on to that production line.
If you're going directly on to that production line, there is no safety stop. There is no room for any delay at all. If you have a delay of something, say, as simple as a transmission belt -- if you don't have a transmission belt, then the car can't move off the line and the entire line stops, and we're talking costs of millions of dollars a day.
So a car factory is now insisting that the products come on to the line just-in-time and they have to be absolutely assured that the manufacturer can meet that, not just occasionally but 365 days a year. If you can't live up to that, then you won't get the product.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. I wanted to raise this issue that you had raised. It related to the perception. I think no one would question that there's a tremendous psychological component forming part of a modern-day economy. How people feel things are going and how people think things look are very important.
You made reference to your American board and the perception it had of Bill 40. I'm just wondering if you could expand on that a little bit further and perhaps speak more generally about how the American business community, or perhaps even abroad or internationally, how Bill 40 is being perceived, how much play it's getting, whether it's significant, whether they think it's not that big a factor or anything at all that you can add.
1510
Mr Roberts: Sure. My understanding is that certain publications, particularly the Wall Street Journal among others, have decided, for the lack of something else to print, that the labour relations reforms in Canada make good copy. They're pretty scornful about it, and therefore it gets a lot of press in the US, certainly much more so than anything else that happens in Canada.
It is something which is very much at the forefront of the minds of our US board. Their perception -- as I say, not just my company, and I think with my company I am fortunate that it will listen to our side of it and hasn't taken any drastic actions -- a lot of companies read into it that Ontario is anti-business and therefore investments will be made elsewhere. That is the unfortunate situation.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Villeneuve and Mr Jordan.
Mr Villeneuve: I will leave time for my colleague. Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. Are you in a just-in-time situation with your supplier of raw materials as well as the people you supply?
Mr Roberts: I wish we were, sir. We're not at the moment.
Mr Villeneuve: Therefore you are in a situation where you do inventory a number of raw products and you do inventory then, I gather, a number of your deliveries to the auto manufacturers as well so that you can be just-in-time.
Mr Roberts: We inventory raw materials, because if you're a parts manufacturer, you cannot be as accurate in your planning of what you're going to be producing over the next six- or eight-week time frame. The car manufacturer will know what models and how many and what colour he's going to be producing. We don't know, so we do carry a relatively small inventory of raw materials. With finished parts it's fairly limited.
Mr Villeneuve: So any work stoppage would be quite devastating to you at both ends, the production or the input end where you do get your raw materials, and you've been able to prevent that and feel that the perception of this particular legislation is negative throughout. Yet you are able to work harmoniously with a large group of workers.
Mr Roberts: I think that's a different subject. I think the ability to work harmoniously is down to the attitude of the company, the company management, and also equally to the attitude of the unions in having responsible union leaders. But I don't think they're always going to get responsible managers and we're not always going to get responsible union leaders.
Mr Villeneuve: Can we legislate that?
Mr Roberts: No.
Mr Jordan: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. I would like to refer to the third paragraph of your letter, where it states, "We urge you to cancel or delay passage of Bill 40 until the amendments are revised to be acceptable to all the players." The Minister of Labour, to my way of thinking, has indicated to us in the House that his ministry has consulted and has in fact included all the players, and this legislation is a result of that. Would you care to comment?
Mr Wilson: I'd be glad to comment on that. It's true that you're certainly holding hearings, and you're hearing arguments from both labour and business. But having sat through some of your hearings this afternoon, I don't hear that you've got a consensus on what to do. It seems to me you're hearing views from both sides of the fence that aren't in agreement, so isn't it in your best interests to have legislation or changes to this bill that would be acceptable to all of the parties?
We're not against changes to a bill if everybody buys into it, but it seems to me you don't have that consensus yet, and that's the point.
Mr Jordan: If we were to withhold this legislation for further consultation, do you have any input as to how we would get it off the ground in a different way from what the minister has assumed he has done to date? They had been around the province prior to this turnaround, and now we're going around, you might say, the second time and still have the assumption that we have consulted and that we have all the players involved, which as you say is quite clearly not the case.
Mr Wilson: Well, when you first started out, you had two minority reports. You couldn't get labour and business to agree on a report, so they submitted two reports to you, I understand. I think it was incumbent upon you people to get them back to the table until they could agree on something that was acceptable to all parties, and that has not been done. I don't think you should give up the fight until it is done.
Mr Ward: Thank you for your presentation. Gates Rubber is a very good corporate citizen in the community of Brantford. Was the $8-million investment you mentioned for the Iroquois Street plant or Henry Street?
Mr Roberts: The Henry Street plant; this is one specific investment on modernization. There are investments for the Iroquois street plant as well.
Mr Ward: Is the $8 million in addition to the $4 million that has already been invested? I know there were some new lines brought in with computer technology, and they were successful, were they not?
Mr Roberts: They were very successful.
Mr Ward: With the team concept?
Mr Roberts: We had two of those at $4 million a piece. The additional $8 million to $10 million is over and above everything else we have in the pipeline at the moment.
Mr Ward: That's for an additional computerized technology, I guess.
Mr Roberts: Yes.
Mr Ward: I believe the Iroquois Street plant was the original plant in Brantford. Was it last year that suggestions by the employees, I believe, saved thousands of dollars in operating costs and made that plant competitive, or at least allowed it to remain competitive in the market?
Mr Roberts: Yes. The Iroquois Street plant, which is the hose plant, was one of three hose plants in North America. It was certainly the least productive. It has now overtaken one in the US and is getting close to the top one in the US, which is a brand-new plant. It's very much due to the teamwork and spirit and cooperation within the plant.
1520
Mr Ward: Which has developed over the last few years, I guess.
Mr Roberts: Yes.
Mr Ward: The new lines for the Henry Street plant were brought in earlier this year or last year?
Mr Roberts: One was early in 1991 and the other one in April of this year.
Mr Ward: I know Garry MacDonald, the president of the local Rubber Workers Union representing the Gates workers, is a very responsible union leader. Do you think it would be of benefit to have him contact you perhaps to reassure jointly the American board of Gates that the workers of Brantford are very competitive, very keen to do a productive, quality job, and use the successful $4 million that has been invested as recently as April as an example of how we can adapt to new technology with the skill level we have?
Mr Roberts: That has already been done. We had our CEO from the US up about four months ago, and Garry was in that meeting. We don't have an immediate threat; in fact, we don't have a threat. I was talking overall on this topic about the perception; it wasn't necessarily aimed at the Gates rubber company.
Mr Ward: I'm looking forward to a goods-news press conference in the city of Brantford.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): One of the issues, when we talk about the perception that others outside this province or this country may have, is that there are people who suggest that these billboards and full-page ads saying how devastating this is going to be in industry and the economy of this province -- I don't want to put you on the spot, but would you agree that a different type of tactic, maybe more working together, would have worked better than that? I believe strongly that this is the perception and that's where the perception came from, probably more than any piece of legislation we have here.
Mr Wilson: The fact is that you are getting different points of view from labour and business in your hearings. You need to come up with a proposal or have amendments that are acceptable to both sides, and I don't think you've got that yet; at least I haven't heard it. I think you need to stick with it until you do.
Mr Hayes: I'm pleased to hear the part about you having a good working relationship with the union and the members. I'm sure they take part in some of your production plans and things. You say you have this good relationship, and I think you also said you've never used any replacement workers. Am I correct in that?
Mr Roberts: We have not in the past; we've had two or three strikes, and we have not used replacement workers.
Mr Hayes: Could you give us any specific examples as to how these amendments would affect your operation?
Mr Roberts: It does not, and I do not believe it will, affect our operation. But the point is that we're just one of many operations, and this is part of the package. I'll get back to that word "perception," with overseas investors not looking positively upon investment in Ontario. We don't need perception; we're here already, and we don't have the problems that are indicated. But many other manufacturers in the automotive industry are in that situation; many have closed, even Canadian companies. Tridon in Burlington closed and moved south.
Mr Wilson: One other point is that we represent the entire after-market industry. Tony's company is unionized, but I would say 85% of our members are not unionized, because we represent manufacturing, distribution, wholesaling and retail; for example, Canadian Tire, Sears, K mart are members of ours; Midas, UAP, Uni-Select. These are the sorts of companies that form the majority of our membership and certainly the vast majority of employees are not part of unions.
It seems a little interesting to me that of all of the list of people appearing before this group -- 60% of the labour force in Ontario is not unionized, I understand, but how much representation are they getting at these hearings? It seems a little odd to me that all the labour you're hearing is from the unions. Is that fair? Are you really getting the message that you need to get, a balanced message from the labour community?
Mr Hayes: My response to that is that we have heard about a lot of cases where individuals, women and minorities, have indicated they wanted to join a union and wanted to be organized. If these cases are all factual, where they've been dismissed or harassed or intimidated or coerced, imagine what would happen to some of the people if they came here, where there are TVs and things of that nature around. I'm not disputing entirely what you're saying, but I'm sure those people would feel intimidated. And I don't know of anybody who has said that individuals could not come here if they said they were unorganized people.
Mr Wilson: We're not against denial of rights to minorities and all the rest of it.
Mr Hayes: We're not either.
Mr Wilson: But the whole point is, why don't you canvass all of the labour force in Ontario and find out really what the opinions are of the entire demographics, not just the unions?
The Vice-Chair: Thank you, sir. I'd like to thank the Automotive Industries Association of Canada and each of you for taking the time to present your views here this afternoon. Thank you very much.
PUBLIC SERVICE ALLIANCE OF CANADA
The Vice-Chair: The next witness is the Public Service Alliance of Canada, if you could come forward, please. Welcome. Could you identify yourselves? You've been allocated a half-hour for your presentation; if you could leave a portion of that for questions and answers, I know the committee members would appreciate that.
Mr Daryl Bean: Thank you very much. My name is Daryl Bean and I'm the national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. With me is Steve Jelly, the executive assistant to the alliance executive officers.
On behalf of the 170,000 members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and more particularly the 75,000 who live and work in Ontario, I should like to thank, first of all, the standing committee on resources development for granting us an opportunity to participate in your public review of Bill 40.
At the outset, so that you can fully understand where I'm coming from, I would like to emphasize that PSAC fully supports and endorses the submission made by the Ontario Federation of Labour. Our purpose in making a separate submission is to highlight some of the proposed changes and their likely effect on PSAC and that part of our membership certified pursuant to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
Before doing so, however, I would like to comment on the controversy that has surrounded the introduction of the government's labour law reform package. Few issues have received as much attention in Ontario since the historic election of the current government as the proposals to reform the labour legislation in the province of Ontario.
The corporate community has pitted itself against the government and, I suggest, also against working people in an attempt to maintain the status quo. The corporate community's self-interest position is offensive to working people in Ontario and particularly those who have been victimized by the current law and its inherent bias in favour of employers.
1530
It needs to be said at the outset that governments have a legitimate role to play in the relationship between employers and working people. In addition to establishing minimum standards and terms and conditions of employment, governments have an obligation and legitimate reasons for regulating the certification procedure and bargaining relationship.
Members of the committee should understand that the power held by the parties to industrial disputes is frequently unequal. The corporate community holds considerable economic power that it can use to its advantage during disputes with working people. Under the existing law employers can and frequently have hired replacement workers in order to maintain an operation during legal strike activities.
In addition, employers can and frequently do contract out work normally done by members of a certified bargaining agent. The ability of employers to continue operations during strike activities is fundamentally wrong. Moreover, by permitting this practice, the government of Ontario has historically favoured employers over working people. It is time to correct that historic injustice and establish a neutral role for the government in industrial disputes.
In many important respects Bill 40 meets the challenge. In other areas the legislation is deficient. The bias against Ontario workers in the Ontario Labour Relations Act is a serious matter. While freedom of association, including the right to organize and bargain collectively, is guaranteed to all Canadians under the Charter of Rights, certification procedures and the right of employers to continue operations during strikes and lockouts have rendered the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association meaningless for many Ontario workers.
Without question, the government's proposal to place restrictions on the use of strikebreakers and scabs is the most controversial aspect of the reform package. The alliance is generally supportive of the proposed reforms in this area and should like to applaud the government for proceeding in the face of an organized attack by big business.
That said, there are a number of loopholes in the proposed legislation that will in some cases permit employers to continue to operate. The loophole whereby employers can contract out bargaining-unit work is particularly problematic for unions such as PSAC, which represents workers in organized and service industries and the parapublic sector.
Permitting employers to continue full operations during a strike or lockout by way of contracting out provides employers in many jurisdictions with an incentive to lock out their workforce. At the same time, the employer's ability to contract out bargaining-unit work during a strike reduces the effectiveness of that strike action.
Should Bill 40 be adopted as currently worded? The alliance believes that some employers will use the threat of contracting out to adopt a take-it-or-leave-it bargaining philosophy, forcing concessions on workers and forestalling strike activities. It should be noted as well that once work is contracted out, it becomes exceedingly difficult to contract back in. As a result, work temporarily contracted out during an industrial dispute could well become permanently contracted out.
Hence, we would strongly urge members of the resources development committee to amend Bill 40 to ensure that companies are prevented from contracting out bargaining-unit work during a strike or lockout. Contracting out is also of concern to the alliance with regard to the government's proposal establishing a back-to-work protocol. Under the proposals employers are not obligated to reinstate employees if there is insufficient work.
As a result, the alliance can envisage a situation where employers contract out work during a strike and then continue to contract out after a settlement in order to avoid reinstating all striking employees. Such an outcome is untenable. For this reason, the PSAC strongly urges your committee to amend Bill 40 to ensure that the contracts are terminated when a strike or lockout is ended.
Before closing, I should like to comment on some of the proposals related to organization and certification. Since January 1991, the PSAC has organized five separate groups of employees in Ontario pursuant to the provisions of the OLRA. In addition, the alliance is actively involved in other organizing campaigns in Ontario. While our experience in this regard is less substantial than a number of other unions that are scheduled to appear before you, it is sufficient to have convinced us that the OLRA is in need of reform.
Without question, the hurdles currently faced by unions organizing groups of workers in Ontario are substantial. This is more than an inconvenience for the unions involved, for in reality obstacles to union organization drives deny workers their fundamental right of freedom to associate.
During an organizing campaign of the Multicultural Assistance Services of Peel initiated by the alliance, the employer discharged an employee who was actively involved in the certification drive. While we were able to file an unfair labour practice complaint under the act and successfully negotiate a settlement, the process was time consuming and in other circumstances could have been fatal to the organizing drive.
Unfortunately, Bill 40, while a considerable improvement over the existing legislation, does not expedite the process nearly enough to ensure that employers don't use discipline and discharge to throw off organizing drives.
In order to gain certification, a union must demonstrate support at a level of 55% for automatic certification or 40% for a representation vote pursuant to Bill 40. Before seeking certification, a union must be fairly confident that it has met the requirements, yet only the employer has access to the employee lists. In Bill 40 the government has chosen to maintain the status quo. This is a serious deficiency in the government's reform package, which provides employers with an opportunity to frustrate the freedom of association of Ontario workers.
The PSAC urges the resources development committee to correct this imbalance in the relationship between employers and unions by adopting an amendment to Bill 40 that would require employers to provide unions with employee lists immediately upon an application for certification. Anything less will continue, with justification, the bias against certification and freedom of association that is contained in Bill 40.
I thank you very much and am prepared to respond to questions.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you very much. There was a public service strike here for a short period of time in October. That was a legal strike, I gather.
Mr Bean: Yes it was, from September 9 to October 3.
Mr Villeneuve: The problem we seem to have heard here is that certain conditions were placed on people who did cross the picket lines. Could you enlighten us a bit on what happened at that time?
Mr Bean: Like any other jurisdiction, there are rules when you join an organization, similar to what political parties have, by the way. If you do not abide by the constitution of the organization, then you are subject to discipline. In some of those cases, members who crossed the picket line had their membership removed. I might remind members of Parliament that you should be well aware of that, because it's well known that when a member of Parliament crosses his political party, he also gets kicked out of caucus.
Mr Villeneuve: Well, the Chair is not here.
Mr Bean: I didn't mention the Chair, but he could probably explain it to you.
Mr Villeneuve: He didn't get kicked out of caucus, however, but is here. We have an excellent Chair.
The Vice-Chair: Let's proceed with questions on Bill 40.
1540
Mr Villeneuve: You do have the power to reprimand and of course you use that. Would you see the rights of the individual union member being watered down by this legislation?
Mr Bean: Not to my knowledge in reading the bill. I don't think that it waters down the rights of individual union members to participate in the union, to take corrective action if they believe that the process is wrong. In our own case we have an appeal system, and in that case some members are exercising the right to appeal and some are being successful with their appeal.
Mr Villeneuve: Would you agree then that union bosses have considerably more power with Bill 40?
Mr Bean: No, I don't think union bosses have more power. I would suggest that working people will have more power, because they would have the opportunity to organize and some protection, particularly if some of the amendments that we propose were put forward, and in terms of a speedier process where one who is attempting to organize a union gets dismissed in particular. We've had that experience.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you. I'll yield to my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew.
Mr Jordan: Thank you, gentlemen, for coming this afternoon. I note that there are several areas in this bill that are not acceptable to you. Would you then agree that we have not yet reached a consensus and that perhaps the legislation should be delayed, as the previous presenter indicated, until we do more work together, all parties, and until in fact a consensus is reached?
Mr Bean: First of all, what I say is the bill is not acceptable in the sense that we don't think it goes far enough. It's a substantial step in the right direction. I suspect if you're waiting for labour legislation where all parties will reach agreement, then we wouldn't have labour legislation in this country in the first place.
I appear before parliamentary committees at the federal level probably at least 20 times a year, and I have yet to see one of those parliamentary committees where people were unanimous and everything was just beautiful. So if you're going to wait until everybody agrees with this legislation, then I suggest you won't be in the House long enough to see the end of that legislation, because we'll be down the road a number of elections.
Mr Jordan: I'm personally sort of disappointed in your comments, sir, because what you're saying here is that you have to have 100% agreement to have a consensus. That is not my understanding of a consensus on an issue such as this, and if it was, we wouldn't have a consensus on anything, might I say.
I'm asking you about the points you've made that are not acceptable to you, and the previous presenter has indicated the areas where he feels more discussion is required. Are you of the idea that jointly we should hold this legislation for further consultation so that in fact we do have something closer to an all-around consensus on it?
Mr Bean: First of all, I guess when I was talking about consensus, I was taking the dictionary definition of "consensus," which was "unanimous" by the way, the last time I looked in the dictionary.
If you're seeking further consensus as to agreement, I think it's safe to say that the positions have been pretty well drawn, as you have already seen, and I am very doubtful if you're going to reach that.
I can tell you from my own personal experience that there has been a lot more consultation and a lot more effort put into reaching consensus in this legislation -- as you indicated yourself, it's the second round of hearings in the public domain -- than I have ever seen in the federal legislation. So, no, I'm not suggesting that the committee hold the legislation to try to reach even further consensus.
If we can reach further consensus, I'm certainly prepared, as I understand the Ottawa and District Labour Council has indicated it is certainly prepared -- and as one of the previous speakers said, from the chamber of commerce, they'd like to meet and discuss it. We're all prepared to sit down and discuss it. Obviously, if we can reach consensus on some of the aspects, then it wouldn't be hard to get another piece of legislation in to amend those aspects too.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to thank you for coming before the committee today and for presenting such a well-prepared document. I'd like to ask one question from the document itself, then I have another question to follow that. In number 6, Mr Bean, you mentioned in the first sentence, "The ability of employers to continue operations during strike activity is fundamentally wrong." I'd like you to say why you think that's true, and do you have any examples to give us to back that up?
Mr Bean: The best example one could pick is probably the Quebec situation. The Quebec government -- which, by the way, has had a couple of governments since and has maintained the anti-scab legislation -- certainly reduced the violent situations that occur on picket lines. It certainly is one that has the endorsement of the employers' council in Quebec; in fact, they've recently withdrawn their last objections to it. I think that's probably one of the best examples anyone could draw on as to why it's necessary to have legislation to prevent employers from being able to continue their operations during the strike. If for no other reason than stopping the violence and bringing about a climate which encourages both employers and unions to settle their collective agreements, it would be worth it, but I think there's a point beyond that where in fact it has clearly been demonstrated that it is the right direction to go.
Mr Martin: Another troubling criticism I'd certainly like to discuss more with some other folks is this idea that giving more autonomy or power to the worker by way of his ability to organize as a union is somehow going to render our economy less competitive. I find it difficult, because I know there are a number of countries that are highly unionized that are very competitive today in our global economy. In my own community of Sault Ste Marie, the Steelworkers worked along with management and government and the financial institutions to save that plant and bring it back to the starting lines. It might have another future that will be beneficial to all of us who live and work in Sault Ste Marie.
In making the criticism that giving the workers more power would render our economy less competitive, there's often a finger pointed at the public sector as an example. I wonder if you would comment on that and maybe help me and others understand how this piece of legislation will, rather than render the economy less competitive, make it more so?
Mr Bean: In the first place, when people talk about that situation, they haven't really done their homework. If you go into the Scandinavian countries, if you go into Germany, if you go into a number of the countries within the European common market, you will find that they are much more organized, ranging anywhere from 60% to 80% to 90% organized, yet they are the countries we are having to compete against. It's been proved that labour and management, by having the high degree of unionization, have been more productive.
Also, a number of studies have been done to show that unionized workforces tend to be more productive than non-unionized workforces, university studies that weren't conducted by unions -- and they certainly weren't conducted by our union. They show that they tend to be more productive because they tend to be happier employees, in most cases.
I would suggest that those who take the approach that it's not a good approach are not really looking at the facts in countries that are highly unionized and studies that have been done here of unionized versus non-unionized workplaces.
1550
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I very much appreciate it. I have a short question and then my colleagues will take over.
The first presentation today was from the Ottawa and District Labour Council. I asked a question on the issue of the secret ballot. I must say that when I asked the question, I was somewhat disappointed with the answer.
But I want to ask you the question because I believe your presentation speaks about point 37, the freedom of association, including the right to organize. I think no one disputes that; that's not what this bill is about. That right is there, and what we want to do is make certain there is a process in place so that those workers have the right to freely make their choice, free of coercion. I believe legislation can be put in place to protect the worker from coercion, at whatever source. For instance, let there a trigger vote at 20%, and let the majority decide whether it wishes to be organized or not. Many people, especially on the labour side, to be very frank, have been extremely critical of that. In fact, even the first presenter was extremely critical of giving the rights of the worker that type of freedom.
I asked that question in light of a bill that was introduced by the Ministry of Labour on June 25. You may be aware of that bill, which is really a disaffiliation bill. It's the right of an Ontario union to disaffiliate from its international. Reading from the bill, if there's a request for disaffiliation, "The board shall conduct a secret ballot vote of the members." So the principle of secret ballot is not only recognized; the Minister of Labour has put it in legislation on June 25. In that, could you support that type of secret ballot vote? Certainly the Minister of Labour has seen it possible in a bill that was introduced three weeks after June 4.
Mr Bean: I think that provision is there. You talked about 20%. If you want to amend the bill down to 20%, I suggest you do it, because the provision is there now when there is 40% in the bill.
Mr Offer: What if 20% kicks in a free secret ballot?
Mr Bean: If you want to amend the bill down to when 20% of the people sign up, you have a secret ballot to find out whether they will join, then I have no objections to that. I'm saying to you that when a clear majority of the members sign up -- while I think it should be a simple majority and that's what we recommended, the bill now says 55%, and that's fair enough -- then you don't need a vote.
Mr Daigeler: You mentioned right at the very beginning of your brief that the corporate community has pitted itself against the government and working people. What do you mean by the "corporate community"? The way I traditionally understand that term it refers to large companies, often multinationals. But the reality, as we've heard even here today, is that a lot of small business people are very concerned about this legislation and feel severely threatened by it. Do you include them in that term "corporate community," or what do you mean by that?
Mr Bean: Generally speaking, I'm referring to the large business community. There are several different lobby groups out there now, which I'm sure you're aware of, because I certainly am, that have spoken out against the bill and have taken out ads against the bill.
Yes, I do include the small business community also, because I have yet to find an organized business community that has supported any progressive legislation. I'm thinking of employment equity, I'm thinking of equal pay for work of equal value, I'm thinking of medicare when it was brought in, the unemployment insurance scheme when it was brought in. The organized business community -- I guess we could use that term -- has always opposed that type of legislation, so I'm not surprised that it has in this instance.
I think that in this instance it's been directed more at the political party, which is fine. It's fair enough that they've done so in a democracy, but that's what I'm referring to.
Mr Daigeler: If I still have time for a second question, Mr Chairman, I would like to continue. Mr Martin rightfully pointed out a very serious comment you made, and I consider this a very strong statement: "The ability of employers to continue operations during strike activity is fundamentally wrong." In your answer to the previous question, you referred to the anti-scab legislation in Quebec and so on, but even under that legislation the employer can continue to operate if he can find management and so on. That would be possible even under the current reform proposals, but you seem to go beyond that: You seem to say it's fundamentally wrong for the employer to be able to continue to operate.
If that's your position, the employer has only two options. He can either close down or he can give in to the requests that are made by the union. Do you think that really is a fair option? Do you really believe -- or are you really wanting to say something else -- that it is in the interest of the workers that you represent to have all these businesses shut down and put these workers on the street?
Mr Bean: Again, if you want to pull it out of context, you can do so. As I indicated, I think the Quebec bill is a very effective bill and so do the employers in Quebec. One is not suggesting that management people can't go to work. We've never suggested that and don't suggest it here. What we're suggesting is that during a strike, they should not be able to continue business as usual. One of the provisions is that, yes, there will be some business carried out, but it will be restricted business.
I would suggest, as I have in this brief, that the Quebec legislation is much more effective than this and goes beyond this, and I would encourage the committee to take a serious look at the Quebec legislation. As I say, even the last group opposed to it, the employers' council in Quebec, has now accepted it and said it is a good bill and is in fact working. It has reduced violence; it has reduced strikes. I don't think one would argue that the Quebec economy has not picked up over the last 10 or 12 years. I suspect we could all acknowledge that the Quebec economy has boomed in the last 10 or 12 years relative to what was happening before.
I don't want to leave the impression with the committee that it's all because of that legislation, but it certainly was a contributing factor, or at least the employers' association in Quebec said it was.
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to thank the Public Service Alliance of Canada for taking the time to appear before the committee this afternoon, and both of you for expressing the alliance's views. Thank you very much.
The next group is the Canadian Tire Ottawa Valley dealers association. Are they present? We'll move to the 4:30 scheduled presenter. Should the Canadian Tire association attend, we'll put them on at 4:30.
1600
TRANSPORTATION-COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL UNION
The Vice-Chair: Sorry for the program change, but this should be the Transportation-Communications International Union. You're allocated one half-hour for your presentation. If you could leave sufficient time for some dialogue and questions and answers from the committee, I know all parties would appreciate the opportunity for that.
Mr Don Bujold: That's fine. Good afternoon, everybody. I would like to preface my remarks by thanking the standing committee on resources development members for agreeing to receive us here today and thank them in advance for the interest in what the Transportation-Communications Union has to say with respect to Bill 40, An Act to amend certain Acts concerning Collective Bargaining and Employment.
Allow me to begin by explaining that the TCU is an international union, with our international headquarters located in Rockville, Maryland, in the United States, just a short distance from Washington, DC. The Canadian division national office is located in the city of Ottawa. We are appearing before this committee to speak on behalf of the TCU's Canadian division, which is an affiliate of the Canadian Labour Congress.
The Canadian division represents more than 12,000 people across Canada involved in the transportation of goods, people and information. Our members move grain shipments through the port of Thunder Bay, Ontario, as well as freight through the country's many other ports and inland terminals. TCU members drive trucks and deliver everything from bulk goods to small parcels. TCU members employed by Marine Atlantic help get people and freight loaded on the ferries that service the maritime provinces. In short, when it comes to transportation, TCU members do it all. In addition, we represent growing numbers of employees at Unitel Communications.
The majority of our members work under federal jurisdiction in the country's trucking, rail, airline, communications and grain industries. As a result, those employees are subject to the Canada Labour Code and are not covered by Ontario's labour relations legislation. We do, however, also represent approximately 200 people employed by Trimac, Howell Warehouses and Holiday House in Ontario which are subject to provincial labour legislation.
We want to emphasize that an important reason why we are here today in support of the proposals contained in Bill 40 is that experience has taught TCU and other unions that advancements made at one level of labour legislation can lead to advancements at another level. We do not want to overlook either the significance or the importance of this kind of precedent.
To begin, in dealing with such a comprehensive piece of legislation as Bill 40 it is only fair to acknowledge that the government did a very credible job of consulting the people of Ontario by doing the necessary groundwork before tabling the bill in the Legislature. We agree with the government that the bill, as it is written, makes a serious attempt at "fairness, justice and jobs for Ontario."
Over 300 groups, representing business, labour, unorganized workers, women, immigrants, chambers of commerce and community groups, all had a chance to have their say on labour reform. In our opinion, this was a fair and balanced consultative approach and we give the government credit for proceeding as it did in this fashion. This hearing is another example of the government's commitment to the consultative process.
We intend to limit our comments on Bill 40 to deal only with those parts of the bill which bear most closely on the types of situations that face our members or, for that matter, on situations involving groups of unorganized workers we are interested in attracting to our union. In this respect, what the bill has to say about organizing and certification bears some examination and brief comment.
Organizing and certification: Protection of employees from unfair labour practices during organizing campaigns: Labour in Ontario is on the record as recommending that the act be amended such that where an employer has knowledge of an organizing campaign, he or she must obtain leave of the board before disciplining, discharging or removing any employee from the prospective bargaining unit.
Our grain division in Thunder Bay, Ontario, had a situation recently where several employees of a local unorganized trucking company indicated that they were interested in joining the TCU. Discussions were held between the interested employees and the TCU leadership in that port city with a view to establishing an organizing campaign. As soon as management got wind of this development, it dismissed three employees who were strongly supporting union representation. The TCU immediately went to bat for three employees and filed unfair dismissal charges against the employer.
Looking back, we were successful early in our organizing campaign in getting a majority of 40 cards signed in our favour, but as a result of the events described above we lost three months of valuable time we needed to win an automatic certification. When the vote was finally counted, the results were 41 opposed to a union and three in favour. If those three employees had not been let go as they were by the employer, we are confident that the outcome would have been completely different and those workers would have a union today.
Under the proposed amendment, section 92.2, unions can request an expedited hearing where it files, as was done in this instance, an unfair labour practice complaint under section 91 of the act alleging that, as in this case, the employee was terminated during organizing activities. According to Bill 40, when such an action is initiated, a hearing under the proposed changes must commence within 15 days of the request and must sit on consecutive days until the hearing is complete. This is a welcome change in that it will serve to deter employers from committing unfair labour practices during the course of the organizing campaign.
Access to third-party property: TCU supports the amendment, subsection 11.1(2), that provides employees and union representatives the right to be, for purposes of organizing, on the premises "to which the public normally has access and from which a person occupying the premises would have a right to remove individuals." As a result, union organizing activity can now take place on all private property to which the public has regular access, such as shopping malls and industrial parks.
TCU also supports the amendment to subsection 11.1(3) that allows picketing during a lawful picket or lockout on third-party property.
Membership fee eliminated: TCU is supportive of the elimination of the $1 fee that is required under the current legislation for purposes of affiliation.
Support required for certification: TCU would have preferred this level of support to be a simple majority only, rather than the 55% as required in the bill. We do, however, fully support the lowering of the percentage needed for a vote from 45% to 40%.
Improving collective bargaining and reducing industrial conflict: Another area of concern the TCU wishes to address in this proposed legislation is improving collective bargaining and reducing industrial conflict. Specifically, we want to draw the committee's attention to the following issue:
Use of scabs: We are pleased to see that sections 73.1 and 73.2 of the legislation introduced far-reaching restrictions on the employer's ability to have bargaining unit work performed during a lawful strike or lockout. We recognize that Bill 40 requires unions to have at least 60% of those voting authorize the strike for this to become effective. We are disappointed, however, that the legislation allows for employers to relocate, contract out or use non-bargaining-unit employees along with supervisors to do bargaining unit work.
We know from experience that another issue addressed in the legislation, namely, preservation of bargaining rights, is of critical importance to our union. We wish to make the following points relative to this issue:
Successor rights -- sale of a business: We are pleased to note that under this legislation a successor employer will now be obliged to take the place of the former employer in relation to the trade union in an expanded number of situations, including a proceeding before the board under any act, a proceeding before another person or body under this act and a proceeding before the board or another person or body pertaining to the collective agreement, subsection 64(2.1)
Trucking: Today TCU is looking at a situation in which a large US-based truck carrier, Roadway Package Systems, RPS, is making final preparations to operate in Canada. We know it is going to happen because the industry is preparing for it.
RPS is the third-largest trucking fleet in the world and it will be directly competing for business now handled by Canpar, a division of Canadian Pacific Express and Transport. CP management announced today that Canpar is up for sale. TCU represents approximately 1,700 Canpar employees across the country, both drivers and office staff. If RPS is successful in attracting business away from Canpar, as we suspect it will, a significant number of Canpar employees will likely move over to work for non-union RPS. TCU wants to continue to be able to represent these employees in the event that they become RPS employees, and successor rights is clearly the vehicle for that to happen.
On another front, we should mention that Canadian Pacific Express and Transport recently sold its bulk systems division to Trimac terminals that are located across the country. Trimac then set up these terminals as provincial companies, including the one in Thunder Bay, Ontario. As a result of this move, our union was forced to apply for provincial certification and bargain benefits for those employees. As you can appreciate, we ended up in a vote to retain those members which involved a great deal of needless stress and anxiety on the part of the membership, not to mention the considerable expenses incurred by the union.
1610
Rail: There is every potential for the identical situation to happen on the rail side. Unions have to be prepared by having successor rights legislation in place. Smaller rail line operations in Ontario are facing uncertain economic futures and several of them may be sold off to interested buyers. The employees of those railways want to have some measure of job protection, and successor rights is the logical vehicle to provide that protection for them.
TCU is very supportive of these amendments that will ensure that bargaining rights and obligations are not delayed or avoided by the sale of a business by making the successor employer replace the former employer to the extent possible. We maintain that the successor employer be bound by any and all terms already negotiated and, furthermore, that statutory obligations and the grievance provisions of the pre-existing collective agreement will remain in place.
Federal to provincial sale: For the very reasons described above, TCU is satisfied that under these amendments, section 64.1 of the act will extend successor rights protection so that they will apply to the sale of a business covered by the Canada Labour Code but which, following the sale, is covered by Ontario's labour law. This parallels the successor rights -- crown transfers -- which already exist when an enterprise is transferred from the Ontario Labour Relations Act to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act or from the public service to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
TCU is supportive of these amendments as they ensure that employees, our members, will not lose their bargaining rights and collective agreements over sales of businesses and transfers of legislative jurisdictions.
We wish to emphasize, however, that we are not comfortable with subsection 64.1(3). We feel this subsection is unnecessary and will in fact create opportunities for the railways and trucking companies to cause trouble with our members' bargaining rights.
Our interest in this matter is made necessary because of the railways' stated purpose of creating low-wage ghettoes in the transportation industry through the medium of short-line railways. Short lines have become common in the United States and are typically low-wage, non-union operations. How they work is that railways sell sections of track to the short line, usually after abandoning service along those tracks. The new company then operates a railway that feeds freight cars to the larger roads, and does this by using cheap labour. Both CN and CP have high hopes that this practice will catch on in Canada.
For TCU members employed on the railway, it raises the prospect of seeing good, industrial wage level jobs disappearing and being replaced by minimum wage jobs. This is the vision of Ontario's future that the NDP has specifically rejected.
The proposed amendments, subsections 64.1(1) and 64.1(2), offer the kind of protection that rail workers need to defeat these schemes. However, 64.1(3) creates the possibility of the railways raising obscure and mischievous arguments to get around the effect of providing successor rights.
Ministry spokespersons have advised that the real purpose of 64.1(3) is to allow the board to consolidate bargaining units. However, section 18 of the Canada Labour Code gives the railways abundant clout to accomplish that, and they are using it with gusto. Introducing another kick at the can for the employers at a time when the railway passes from federal to provincial jurisdiction could mean that union members would have to go through a double set of stressful, expensive proceedings. Any changes that the new employer, the short line, would like to see effected could better come about through the medium of collective bargaining.
Having stated our objections to this particular subsection, may I conclude that overall section 64.1 is a major advance for the rights of transportation industry workers. Short-line operators in the United States who have been casting greedy eyes on Ontario rail trackage, seeing in it vast resources of cheap labour, will be frustrated by this measure, but we contend that this is exactly the kind of fly-by-night operator who needs to be frustrated.
The TCU wishes to congratulate the government of Ontario for demonstrating the courage to bring these amendments to Bill 40 forward at a time of considerable economic difficulty in Ontario. We readily acknowledge that a relentlessly loud and long opposition campaign on the part of the province's existing, and in some cases hastily created, pro-business and anti-labour lobbies has made the task of implementing meaningful labour law reform that much more difficult.
We would very much appreciate the committee giving every serious attention and consideration to our arguments on successor rights, which would help to ensure and maintain the quality standard of living which our members currently enjoy in the rail and trucking industries.
In spite of the compromises that have been made in this legislation, we view Bill 40 as a serious effort that will help working people in Ontario to maintain and advance their standard of living and quality of life. For that reason, we support the bill and wish it speedy passage at Queen's Park.
Finally, on behalf of the Transportation-Communications Union, I would like to thank all members of the resources development committee for taking the time to listen to our concerns.
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. Questions?
Mr Hayes: Thank you for your presentation. It was very informative, maybe from a different perspective than some of the others. One of the things you did not mention -- I didn't notice it, anyhow -- was the deregulation of the trucking industry. I know there's fear about how this piece of legislation will affect our economy and jobs, but could you tell me, would this legislation have a positive effect on the workers you represent or potential workers you could represent, as much as deregulation has had an adverse effect on the workers you represent?
Mr Bujold: Number one, deregulation has totally devastated the trucking industry. Actually, today and for the last week or so, we've been in negotiations with CP Express and Transport where we have some 3,200 employees. Unless we can come up with the same kind of creative package that was put together with Algoma Steel, that whole company's gone, and deregulation's done it. They just can't compete across the border, and we are now sitting down trying to put together a package much as Algoma Steel did.
What this legislation would do for us is mostly in the area of organizing and in successor rights. When you talk about the railway right now, you're looking at employees who need an average of 20 years to hold gainful employment on a railroad. These are employees who have worked there for some 20 years.
The experience of the railways in the US is that they've all gone short-line, and when they short-line the railway, the prospective buyer puts a number of employees on that road, non-unionized, cheap labour, and runs the road until it can't run any more. It's too expensive to replace, so they apply to the government for abandonment. The only alternative the government would have is to furnish the money to upgrade the road, so they grant them the right to close the railway, then it becomes real estate.
I believe that's what's going to happen in Canada. The railways are looking for freight that's going to move from one end of the country to the other. That's where the money's at. They're not interested in short-line. However, to be a viable railroad you still require the short line, and without successor rights, if the national roads create these short lines, we're nowhere. We're going to be in a steady battle.
Mr Hayes: Here's another quick question. There's a lot of talk by people who are opposed to this particular legislation that it tips the balance of power too far towards the unions in this province. Do you feel there's a level playing field, which we hear quite a bit, or how far do you think amending Bill 40 would actually tip the power towards the unions in this province?
Mr Bujold: I think Bill 40 goes a long way to putting us on the same level playing field. As I said in my brief, when we were approached to unionize the employees in Thunder Bay we signed up 40 cards, which didn't give us a majority because they fired three employees. There were 70-some employees; however, the outcome was that only 43 were eligible to vote. By the time we ironed out the three people who were fired, by the time that whole process went through all the necessary channels, there were only 43 employees left. When they conducted a vote, there were only three who wanted the union. These employees approached us to be unionized.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I think it deals with a very important aspect contained within the legislation, and a very complicated area, for myself, at least.
My question is on page 9 and 10 of your brief. You've spoken about the trucking industry as an example, and you used RPS as a large trucking fleet on one side, Canpar as something less than large; RPS is not unionized, Canpar is; RPS is going to be coming in and taking away business from Canpar, which may have the result of some employees of Canpar who are unionized moving over to RPS. To me, there is no transfer in this example, so the area of successor rights is absolutely not addressed in the legislation. I'm wondering if that's your reading of this. If not, I certainly would like to get some help from ministry officials, because it's my sense that if the two entities in your example, RPS and Canpar, remain in existence but employees of one move over to another, they don't take any rights with them. There has been no transfer which triggers successorship.
1620
Mr Bujold: It's a little ambiguous, but I'm sure I can clear it up. Number one, I guess what I'm referring to is successor rights from federal to provincial. If you look at the gist of the whole thing, I'm also talking about Canpar. It's been announced today that Canpar is up for sale. Again, I do apologize; it is ambiguous. If you go to page 10, we had a situation which I feel is going to happen at Canpar. Canpar is up for sale and I believe RPS may be a serious buyer for Canpar. I follow that with the example of Trimac. When I read it, I wasn't sure that I wasn't putting it in a sense that is somewhat ambiguous. But my feel of it is that when CP Express and Transport put its bulk systems up for sale and Trimac bought them, Trimac just split them up into provincial companies. There's where the successor rights would have allowed us to continue representing the employees. That's what I mean by that.
Mr Villeneuve: You put a lot of blame on employers preventing unions from being created and what have you, almost to the point where employers have been devious. Would you go that far, saying that there have been some devious people here who have caused things to occur that were either almost illegal or unethical?
Mr Bujold: We are in an international union and we've got 100,000 people in the US. When you talk about the railroad, you wouldn't believe how many short lines have been created in the US and done exactly that. The thing is, in Canada it hasn't happened yet, but I've been around the railroad industry long enough to know that the railways will short-line. Everybody's well aware that the railways are very opposed to it; they would not view successor rights from federal to provincial jurisdiction for the simple reason that it would not be attractive for anybody to buy a short line under those circumstances.
Mr Villeneuve: Do you represent the grain handlers at Thunder Bay?
Mr Bujold: Yes, we do.
Mr Villeneuve: There was quite a lengthy strike there some years ago during the shipping season. I am a grain producer and certainly heard from many grain producers. One of the problems is that the price of grain right now is probably only at 60% what it was 10 or 12 years ago. Grain may increase, but you can't go to the well when there's no water. That's part of the problem. Do unions consider this when they go on strike? They stop moving grain. Thunder Bay is only open for a short period of time throughout the year and yet they were killing the goose that lays the golden eggs for them.
Mr Bujold: The Thunder Bay situation would require far more than the 15 minutes that I came here prepared to discuss in view of Bill 40. But let me say to you that we have 3,200 people working for CP Express and Transport. We've viewed the books of the company. We have been sitting down for over two weeks. We have a collective agreement up for renegotiation, and we're renegotiating and looking at concessions because that company's gone. So no, in that light.
I could defend the grain strike in Thunder Bay, but not in 15 minutes, nor am I prepared to do that. I didn't bring anything with me.
Mr Villeneuve: You'd have a little problem defending it with the farmers who produced the grain. But that's a story that's a basic principle.
Mr Bujold: Yes.
Mr Villeneuve: It's been suggested from time to time that when there is a lockout at a certain company, that company should not be able to use outside labour, but when it's a strike, legitimate or otherwise, there should be some consideration for outside labour because that is a different situation than a lockout. Would you give that any positive consideration?
Mr Bujold: Help me out. I lost you somewhere.
Mr Villeneuve: When there is a lockout, it's been suggested that the company, because it locked out the employees, not be allowed to use any outside labour -- management, if it can operate, but no outside labour; and if there is a strike by the workers, legal or otherwise, the company should be allowed to continue the operation because, if indeed it is not able to continue the operation, the workers who are on strike will not have a job to go back to. The company will be gone. Could you give that some consideration?
Mr Bujold: It would depend on the circumstances. We represent 20-some employers. I've just come off a year and a half of negotiations, and I probably negotiated 12 contracts. Some of them I would have put on strike and some of them I wouldn't; it depends on the situation. I couldn't just give you a flat answer. It depends.
Mr Villeneuve: One final question: Bill 40 is supposed to bring employer and employee closer together. From sitting on this committee -- and I've only sat yesterday and today -- I have grave doubts about that. I want your opinion.
Mr Bujold: I go by my submission. I cannot see how a company the size of CP Ltd, with the railway it has and the trucking companies it has, can wind down and get away without providing that membership with negotiated settlements. The whole thrust of my submission is on the successor rights. It's devastating; it's killing us. We went through it with Trimac; we were all over the country. These employees were in turmoil. The end result was that we got them anyway, but it's total chaos.
Mr Villeneuve: And this will improve it?
Mr Bujold: Sure will, on successor rights.
The Vice-Chair: I thank the Transportation-Communications Union and each of you for taking the time to be here this afternoon and present your views.
CANADIAN TIRE DEALERS' ASSOCIATION, OTTAWA VALLEY DEALER GROUP
The Vice-Chair: The next group is the Canadian Tire Dealers' Association, Ottawa Valley Dealer Group. Welcome to the committee. You've been allocated a half-hour to present your views. I know all members of the committee would like some time for questions and answers, so if you could allocate part of that half-hour to allow for that dialogue I think we'd all appreciate it. Could you begin by introducing yourselves and then proceed with your presentation at your leisure.
Mr Des Keon: Thank you. My name is Des Keon. I am a Canadian Tire associate dealer in Bell's Corners, Nepean; I'm also the chairman of the Ottawa Valley dealers' association representing some 30-odd dealers between Kingston, Cornwall, Mont Laurier and Buckingham.
Mr Gord Reid: I'm Gord Reid, dealer at Base Line and Clyde Avenue here in Ottawa.
Mr Rick Nelles: My name's Rick Nelles. I'm the dealer at Kent Street here in Ottawa.
Mr Keon: First of all, I'd like to compliment you on your punctuality. We were on the elevator, I think, at 4 o'clock and we missed our time slot.
We have a presentation that'll maybe take 10 to 15 minutes, so I'm sure there'll be ample time for any questions from the group.
1630
As you are aware, each Canadian Tire store is individually owned by an associate dealer. We're all independent businessmen, not managers. We are proud of our reputation as progressive employers and, I think, have created a decent and a good place for our employees to work. The government has no monopoly on wishing a fair deal on employees. We are not anti-union; we just believe that a good relationship between employees and employer can be created without the intervention and cost of a union.
We are proud of our employee benefit package, which has been created on a cooperative base by a large number of dealers and provides one of the best employee benefit packages in the retailing industry. Our commitment to profit-sharing demonstrates our commitment to a fair deal for employees. We believe that the Canadian economy is better off by motivating employees to create a bigger pie than it is by promoting union-management negotiations over who gets the biggest share of a constant-sized pie.
There are four areas that concern us with the proposed legislation. Number one is the elimination of petitions. Under the current rules, an employee who signs a union card under peer pressure can change his mind and write in a petition to the labour board. The labour board currently scrutinizes these petitions with extreme care to make sure there is no improper employer influence.
There is consumer legislation allowing a customer who agreed to purchase, for example, an encyclopaedia to change his mind. Similarly, we think we have a very liberal refund policy in our stores. I'm saying here that if a customer comes in and buys a chainsaw today, takes it home and decides that perhaps he would like something different or doesn't need it, he brings it back and we refund him his money, no questions asked.
The elimination of petitions would mean that once an employee has signed a union card, possibly under the influence of a few drinks in a beer hall, and maybe under extreme peer pressure, he effectively cannot express his change of mind to the labour board. We think that is totally unfair and we don't understand the reasoning behind this.
Our second concern is easier first-contract arbitration. Today, if an employer commits an unfair labour practice, the labour board can and should impose an arbitrated first contract as a proper remedy. The amendments would allow the labour board to impose an arbitrated first contract even where the employer has done nothing wrong. All that is required is the passage of 30 days from the legal strike deadline, with or without a strike actually occurring. We think this is unfair. This does not promote collective bargaining; it promotes government interference with collective bargaining. An arbitrator who doesn't have to meet the payroll can determine where the pay rate should be.
Our third concern is the elimination of separate bargaining units for full-time and part-time employees. We are major employers of part-time employees. Today the labour board would certify full- and part-time employees in separate bargaining units, recognizing that each group has a separate community of interest. Our experience confirms that for the most part part-time employees want only part-time work. Many want to work only certain days or certain hours of the day. Many are students who want to earn spending money and are not expecting to support a family, whose interest is in getting a first job, not in establishing a career in retailing.
A collective agreement which would force us to treat part-timers the same as full-timers would quickly put us at a competitive disadvantage with the non-union retailers -- and there will always be non-union retailers springing up -- and eventually threaten the employment security of the entire group. We're concerned about dissension developing in our store over the debate between full-timers and part-timers caused by their disparate objectives and interests.
Our fourth concern is the prohibition on replacement workers during strikes. Striking employees would be free to go and work somewhere else during the strike. This distorts the balance of power, since management would not be free to continue to operate.
This could force unemployment on other employees, for example, if our retail workers were on a strike that would stop the sale of new tires and batteries and the ability to get parts for our service centre, thus putting the technicians out of work even though they were not involved in the original negotiations.
Worse still, if our distribution centre or the Canadian Tire trucking network were on strike, the inability of management to continue to operate during the strike would put some 30,000 Canadian Tire dealers' retail employees out of work within a week.
Similarly, a strike by Hydro employees, Bell Canada employees or municipal snowplow operators during the wintertime in Ottawa could put not only our employees but thousands of others in Ottawa out of work if management of those other organizations was unable to keep operations going.
The government's major premise seems to be that workers are not getting a fair deal and these amendments are necessary to correct that unfairness. We disagree. When you go shopping in the US, you find that Canadian retail employees are a whole lot better off than American employees already. Similarly, we've just come through nine years of prosperity in Ontario. What's so bad about the system we now have? Just at the time when Ontario industry and commerce are hanging on the ropes, this legislation is another punch in the stomach from employers who are having enough trouble already.
Outlying examples of multibranch locations with excess capacity may see this legislation as the straw that breaks the camel's back, with the result that they close the Ontario plant. We know of numerous examples of that. Conversely, those few employers who are looking at where to place new investments would have to think twice about investing in Ontario, with the threat that not only is it easier to unionize, but some bureaucrat will dictate the first collective agreement, and after that, the union's bargaining power will be way out of balance because of the prohibition on the use of replacement workers.
As I said earlier, we are not anti-union, but we believe some of the proposed legislation will greatly impact the retail industry. We're suggesting that the present proposed legislation be changed to correct some of what I think are inefficiencies in the labour laws we now have and the proposed labour laws this government is introducing. Thank you.
The Chair: We have seven minutes per caucus. Mr McGuinty, please.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation. I'm not clear. Is there any unionization to any degree right now at Canadian Tires?
Mr Reid: I think at any time there are very few. There are always some, but there are not very many.
Mr McGuinty: With respect to your own stores, have there been any efforts by employees to organize?
Mr Keon: In my particular store, no.
Mr McGuinty: And the others?
Mr Reid: No.
Mr Nelles: No.
Mr McGuinty: Why not?
Mr Nelles: What was the question again?
1640
Mr McGuinty: Have there been any efforts on the part of the employees to organize?
Mr Nelles: No, there's been no effort on the part of the employees to organize because we all have better relations committees. We have groups of people who have gotten together and we work on a continuing basis. Our employees appreciate the benefit package we have in place for them. They understand what profit-sharing is and they understand what business is all about today, so they feel quite comfortable working in the environment they have. They don't see the necessity to have a third party come in and try to regulate them and tell them how to interact between the employer and employees.
Mr McGuinty: During the course of these hearings, as you may be aware, many people advanced the argument that you simply cannot have fairness extant in the workplace unless you have a union-management relationship. You're telling me, obviously, that this is not true and that you constitute a blatant exception to that.
Mr Nelles: I don't think we're the only blatant exception. I think there are lots of companies out there today that have the same kind of labour relations Canadian Tire is proud of.
Mr Keon: I attended the hearings back in the spring when Mr Mackenzie was in town, over at the Delta Hotel. It was suggested at that time by our group that we think the government's efforts in promoting employer-employee relationships would certainly go a long way, and its efforts would be much better spent, in promoting a type of profit-sharing atmosphere that we have in our stores. We believe that when the employee has a share of the pie, his motivation and his interest in the job are that much better. Obviously our message went unheard.
Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): Gentlemen, in my experience I do feel that Canadian Tire employees, whether I meet them in Nova Scotia or Ottawa -- the store on Clyde is in my riding -- are proud of their jobs. I also am going to compliment you because I think they know the products they sell. I don't think that is characteristic of every retail outlet I frequent.
I have a lot of difficulties, as you do, with the concept of part-time and full-time being grouped into one collective bargaining unit. I know many of your employees are first-time employees. I think the training and experience you give is invaluable.
I wonder if you could say a little bit about access to benefits -- I'm not aware of any access to benefits your part-time may have -- and any tenure guarantees they may have. In other words, I'm asking you, beyond what I've just asked, do you have any what we call permanent part-time, people who choose to be part-time employees but you consider continuing employees? Would you say a little bit about that?
Mr Reid: We do. We have quite a few who do work on a part-time basis but have worked for years that way, who are kind of secondary wage earners. That is their choice and they have the same benefits as the regular full-time people.
Mrs O'Neill: So they have access to all the benefits the full-time do. I'm talking about health and -- I don't know what benefits your company offers. They would have a tenure guarantee?
Mr Reid: A tenure guarantee?
Mrs O'Neill: Yes. The permanent part-time would have, what should I say, the security of knowing that their job would be there as long as the store was --
Mr Reid: As long as they perform, yes.
Mrs O'Neill: So it would be a performance review. Thank you very much. That's helpful.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I stand to be corrected, but I don't believe that under the Labour Relations Act or this bill the word "employer" is actually defined. For your situation as owners, are you franchised or is it more of a singular type of ownership?
Mr Nelles: It's like a franchise; we are the owners.
Mr Offer: The reason I ask is because under the legislation, there is a provision where bargaining units could be combined, one union with one employer. I believe there is the possibility that if each of your stores were organized separately, an application could be made under this provision of the bill where they would all fall under the definition of one employer if the board decides. I see the gentleman on the right shaking his head. I don't want to heighten your concern, but I think that's a reading of the legislation. Could you share with us what your thoughts would be on that taking place?
Mr Reid: I just can't figure how that could happen. We all execute our employee policies differently. It's an individual thing. In the area of employee relations, human relations, we are very independent. Our relationship is because we buy from the same company, Canadian Tire, but other than that, all of our practices with our employees are quite separate and different from each other.
Mr Offer: I take it from that that you would be very much opposed to any reading of the legislation or any use of this bill that would permit the combination of those units of each of your employees in one unit?
Mr Nelles: Definitely.
Mr Villeneuve: Gentlemen, thank you for being here. I'm going to attack this from a slightly different area. You people represent Canadian Tire stores up to Pontiac over in Quebec?
Mr Keon: They are in our region, yes. We don't represent them, though.
Mr Villeneuve: So they're in your region. This committee's been told that the anti-scab law which came into Quebec in about 1978 did great things for harmony and all the rest of it. We know that the percentage of capital investment in Quebec since that time as compared to Ontario has been considerably less, but no one puts too much emphasis on that. Would you be able to observe, from your operations here in the Ottawa Valley on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River, how the anti-scab provision in this great labour law over in Quebec would possibly have affected Canadian Tire stores?
Mr Keon: I guess we haven't had anything in our region that has happened since then that I could comment on. There have been some down in the eastern part of Quebec, but I'm not familiar with them. There hasn't been anything in our region that I could comment on.
Mr Villeneuve: So you would say no positive but no negative; it's not that different from Ontario. Do they tend to be unionized over there?
Mr Keon: No.
Mr Villeneuve: I go from that to a suggestion that was made to the committee that when there is a management lockout of employees, the plant, retail outlet or whatever should not be allowed to operate with outside labour, but if it's a legal or an illegal strike, where the employees are the ones who are attempting to stop the operation, outside employees or the plant or retail outlet should be allowed to operate. I don't know whether amendments would be even accepted here. Could you accept that as a possibility of some labour reform?
Mr Keon: That was one of our concerns. In my presentation, point 4 was specifically that: If there were a strike, legal or illegal, the employees would be allowed to go elsewhere and work, but we would not be allowed to bring in replacement help. That is a concern of ours.
Mr Villeneuve: And it would address that concern of yours if the government were to consider this type of amendment?
Mr Keon: Right.
1650
Mr Jordan: Thank you, gentlemen, for taking time to come out this afternoon. I was wondering how you feel about the process that the government used to develop Bill 40.
Mr Reid: I guess we've come here thinking that nobody's going to listen anyway. There's not much hope, but we're here anyway. I guess our impression of how this has developed is what we read in what you people may call the conservative press. This is in deference to the unions, which put the NDP in power, and that's why we're here. That's the way I feel.
Mr Nelles: We feel we're just going through the motions, all these things people are trying to say to the government. What we're trying to do is to pull this thing out of the fire to save this province of ours, but it's "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead," so all this work we're doing, all this time we're spending, all these people who are sitting in this room are accomplishing absolutely nothing, because the agenda has been made. That's my feeling as a businessman today.
Mr Jordan: Do you feel that the bill should be held and that we should proceed with further consultation?
Mr Nelles: I don't know if it would accomplish anything. That's the problem with our economy today: All we do is spin our wheels. We've got some serious things out there. We have to be able to compete in the world market today, and if all we're going to do is sit around here and spin our wheels and play games with one another, we're not getting to the root of the problem. We have to learn to get along with one another and get this country moving. We can't do it sitting here spinning our wheels.
Mr Jordan: What do you see Bill 40 doing to your business?
Mr Nelles: I feel good about the relations I have with my employees. All I'm saying is that I'm concerned about what's going to happen to this province. There are a lot of people out there who come to my store to buy merchandise. If they lose their jobs because business doesn't want to come to Ontario to start up and a lot of companies are going to go out of business, nobody's going to be able to spend money in my store. A lot of my good people who worked hard to make something in our business are not going to be -- we may have to make some tough decisions about cutting back. What bothers me is what effect it's going to have on the province as a whole.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Thank you for waiting, despite our punctuality.
I want to continue beyond Mr McGuinty's question in terms of your own experience. We have Canadian Tires in Sudbury too. It's a great place to shop, and all of us know them well. If, from Mr McGuinty's question, your relationship is good and you feel happy with the working relationship you have, and if under the existing legislation your full-time workers could organize and they haven't made any move to do so, why would you feel Bill 40 is going to change that? If they can do it now and haven't done so, why do you think Bill 40 is suddenly going to make them want to do it?
Mr Nelles: As I said, I feel comfortable with what's happening in my store right now. All I'm concerned about is what's happening to Ontario. The unions have a different agenda. As far as I'm concerned, they see this as a golden opportunity to make up for all the losses that have been happening in the other parts of their industry. They see the retail sector as being a prime objective and they're going to go after it, regardless of what it's going to do to that company. They could put the company right out of business. I'm really concerned.
Mr Keon: Could I ask you the same question? Why, in a province that has had such great prosperity in the last 25 years, do you want to change things? Why does the government want to change things?
Ms Murdock: You're giving me a great opportunity, actually. I don't often get it.
Mr Nelles: We only have 20 minutes.
Ms Murdock: No, we don't even have that, actually. In the retail sector especially, you probably would recognize that the workforce has changed dramatically, evidenced, as you've already stated, by the fact that a lot of part-time workers have entered the workforce, most of whom are women.
At present, under the existing legislation, about 70% of all workers in Ontario have access to the Ontario Labour Relations Act and 30% have utilized it. It only applies to workplaces that have collective agreements. What this legislation, Bill 40, is going to do is open it up so that about 90% of workers will have access to choose to join a union if they wish to. If they're happy, contented and satisfied with whom they're working for, then in all likelihood they won't even bother asking to join a union.
In our experience thus far, if you look at the Labour Relations Act over the past 40 years, the only ones who generally ask to join a union are those who are having problems with their particular employer. I don't see that suddenly changing overnight. I know there is a tremendous fear. I hear it in your voices. I've heard it in the past three weeks of presentations. We've actually had it said by some small employers that suddenly their place is going to be organized the day this passes, which is not the case.
Mr Reid: Could you explain, then, why you would stand up for this elimination of the petition? We have had attempts here and there; after a while, unions have come in and gone out. But with this sort of thing, you don't allow people a second thought.
Ms Murdock: We do. I know we've had the consumer argument used. If I, as a worker, sign a union card, I have right up until the day of the application to notify the board that I want to change.
Mr Reid: Under the proposed?
Ms Murdock: Under the proposed. I can change my mind during that time of organizing. Now, once the application is notified to the board, once you've asked to be certified, that's the closing date and I can no longer change my mind after that date.
Mr Keon: Excuse me, that's not the way we're interpreting it.
Ms Murdock: I know that. I was going to look at that.
Mr Keon: It should be made clear, then, in the proposed legislation. That's not very clear out there, because that's the way most employers are interpreting this.
Ms Murdock: I know. That's the whole purpose of coming to these consultations. I know we have heard that it's a sham and it's a waste of time, but it isn't. It's fine-tuning. That's what this is. I will make no bones that Bill 40, in some form, is certainly going to pass; it won't be by Thanksgiving, unfortunately. But that's the whole purpose of listening to this.
The other point I wanted to get to was that you came before Mr Mackenzie in January or February. I was here the next day, having read all the submissions we had, and there were many. One of the things you stated on the discussion paper was, first of all, you didn't like the idea of replacement workers, but you really didn't like the idea of supervisory personnel being included in a union or having the right to join. We have made a number of changes based on your submission and others, predominantly by employer groups. I just wanted to comment on your fourth concern, in that we did make changes and we were listening. We're listening again. I believe it was Mr Reid who made the comment that I take exception to.
Mr Reid: You do?
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Reid: You are listening now?
Ms Murdock: I certainly am. I hear every word you're saying. My other colleagues would like to ask a question.
The Chair: You've got 30 seconds to do some talking and listening. Anybody else?
1700
Mr Hayes: Just to add to what Ms Murdock was talking about, why we're putting in certain pieces of legislation to make it easier or to give workers a choice of joining a union. There have been specific cases where employers have intimidated or coerced or fired people even when they indicated that they wanted to join the union. These things have happened. If you go through the process of getting the people back to work, it drags on and costs both sides lots of money. We have had specific cases, lots of specific cases, that --
Mr Reid: Probably on both sides.
Mr Hayes: Well, to eliminate it happening on either side, this certainly will help to streamline the process.
The Chair: I want to tell the Canadian Tire Ottawa Valley dealers' association thank you for coming here. You represent a significant retailer in the province, obviously with coverage across the province. We appreciate your interest in the legislation and your eagerness to come forward and share in this process. We're grateful.
Mr Reid: Thank you.
The Chair: I understand that Mr Dean wants to respond to some issues put to the Ministry of Labour. Mr Dean, accompanied by Mr Kovacs, Esq.
Mr Tony Dean: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I'd like to respond to a two-part question that I understand was asked last week. It relates to the purpose clause. As I understand it, the question that was asked was, would the proposed purpose clause -- which is a new section 2.1 on page 2 of Bill 40 -- result in the labour relations board ordering the disclosure of employees' names and addresses and/or the disclosure of financial information?
We do not expect or anticipate that the purpose clause would have this result, that it would result in the board ordering disclosure of employees' names and addresses for organizing purposes or ordering the disclosure of financial information.
I should add that consideration was given in the policy development process to specific proposals that might accomplish each of those objectives, and they did not emerge and form part of Bill 40. In particular, a proposal on access to lists for organizing purposes was outlined in the November discussion paper and, as a result of the consultation process, was dropped and did not appear in the bill.
Mr Jerry Kovacs: Again in response to a question posed last week during the sittings in London, the question was whether the provision of food services to patients in a hospital would be affected by the sections governing the permitted use of specified replacement workers.
By way of general explanation of the functioning of those provisions, I'd point the committee to proposed section 73.2, at page 25 of Bill 40. It may be useful to note that subsections 73.2(2) and 73.2(3) set out the two different sorts of circumstances in which specified replacement workers may be used in workplaces during a strike or lockout.
Subsection 73.2(2) might generally be described as special workplaces in which specified replacement workers may be used.
Subsection 73.2(3), in contrast, applies to all workplaces and describes special circumstances in which the use of specified replacement workers would be permitted in accordance with the bill.
In the particular example that formed part of the question, I would point to subsection 73.2(3) and suggest that the question is whether the provision of food services to patients in a hospital is a service that should be provided, and I quote from the wording of subsection 73.2(3), in order "to enable the employer to prevent danger to life, health or safety."
Having reviewed those sections, it might be, in fact, more appropriate for government members of the committee to comment on whether that specific example falls within the government's intent of that subsection 73.2(3).
The Chair: Ms Murdock, do you want to --
Ms Murdock: With regard to patients in a hospital, obviously the intent of the government would be --
The Chair: Knowing, Ms Murdock, that what you say now may well be relied upon down the road.
Ms Murdock: Certainly. I haven't got a problem with considering patients in hospital being fed as anything to worry about in the future. The intent of the government is that they would be considered under the essential services provisions of section 73.2.
The Chair: Do you say that as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour?
Ms Murdock: I say that as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour.
The Chair: And on behalf of the government of Ontario?
Ms Murdock: Yes, Mr Chair.
The Chair: As if Bob Rae himself were sitting here?
Ms Murdock: As if he were, yes.
The Chair: Gentlemen, does that complete your comments on these two issues?
Mr Kovacs: It does, yes.
Mr Offer: On that very point, that would mean that in a hospital setting, a cafeteria, there are two issues that immediately emerge. If there are prepared foods which are delivered to the hospital for redistribution throughout, you are saying that if there were a strike at the provider, it would still be able to get the food in? Or are you saying that the cafeteria within the hospital, could not go on strike? I'm just trying to figure out where it sort of pigeonholes.
Mr Kovacs: I'd point you again to the wording of subsection 3. The focus is on the actual employer. You've given an example of two different sorts of employer; none the less, in either case the question would be whether it was necessary for that employer to use specified replacement workers so as to prevent danger to life, health or safety. Whether it applies in each case, it remains a matter for the board to interpret, in accordance with Ms Murdock's suggestions, I would think, of what the government's intent is.
Mr Offer: Following that, it says that if there's a cafeteria in a hospital, it would be allowed to strike. They're not excluded from striking, from withholding services.
Ms Murdock: I don't think it's their role to answer that kind of question.
The Chair: I trust that Mr Kovacs's silence indicated a whole number of things and indeed spoke volumes. Need we say more? Mr Offer suspects, and that's where it stands right now. Am I correct in that?
Mr Kovacs: Yes, thank you.
The Chair: Okay. We are recessing until 6:30 this evening, at which time the Canadian Business Forms Association and Canadian Book Manufacturers Association are going to be here.
The committee recessed at 1708.
EVENING SITTING
The committee resumed at 1830.
CANADIAN BUSINESS FORMS ASSOCIATION
The Vice-Chair: Okay, we'll reconvene. I assume this is the Canadian Business Forms Association. Identify yourself for the purpose of Hansard and then proceed with your presentation. You are allocated about a half-hour, and if you could leave some time out of that half-hour for questions and answers from the committee, they'd appreciate it.
Mr Albert Lacroix: Yes, Mr Chairman. My name is Albert Lacroix. I am the executive director of the Canadian Business Forms Association. My colleagues with me this evening are Christine Pascoe, human resources specialist for Reynolds and Reynolds Canada Ltd; Grace Streek, human resources specialist with The Print Key Inc, and Ray Coutu, director of public affairs, Canadian Printing Industries Association.
We very much appreciate the opportunity given to us this evening to meet with you. Although the CBFA is a national trade association, representing the interests of business forms manufacturers across Canada, our purpose this evening is to specifically express the concerns of the Ontario business forms community regarding the proposed amendments to the labour relations legislation contained in Bill 40.
I assure all of you that the views contained in our presentation are very much shared by all business forms producers nationwide. Before getting to the gist of our presentation, I'd like to take a very few brief moments to comment on our industry and its important contribution to both the Canadian and the Ontario economies.
The Canadian business forms industry is a major contributor to the economic wellbeing of Canada. More than 10,000 Canadians are involved in all aspects of business forms design, manufacture, marketing and sales and forms management systems. The industry's annual sales volume exceeds the $1.2-billion mark and represents close to 20% of the output of the Canadian commercial printing industry.
The greatest concentration of business forms manufacturing activity is located in the province of Ontario. Annual sales from Ontario firms are more than $600 million. Approximately 5,100 Ontario workers benefit from employment in the industry. It should also be noted that business forms manufactured in Ontario are sold to customers across Canada as well as those in the US and other foreign markets. However, the ongoing recession has severely hampered the operations of the Ontario business forms producers, and it is this industry's view that Bill 40 will in no way improve the situation. If anything, it will probably aggravate it.
The main objective of any legislation pertaining to labour relations should be to create industrial harmony in the workplace, thereby establishing an environment where significant economic and social benefits are derived by all stakeholders: employees, employers, governments and society in general. Such legislation should also establish a climate which would generate substantial new investment and create badly needed jobs.
The proposed amendments contained in Bill 40 will not in any way enhance relations between employees and employers, nor will they improve the economic and social standing of citizens of Ontario and, last but not least, will not create any new employment. In fact, in our opinion, if implemented these initiatives would cause severe and long-standing damage, not only to labour relations but to Ontario's economic climate as well. We also feel that some deterioration of this climate has already begun as a result of Bill 40.
Ontario business forms manufacturers are very much concerned that if implemented, the proposed amendments will seriously infringe on the inherent and democratic rights of individual workers and employers. We refer to freedom of choice, civil liberties, private property and other basic democratic principles.
We have grave misgivings about the purpose clause of the act. It seems to us that it strongly insinuates that under current conditions workers in Ontario cannot freely exercise their right to choose, join and be represented by a trade union. It also insinuates that improved conditions, adaptation to change, skill development, harmonious labour relations, industrial stability and effective, fair and expeditious dispute resolution for Ontario workers can only be attained through unionization. This tenet is not only false, but we feel is completely irresponsible as well.
Currently, workers have the right to unionize or not to unionize. Additionally, there currently exists a fair and effective mechanism that allows a worker or workers to openly oppose union certification in the workplace. The proposed amendments would facilitate unionization to such a degree as to completely negate an individual worker's right to choose not to unionize.
First of all, it is proposed that the percentage of union support required before a representation vote takes place be lowered from 45% to 40%, and that the minimum signing-up fee of $1 be eliminated. We do not agree with these proposals.
Second, the mechanism to oppose certification has been so drastically altered as to render it, to all intents and purposes, completely useless. Henceforth, workers who after due consideration wish to retract their support for union certification must do so prior to the union's request for certification. This will be rather difficult to do if certification is requested only hours after having signed up the appropriate number of employees.
The net result would be that workers, whether full-time or part-time, would have less protection against unscrupulous union organizers than a customer from a door-to-door salesman. At least the latter under the law has three days to evaluate his or her decision to keep or return the vacuum cleaner or any other products purchased.
We submit to the committee that if one has the right to associate, one also has the right to disassociate and to make one's views known publicly on this matter. We cannot condone any legislation which would eliminate this basic democratic right.
Everyone has a legal right to work and earn a living. Bill 40 proposals would take away this democratic right during times of labour conflict. Bill 40 would make it unlawful for striking or locked-out workers or employees to voluntarily return to work if they so choose.
By implementing this initiative, the government would be committing a grave injustice to those persons this legislation is designed to protect: the workers or the employees. The only people this provision protects are the unions. The right to choose whether or not to return to work during a strike or a lockout belongs solely with the individual employee or worker, not with the employer, not with the union and certainly not with the government.
Under Bill 40, employers' rights would also be greatly violated. Employers would no longer have recourse to the court of law to restrict picketing or have protection of private property, as currently guaranteed by the Trespass to Property Act.
Additionally, the provision to allow union activities such as picketing and organizing on or near the premises of third parties would seriously affect the operations and the employees of any and all commercial-industrial enterprises situated near the targeted company.
There is no doubt that the aforementioned will have some effect on the employer's ability to operate his business. However, the most serious violation of an employer's rights, and the one which concerns Ontario business forms producers the most, is the provision prohibiting the use of replacement workers or striking workers during a legal strike or lockout. This is also undemocratic. We believe that an employer should have the right to use all the necessary and legal means at his disposal to continue to legitimately operate his business.
1840
Of great concern to us is the fact that while the employer is severely restricted from operating his business during a strike, similar restrictions are not imposed on the unions or on their striking members. Consequently, during a prolonged strike the potential exists for striking employees to start up their own business forms company in direct competition with the employer. Unable to operate without the appropriate human resources and unable to meet commitments to his customers, the employer would eventually be driven out of business.
In our estimation, the law and the government would be guilty of aiding and abetting the demise of a legitimate business enterprise. We do not believe the government has the right to implement legislation which would legalize unfair trading practices by a special-interest group.
We are also apprehensive regarding the provisions dealing with first-contract arbitration and contract tendering restrictions. With regard to the former, we fear that settlements would be imposed without due and proper consideration being given to the employer's ability to abide by these decisions. With the latter provision, it seems to us that the government has failed to consider the negative economic impact of this proposal, which would insulate inefficient operations from competition.
As an industry, Ontario business forms manufacturers contribute significantly to Ontario's economic and social wellbeing. Although the industry is not highly unionized, it has nevertheless over the years prospered, as have its employees. However, the industry, like other industries, is facing hard economic times. Over the past few years, industry profits have fallen drastically. To remain competitive in the new global economy, we need to invest in new technological manufacturing assets and train our workforce to effectively use this new technology.
We believe that implementation of the proposals contained in Bill 40 will further reduce our already low margins, affect our ability to not only maintain but improve our global competitive position and have a detrimental effect on badly needed new capital investment. Last but certainly not least is the fact that Bill 40 may, and probably would, increase union membership, but definitely would not create any new jobs.
In fact Bill 40 would in all likelihood drive new investment from Ontario to other jurisdictions without similar legislation, particularly to the United States, causing further unemployment among Ontario workers. Additionally, we can expect a considerable increase in labour strife as a result of Bill 40. This has been the experience of other areas with similar legislation.
Consequently, Mr Chairman and members of the committee, we urge you to recommend to the Ontario government that it seriously reconsider implementing this proposed legislation. Again, we thank you for having given us the opportunity of addressing you this evening, and very much appreciate your attention.
The Chair: Thank you. Five minutes per caucus. Mr Jordan, please.
Mr Jordan: Thank you very much for your presentation. I wonder on what basis you are at, say, 180 degrees with the minister here on the increasing of efficiency, production and so on. The ministry claims it has a study which says that following a company being unionized, production increases, efficiency increases and so on. How do you refute that?
Mr Lacroix: Mr Jordan, I haven't read the minister's report, and I apologize for not having done so. But the industry itself, as I mentioned in my text, has prospered over the years. It is a maturing industry right now. It is developing new markets, new production processes, and it has done so in spite of the fact that it is not a highly unionized industry.
I'm afraid I cannot give you numbers as to how many of the forms producers are unionized and which ones are not. These data are not available to us from our membership. But we do feel it would be impossible to have workers participate in a workplace environment where they would be members of a group, a union, an association of some sorts, against their will. In other words, if they want the job, they have to join a union. We do not think this is a good way of running a business. If any of my colleagues has anything else to say, I would call on them now on this question. Ray?
Mr Ray Coutu: In terms of a percentage of unionized labour in the business forms sector, it is quite similar to the printing industry in general and it hovers around the 30% mark.
Mr Jordan: You also note: "Additionally, we can expect a considerable increase in labour strife as a result of Bill 40. This has been the experience of other areas with similar legislation." Can you be more specific on that?
Mr Lacroix: In Quebec, sir, there has been an increase in labour strife and in strikes since the -- pardon the expression -- anti-scab legislation was brought into force, I believe it was in 1978. Unfortunately, I do not have the data with me right now, but I will gladly send them to the Clerk to back up our comments, if that is agreeable with the committee.
Mr Jordan: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr Ward, and then Mr Bisson if he wishes to.
Mr Ward: Then we can welcome him to the committee.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Thank you.
The Chair: That's what I was doing, in a roundabout kind of way.
Mr Bisson: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: That's just the kind of Chair I am.
Mr Ward: I'd like to thank you for your presentation. I think you represent your association well and it can be proud of the presentation that you've given today.
Part of the reason why our government feels it's important to move ahead with updating the existing labour act is, I think, that no one can argue that the workforce and workplace have changed drastically since the 1970s. In the 1970s -- I believe it was 1975 -- was the last time the act was significantly updated.
We have heard presentations both for and against Bill 40, and I think the general thrust of the bill, part of it anyway, is to suggest that if a group of employees in whatever sector, whatever industry -- if the majority of those employees make the conscious decision to say, "We feel it's necessary for whatever reason to be represented by a trade union," the intent of Bill 40 is to remove some of the obstacles which, we have heard through delegation and presentations, are in place under the current act.
You mentioned in your brief about the democracy and the democratic right of individuals etc. Would you support, if a majority of employees consciously wanted and made the decision to be represented by a trade union, that those obstacles be removed that we have heard about time and time again?
Mr Coutu: It depends on how you define "obstacles," and certainly, you know, there are always two sides to the same issue. Creating an environment where legislation will dictate what shall and shall not be done is a far cry from having employees choosing what they can or cannot do.
You brought up the point just a second ago about how long it's been since this legislation has been touched. I think the government's initiative in proposing changes to the labour act is rather timely. This whole country is faced with global competition, cheap labour. As of next year, or 16 months from now, we may have to compete with the printing industry in Mexico, and we all know what kinds of problems that may cause to the North American market.
1850
Getting back to your question, I don't think anybody disputes the fact that changes have to be made to legislation. As I said, we certainly commend the government for taking the initiative to bring this out in the open again and look at it, and this is exactly what we're doing today.
You mention obstacles that currently exist that you've heard from other groups. Perhaps you can share some of these concerns with us and we can most likely give you more specific answers to your questions.
Mr Ward: Thank you for that answer. I always try to find common ground, whether it's criticizing Bill 40 or in favour. I believe the intent of your brief is that the bill be withdrawn and reconsidered.
Three aspects of the bill -- the ability of security guards to choose a union of their choice, the restriction of petitions and the amalgamation or consolidation of full-time and part-time bargaining units -- are already in place throughout Canada. To find common ground, would you and your association support those three items that are in everywhere else in Canada and appear to be working?
Mr Lacroix: We've found in terms of some positive aspects of the bill. The just-cause provision was one of them and the other one was the provision to have within the collective agreements the consultation processes during the time of the agreement. I fail to understand the question on common ground, that the security guards can unionize, restrictions on petitions and the amalgamation of units from part-time and full-time.
Mr Ward: It's in everywhere else in Canada.
Mr Lacroix: I apologize for feeling that I don't know what the restrictions would be on petitions, for instance, in other areas of Canada. May I turn back the question and ask you, is what you are proposing similar to, the same thing as other areas of Canada?
Mr Ward: Yes, these three items are in existence throughout Canada, in every other jurisdiction.
Mr Lacroix: What are the restrictions?
Mr Ward: The ability of security guards to choose a union of their choice, restrictions on petitions and the amalgamation or consolidation of full-time and part-time bargaining units.
Mr Lacroix: I still have difficulty with the amalgamation of part-time and full-time employees. To my knowledge -- and my colleagues on the other side of me may agree with me or may stop me if I'm wrong -- there are very few part-time workers in our industry, to our knowledge.
Mr Coutu: It's not an issue.
Mr Lacroix: It's not an issue for us.
Mr Ward: It wouldn't be a concern then? If it's not an issue, it wouldn't be a concern.
Mr Lacroix: No, no, it's not an issue.
Mr Ward: Okay, good.
Mr Lacroix: As I said, the restrictions on petitions in other areas, regardless of what the other jurisdictions in Canada do in terms of this area, we feel strongly that the worker or employee should maintain the right to petition the board, as he can now, as opposed to signing something and all of a sudden finding out that he may, after considering it, say: "Well, maybe this is not right for me. I don't want this any more."
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I note that in your presentation you've gone through various aspects of the legislation.
One of the things we've been hearing throughout the hearings is that the changes lack a balance, that in any changes that have happened in terms of labour relations -- I think it was one change in 1987, it's certainly not 1975 but 1987, a variety of other pieces of legislation -- there's always been an attempt to balance the interests of both the employees and management. Now the government has come up with Bill 40, and I think there are something in the area of 32 recommendations for changes here and, the way we're seeing it, it looks like the score is 30 to nothing.
I'm wondering if you can help us out. Are there changes in here that you see would be helpful in the way you not only carry on your business but deal with your employees?
Ms Grace Streek: I'd like to answer that. I've been in this business for a number of years, in all aspects of business and in small manufacturing and relatively large manufacturing, and I've been very fortunate that I have worked for companies -- and I'm sure there are companies out there that don't treat their employees fairly -- but I have been very fortunate in working with companies that treated their employees fairly, that trained them, took them out of school. I have spent hours with staff in training programs, in help with government programs, to get these people out of school and train them into a job.
We do a salary survey in all the companies I've been with, with two companies every year, to make sure that their salaries are right. We ensure that their benefits are well taken care of and we talk to the employees: What do you want? Where are you going? Where are you coming from? Also, and particularly with the company I'm with now -- I do all the hiring -- I sit down with the individuals, I listen to them, we look at their skills, we hire them.
I have a great deal of difficulty in seeing that an employee doesn't have any rights if a union comes in. Supposing a union came into our company, then if I'm hiring an individual, and I may be getting a highly skilled individual who has been somewhere else -- in today's market there are highly skilled people out there from our industry where their previous employer has gone down or moved out of town -- he comes to us and one of the first questions that I'm always asked is, "Are you unionized?" We don't happen to be unionized, and the answer that I get most often is, "Good, because I wouldn't want to work for a union. I did it once."
Really, my feeling about life in this democratic society is that I have a choice and you have choice and I also have a right to work. I have a right to work and I have a right to ply my trade. That is my answer to your question. I feel very, very strongly about that. When a union comes in and people go on strike and I want to work because it's healthy for me, because I have the ability, because I can offer something, I don't want to be the person that has to sit at home because they're out on strike.
I work not just for myself, I work for the company, I work for my children so I can teach them what a joy it is and what satisfaction, so they can become better citizens. I'm not going to be here for ever and neither are the people I hire, so I want them to feel good about themselves and feel good about their jobs. They get satisfaction.
That's one of the concerns that really bothers me if a union should come in. The employees I have turn up every morning and do the things they're supposed to do, and do it well. If they want to be educated they can go on and be educated. We promote that: We send them off to school for further education if they want it. We cross-train them so they know more than what we can offer them if they want to go to a different company in five years. Those are my real concerns about the union coming in.
The Chair: Our time is up. I want to say thank you to the Canadian Business Forms Association for its interest and participation. You've made a valuable contribution. The committee is grateful to you. Take care.
Mr Lacroix: We thank you, Mr Chairman. In the event that you wish to have any further document from us, you have our address on our letterhead. We urge you to feel free, any of the committee members or staff, to call us. We'd be more than happy to assist you.
1900
HOTELS, CLUBS, RESTAURANTS AND TAVERNS EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL 261
The Chair: The next participant is the Hotels, Clubs, Restaurants and Taverns Employees Union. Please come forward, have a seat in front of the microphones and tell us your names and titles, if any. Your written submissions are being distributed and will be an exhibit and form part of the record. Please try to save at least the last half of the half-hour for questions and exchanges. Go ahead, gentlemen.
Mr John Kearney: My name is John Robert Kearney. I'm vice-president of the hotel employees union. Frank Grella is secretary-treasurer of the local. He's been the secretary-treasurer for over 25 years.
The hotel employees union is pleased to have this opportunity to present our views on Bill 40, in particular amendments to the successor rights protections under the act as they apply to foodservice workers.
Our local has represented workers in the hospitality and service sectors for over 35 years in Ottawa. We know at first hand the disenfranchising effect of the act's current design and operation. Hospital and service workers, who are predominantly women or from other employment equity groups, struggle daily to overcome the historical, social, political and cultural barriers which limit their employment opportunities and directly affect their willingness to consider the option of collective association.
We applaud the NDP government's leadership in addressing this issue of accessibility and in particular with respect to the inclusion of new successor rights protections for service workers in retendering or contracting-in situations. We have been lobbying for changes in this area for over 10 years and we know at first hand the devastating ramifications of the act's current shortcomings for workers and employers involved.
Over the last 15 years contracting in and retendering have been directly responsible for the loss of collective bargaining rights for more than 300 workers in our jurisdiction alone. Many of these workers had freely exercised their right to organize under the act, and within the collective bargaining process secured collective agreements which fostered effective working relationships with their employers.
Cafeteria workers make up the majority of the Ontario workers affected by this loophole in the law. Contracting in or retendering has proven to be an easy way for the users of such services to prohibit collective bargaining rights and undermine the effectiveness and benefits of the collective bargaining option throughout the industry.
The situation of foodservice retendering is unique from the other issues of accessibility addressed by Bill 40 because the amendment seeks to stop third-party interference in an employment relationship. In each of the cases we are going to review in our presentation, the employer was not the party who eliminated the workers' collective rights. Our situations, like so many others across the province, were carried out in the majority of cases by officials of the federal, provincial or municipal governments acting in the capacity of landlord, not employer.
Industry-wide, this deficiency within the act has been used to ensure that certain segments of this province's population always remain among the ranks of the working poor and always live with the fear of job loss hanging over their heads. It is also an example of how an employer who pays a fair wage under a collective bargaining relationship is actually blacklisted by his legal obligations under the act when tenders for service are called.
We strongly believe it is time to put an end to these injustices in order to eliminate workplace ghettoes and to provide protection for employees and employers who are willing to work cooperatively under the collective bargaining process.
The first case I wish to bring to your attention deals with the Transport Canada Training Institute, which used to exist in Cornwall.
In 1978, TCTI opened its door, and Modern Building Cleaning had the first contract to provide cleaning and janitorial services. At that time, we believe, the workers providing the service received a little more than the minimum wage. The contract went out for tenders shortly thereafter, and Canada's Capital Cleaning Services was the successful bidder. Fortunately, this company hired all the people who previously worked for Modern Building Cleaning, but at minimum wage.
Early in 1982, these workers decided to join a union. Subsequently, Local 261 was certified as the bargaining agent and contract proposals were submitted to Capital Cleaning Services. Almost immediately, Transport Canada decided to cancel Capital's contract, and tenders for service were called.
Modern Building Cleaning was successful but did not offer to rehire the employees, although many had worked for Modern originally. In order to get their jobs back, these workers had to maintain an information picket line for almost two weeks. They rejoined the union and Local 261 had to make a new application for certification to represent Modern's employees.
A two-year agreement was negotiated with Modern which, upon expiration in 1985, would pay an average wage of $5.10 an hour; at that time, little more than $1 over the minimum wage -- not an awful lot of money, especially for single mothers with families to support, a description which fit the majority of these workers.
Early in 1985, aware that Modern's contract with Transport Canada would finish in July, a delegation from Local 261 met with senior advisers to the Minister of Transport, Don Mazankowski. Meetings with the minister's parliamentary secretary, Michael Forrestall, and other MOT officials were also arranged by a delegation from the Canadian Labour Congress. At each of these meetings we stressed that any tender call, particularly at TCTI, should oblige the successful bidder to offer employment to those who were already performing the work and at rates equivalent to what was already in place.
On or about June 21, Local 261 was contacted by a representative of Service Star Building Cleaning. We were advised that the company was the successful bidder and that they had obtained the contract through a bid containing labour costs based on minimum wage. The company was prepared to rehire the members and recognize the union's right to representation only if the workers agreed to substantial reductions in pay, reverting back to minimum wage.
Service Star hired some of the original employees who were willing to work for $4.10 an hour. Local 261 again set up information picket lines and filed unfair labour charges against Service Star for anti-union activity. Part of the settlement of the unfair labour charges involved the rehiring of former workers, who by this time had been picketing and out of work for upwards of two months. The local was once again certified as bargaining agent.
Negotiations with Service Star commenced shortly thereafter, and throughout the process the company representatives advised Local 261 that they would not consider any proposal which would increase the labour costs beyond the original bid, minimum wage. The company tabled a final offer on the basis of minimum wage and threatened to back out of its contract with Transport Canada if the members did not accept it. The workers rejected the offer and went to the picket line despite the fear of unemployment if Service Star made good on its threat.
The members walked the line that cold and bitter winter while their employer carried on with the use of scabs and family members. After 13 weeks on the picket line and five years of fighting to have their right to collectively bargain protected, they gave up and returned to work under an individual employment contract. Local 261, however, took one last shot at trying to get these employees collective bargaining rights. The local made an application for certification under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, naming Transport Canada as co-employer. Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful. The PSSRB, the Public Service Staff Relations Board did not find that Transport Canada was a co-employer despite its ability to terminate the employment of these workers four times in five years.
For these 60 workers, the act failed to protect their right to collective association. For these workers, there was no real collective bargaining option.
During our lobbying efforts in 1985, the Labour critic for the New Democratic Party, Hamilton East MPP Bob Mackenzie, wrote to us in support of our efforts to bring this matter to the attention of the provincial government. His letter is contained in the appendix to our package. He wrote:
"When the Conservatives were the government, they were opposed to any changes that would protect such workers, and we did not get any support from the Liberals in opposition when we tried to argue with the government to change the legislation....
"In response to your comments as to whether or not the action was deliberate by the Conservatives, let me assure that it indeed was deliberate, for it was a major focus of our attack on their inadequate labour policies....
"As a result of this obvious and increasing injustice, we insisted on action...when we agreed to the two-year accord we have with the Liberals....
"We will get some action, but whether it will be adequate only time will tell. To date the Liberals have not been leaders in this fight for the lower-paid workers in the province."
No improvements were made under the Liberals even with the accord.
The workers of Ontario finally believe they have a government that is prepared to be a leader in the fight for lower-paid workers. Workers finally believe their voices will be heard by the government.
1910
Case 2, food service concessions at Lansdowne Park: In 1986, Local 261 represented 150 workers at Lansdowne Park under a collective agreement with Versa Foods. At the time of the tendering we lobbied municipal politicians to ensure that the new contractor offered job security to employees already working for Versa Food Services. The contract was awarded to Capital Food Services by the municipality without such protections being a condition, and many of the workers lost their jobs, or were forced to accept lower wages and benefits in the face of unemployment. Many of these workers had long service at Lansdowne and were getting on in years. None could afford to have their incomes reduced or to become unemployed.
At the time, the Capital ward alderman, Rob Quinn, said the contract was awarded to Capital Food Services simply because the contract came due and Versa was underbid. Under the deal with Capital Food Services, the city was to receive almost $1 million more than under the Versa bid. Unfortunately, we believe the so-called windfall for this city was at the expense of the Versa workers and their bargaining rights.
Why was the contract tendered? Was it quality of food or service? We believe it was simply wage-benefit cost to the caterers. Capital was bidding for minimum wage, Versa for the collective bargaining rates. Versa and their workers were, in our opinion, being blacklisted for participating in the collective bargaining process. The employees' decision to exercise their right to collectively bargain effectively put them out of work, and the municipal government would not help.
Case 3, Confederation Heights complex: In 1991, Local 261 represented workers at the cafeterias of the Confederation Heights complex. These workers were working under an agreement we had negotiated with Canada Catering over almost 20 years.
The RA Centre put the services out for tender, and Canada Catering was undercut by another company in the bidding process. All the employees were offered employment by the new caterer, and some accepted, although it meant significant reduction in pay, loss of accumulated holidays, benefits and seniority. The remaining employees were either transferred by Canada Catering or terminated.
In effect the RA Centre, working as a representative of Public Works, terminated these employees, in our opinion. Once again, representatives from the union lobbied the government officials to protect the jobs of these workers through tender conditions. We were once again unsuccessful. Local 261, however, has since been certified to represent the employees of these cafeterias under the new caterer.
The workers affected by this retendering were left wondering whether they had a job and whether it was worth the struggle over the years to improve their working conditions. These new members also live with the same fears under the current law and their newly negotiated agreement.
How do you explain to Mirette Ladouceur, who has worked in the cafeteria since 1970, that the rights and benefits she has won may be taken away by the government of Canada? How do you tell an employee with 20 years' seniority and a few years to retirement that the government just put her out of work?
How do you convince these workers, or any other cafeteria worker, in a government facility or otherwise, that they really have a right to join a union and to collectively improve their working conditions? How do you justify to the caterer, who has cooperatively entered into collective bargaining with his employees and agrees to pay fair wages, that he should continue to do so, even though he may lose his operation after 20 years and not be able to even compete because of his legal obligations under the act? Where is the legislative protection and incentive for these food service workers to choose the collective bargaining option or for employers to enter into cooperative partnerships with their employees? Very simply, under the current law, there is none.
The economic impact of successors' rights amendments is quite simple: The amendments would reduce the ability of owners to reduce costs and contractors to compete simply by lowering wage and benefit costs. Productivity, food quality and service would now be factors upon which contractors would compete and contracts awarded. Vulnerable employees would benefit from the important protection against job loss and wage cuts, employers' severance liabilities would be substantially reduced, clients would receive improved quality and service for their money and caterers who work cooperatively with their employees in collective bargaining would no longer be blacklisted in the tendering process.
Do we, the people of Ontario, really want a business environment which competes on the basis of how far employers can exploit their workers, rather than the quality of products they can produce? We are dealing for the most part with facilities owned by the people of Canada. Should we not ensure that such workplaces are a model for other employers, rather than a ghetto for the working poor?
The business community has launched a serious campaign against Bill 40 on the basis that all the amendments contained in the bill are pro-union and anti-business. We fail to see how they logically consider these amendments to the successor rights language to be anti-business. Employers and employees win in the retendering situation with these proposed successor rights protections. Perhaps this is symptomatic of all businesses claims about the proposed amendments. Certainly their doom-and-gloom prophecies fail to recognize the success of the many employers in the province who have entered into partnerships with their employees through the collective bargaining process and "survived."
In each of the cases we presented today, the legal framework of the act failed to promote and protect collective bargaining rights. Efforts to seek administrative solutions or negotiate terms to protect these workers have proven unsuccessful over the years, despite the valiant efforts of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to find such protections in the existing framework. Legislative amendments are necessary to permit the board to deal with these unjust situations and to promote collective bargaining. We therefore strongly urge the government to enact all of the amendments contained in Bill 40, in particular those pertaining to contracting in and retendering of service contracts.
Labour law amendments are necessary in Ontario if we are going to successfully promote collective bargaining as a viable option for our service sector workers and if we hope to capitalize economically on the benefits of improved workplace standards.
In closing, we feel compelled to make one final comment on the business community's "threat" that the enactment of Bill 40 will result in job loss in the province as investors run from the hostile, union-dominated workplaces which would suddenly appear en masse in the province.
The proposals speak to increasing the access of workers currently disfranchised from the collective bargaining option. The amendments will not open the floodgates of union representations. Workers will still be left to make their own choice, but now many will have a real choice for the first time. If anything, we believe the legislative amendments will send a clear message to future prospective investors that Ontario wants to be competitive and attract investment, but not at the expense of our most valuable resource, the workers of this province. We expect responsible employers willing to make an investment in our economy and our workers.
The lack of support shown by the business community for even the successor rights amendments in retendering situations reveals, we believe, the kind of employment relationships and working conditions they want to see in Ontario's future. If this is the kind of investment we are going to get in Ontario, then our workers will need all the protection they can get in the years to come.
Finally, we wish to emphasize to the committee our full and complete support of the amendments contained in Bill 40 and we ask that you act as speedily as possible to allow the government to bring the workers of Ontario what they have for so long been denied. Most Ontarians may not understand the legal technicalities of the proposals, but they can easily understand that workers should have the right to freely choose for themselves whether they wish to negotiate the terms of their employment individually or collectively. They also understand that if a right to choose exists by law, that right should also be protected. Legislative changes designed to ensure the accessibility and protections of such rights for all workers, therefore, are also easily understood by every Ontario resident because it is an inherent part of our rights and freedoms as citizens and workers within a democratic society.
We thank you for your time and for your efforts to protect the rights of all workers in Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. Three and a half minutes per caucus. Ms Murdock, please.
Ms Murdock: Thank you very much. It's interesting to see so much time and such succinctness in stating only one portion of the bill. When we first got elected I was being briefed early in my career in the Ministry of Labour by Mr Dean; as a matter of fact, this issue has been on the plate of the Ministry of Labour for a long, long time.
I know that for a while, they had tenuous agreements between the parties because, as you stated, and I think it needs to be restated, the board itself has recognized that when women in particular have worked for 20 or 30 years doing cafeteria or cleaning work in office buildings and a new boss comes in, they have to start all over again each and every time in terms of seniority or pension rights or anything like that.
In your second case or your first case -- it doesn't matter -- are they all women or are some not?
Mr Kearney: In the bargaining units we represent, I'd say at least 90% of them are women. In the circumstance of the Cornwall situation, 90% were women. I think there were a couple of janitors who were male. In the situation of Lansdowne Park, there was a lower percentage of females; it was about half and half. In the Canada Catering situation, there were three men out of 20 or so who ran the cafeteria.
Mr Bisson: Just a quick question. In your brief you talk about the practice of retendered contracts, with the employer basically undercutting the other contractors' bid by undercutting wages. How often do you see that within the industry? I know I've seen it once before.
Mr Kearney: All the time. All the circumstances of retendering we've encountered -- and we've discussed this with the individual caterers who have been involved and who have cooperated in the collective bargaining process and those who haven't been cooperative -- all end up in the same situation. When the tendering goes out, it's not so much a question of food quality and service, it's a question of what the bottom-line cost is and how much the government, the landlord or whoever can make from it. If your labour costs are based on minimum wage, you're automatically going to get a bigger profit margin; if your labour costs are based on the collective agreement rate, you're not going to have that ability to make the bid.
Mr Bisson: But if there were 10 contracts out there, from what you see, of those 10 contracts how often would that happen? Once, twice, 10 times?
Mr Kearney: In each of the circumstances in the units we've represented where retendering has taken place. It's happening on every occasion.
Mr Bisson: I wish you luck with that, because I know it's happened; I've seen it within my riding. It happens, but I wasn't aware it was of the magnitude you're talking about.
Ms Murdock: Some of the employers themselves see the injustice and have been working. In the ministry, this has been an ongoing consultation, so those sections of these amendments have come from all parties working together to get the language worked out. I wanted to get that on the record because I know the previous presenters made remarks about that and in relation to the contract tendering restrictions.
The Chair: And it's on the record now.
1920
Mr McGuinty: Thank you both for your presentation. I find it difficult to argue with a lot of the points you have raised. It seems to me it's only fair that there be some extension of the successor rights in order to ensure that any successor employer effectively steps into the shoes of the previous employer.
But I wanted to lead you into something else. Because you strike me as not a radical type in terms of the position you're taking on this, I want you to assume for a moment that you're the Minister of Labour and you are concerned with the state of labour-management relations in Ontario. I don't believe the process we are engaged in or which has led to the genesis of Bill 40 is in any way going to bring about some kind of rapprochement and any improvement in those relations, but what can we do now? Let us assume this is going to become law. What can we do to bring about some kind of improvement in those relations?
Mr Kearney: My experience is limited in the area, but if I were in the shoes of the minister, I think I would proceed with Bill 40 in the first place. I think the big thing that would have to be addressed is to deal with the lack of input the management representatives have put into the process up until this point. Until the scare tactics and the propaganda got started, the representatives of management, in their response to the government's package, basically had the same response to everything, including the successor rights language: "It's too complicated. We can't deal with it in the short time we've got. We'd better think about it." But after 15 years, everybody should have known what was going on.
Given management's approach now, I don't think it's a matter that if the labour legislation is implemented there's going to be a great deal of hostility created by it. There's going to be an adjustment period, as there always is when there's any labour law amendment, but I think the parties will get back into the mesh of what they were normally doing. Instead of spouting political rhetoric about the labour law amendments and the ramifications for the province, everybody will get back down to business.
It's a matter of making sure that the introduction of those amendments is smooth and effective and that everybody's involved in an educational aspect in terms of learning what they are, because I think there's been a lot of misconceptions and a lot of misinformation produced on management's side as to what was contained in the documents. I think once it gets down to practicalities, it will be resolved.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I must say, the area you've addressed and how you've addressed it has highlighted in a very clear way some of the areas we've been dealing with since the beginning of this hearings process.
I have just two questions for you. From your experience, do you expect that this might result in a loss of employment for employees in a tendering bid? It's clear they can get the same benefits, but it's also clear under the legislation that they actually don't have to get a position; it must go by seniority. I'd like to get a sense from you whether there is a concern that the way the provisions are styled may inadvertently result in those employees, or some of those employees, losing jobs.
Second, we have heard -- I'm not certain exactly where -- on this one area that there is a difference where, for instance, a school board has contracted out and now is going to provide the services in-house. I heard some concern, and I apologize, I haven't particularly clearly indicated what the concern is, except that there was a concern about an employer moving from a contract-out situation to an in-house type of provision. I'm wondering if there is some issue there that we should be aware of.
Mr Kearney: In response to your first question, unfortunately the potential for loss of employment will depend upon the government's offices and officials and departments who are going to be determining the tendering process, and will depend upon the employers who are going to put those processes out. Surely, if there's a way to reduce costs in terms of labour, wages and benefits, some employers will manipulate the circumstances to capitalize on that in terms of giving themselves a better bid.
But in terms of the caterers we've dealt with, I can't see those circumstances taking place, although there have been some political concerns raised by other people that in certain tendering processes it may be a factor in the loss of employment. So there is a possibility, there is no doubt. There is a possibility with respect to that in any circumstance, no matter what the protections are.
The speaker beforehand reiterated the fact that he was shocked we were talking about people having rights in this province and the independent people didn't want them. Well, we've gone well beyond that since the introduction of the Ontario Labour Relations Act long ago, but we're still talking about it today. So that issue may be a possibility.
With respect to your second area, I guess it again will depend upon employers and whether or not they feel any responsibility, moral or otherwise, to hire the people who may be from outside contractor situations.
If we're dealing in the circumstance of your situation, of an educational facility which is funded by the province and the people of this province, we would assume it would take on a responsible hiring practice and try to offer employment to those people who are outside the organization who would now be losing their employment because of the inside work situation. So hopefully, that wouldn't be the case.
The Chair: I want to thank you, gentlemen, for coming here on behalf of the Hotels, Clubs, Restaurants and Taverns Employees Union. You've raised some interesting points. It's my hope that the government of Ontario, in terms of its hiring practices, would take heed of what you've said this evening and recognize the issues involved, not just the government and the Ministry of Government Services but all the ministries and agencies, many of whom are -- well, perhaps I've said enough.
I want to thank you very kindly. We appreciate your contribution here and we're grateful for you coming. Take care, people.
ONTARIO CONFEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY FACULTY ASSOCIATIONS
The Chair: The next participant is the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations. Please, sir, have a seat, tell us your name, your title, if any, and tell us what you will. We have your written submissions. Go ahead.
Dr Saul Ross: My name is Saul Ross. The title is either "professor" or "doctor"; suit yourself, whatever you wish. You have the written submission. It was mailed directly from Toronto. It is brief. I hope in one sense it means that we will not need the entire half-hour so at least the members of the committee can get a short break at this point.
The Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations -- the acronym is OCUFA, and we're known as that -- commends the government of Ontario on the amendments to the labour relations and employment statutes contained in Bill 40.
OCUFA is the organization that represents some 12,000 members of the teaching, research and professional library staff of all Ontario's degree-granting institutions. We vigorously support the initiatives undertaken by the government to harmonize industrial relations and to facilitate access to collective bargaining by the working people of the province.
We appear before you today to bring to your attention a major concern we have regarding the way in which the amendments to Bill 40 will affect the academic staff in Ontario universities. In particular, section 32, amending section 73 of the act, with respect to the use of replacement workers during a strike or lockout, raises problems for striking or locked-out academic staff members who are involved in particular kinds of research. Such research, for example, and this is only a small indication of the range, may involve animals, plants or other live subjects, or it may involve such activities as observing or recording changing temperatures in metals or other substances at standard intervals.
The majority of the academic staff has a responsibility to do research. Performing both teaching and research in fact distinguishes university professors from other kinds of teachers. Much of this research is carried out in the workplace itself, and some of it, such as that described above, requires that the researcher or his or her staff attend to the needs of the research at particular times.
If the workplace is not accessible to the researcher because of a strike or a lockout, there could be dire consequences. The researcher is responsible for ensuring the life, health and safety of research subjects. If a university were to lock out researchers involved in research using live subjects and did not make provisions for the protection of the live subjects, the researcher would have no recourse under the statute as amended. Even when there is no threat to live subjects, if the workplace is not accessible to the researcher because of a strike or lockout, years worth of work, even a lifetime of work, can be wasted and one's academic career destroyed.
1930
Much of this research is funded by external organizations and agencies, which may be governmental, private foundations or industry. The researcher has a responsibility towards the funder as well as towards the university as employer, and thus has dual accountability. Researchers then have a unique problem. Since the raison d'être of their research is to further knowledge in their respective fields, they are the experts with respect to those fields. University administrators cannot and should not judge what does and does not need to be done and when.
This is, then, the core of the problem for research workers in universities. The conditions under which the employer may request to use replacement workers, as outlined in section 73.2, do not include the protection for research. This situation must be changed so that researchers may protect research and the new knowledge flowing from it.
Equally problematic is the process by which the decisions are made to protect that research. The amendments provide for a process wherein only the employer may request the use of replacement workers from the union to carry out the "vitally needed services" specified in section 73.2. There is no process by which the union may request to provide bargaining unit employees or replacement workers for these tasks. The implicit assumption is that only the employer has a vested interest in assuring that essential services are provided for.
In the case of academic research, union members are far better able to determine the need for continuation of services than is the employer. We would argue, therefore, that unions be able to initiate the request for replacement workers and be given the same emergency powers reserved in the current amendments for employers. It is also vital that the labour board be given clear, specific direction about the circumstances necessary to protect research and that strict time limits be set within which the board must rule.
We are concerned that research in Ontario universities could be jeopardized by the amendments to the act. Vital, basic and applied research could in fact be put in danger during a strike or lockout if researchers cannot gain access to their laboratories or other research sites within the university. The mere threat that one's life work could be put in jeopardy if one voted to strike over one's terms and conditions of employment could intimidate researchers and cause them to compromise other vital workplace conditions.
Researchers who are members of non-certified bargaining units may well decide not to support certification because of fears of losing control over decision-making that affects their research. The amendments need modification to address these serious concerns.
Mr Daigeler: It's nice, Dr Ross, to see you for a change here in Ottawa, rather than down in Toronto, on a different topic this time around. For those who don't know, Dr Ross is the new president of OCUFA, and being the critic for Colleges and Universities, we have other dealings as well.
I think, Dr Ross, you are making some very excellent points in your brief and it would seem to me that you're making some points that I'm not sure you really want to support. I get the impression, in fact a very strong feeling, that the arguments that you're putting forward for your particular group are just as valid and hold just as true, and I think you're right, for may other people who have a life investment in their business enterprise and for whom the threat of a total lockout could mean a terrible loss of their life investment.
The situation that you are describing for researchers I can certainly empathize with it, but how do you see that being different from any other employer, or even workers for that matter, who may be threatened in employment if the business goes down because the business can no longer continue under the conditions that may prevail through these labour reforms? Why would the group that you represent here be different from any other one in the labour field? You're saying at the very beginning that you very much support the intentions of the government, but you would like to have a special case for yourself.
Dr Ross: Yes.
Mr Daigeler: I must say, I have some difficulty with that.
Dr Ross: Let me start by explaining that I think there is a significant difference between what happens in a university and what happens outside in a commercial enterprise. The goal of the commercial enterprise is profit and I would hope that, given either a strike or a lockout, where there is a real, serious threat of the termination of that enterprise, good sense would prevail so that we would avoid the drastic scene that you painted.
The goal of the research in universities is not profit-motivated. The motivation is the advancement and enhancement of knowledge and it seems to me that everybody has a vested interest in ensuring that this kind of activity, which at base is going to provide the foundation for the advancement of the people of this province, is not interfered with.
Mr Daigeler: I must say I do take considerable issue with what you're just saying there, because it strikes me as quite élitist. Let me say why. I certainly do not consider the work of employers and the workers who contribute to the profits of this province and to the wellbeing of the economy of this province any less valuable -- I'm the critic for Colleges and Universities and I certainly support research, but I do not in any way, shape or form put the research that's being done at the universities, as important as it is, on a higher level, morally or otherwise, than the work that's being done by our employers and our workers in the province.
1940
I don't think you can argue on that basis, because research might be more important than the profits that are being made that support this province economically and that pay the taxes which provide the public services in this province. I don't think you can argue, on that basis, that the research should be exempted from the provisions of this law.
Dr Ross: No, what we are arguing is that where research is involved, where certain subjects are being manipulated by the research, things like plants, animals etc, they have to be looked after. Whether there is a strike or a lockout, that provision has to be made to allow for that to continue --
Mr Daigeler: I agree with you there.
Dr Ross: -- the ordinary, ongoing research where there are no live subjects involved, where there's nothing of that nature that is going to die or explode or something like that.
For example, my area of research is philosophy of sport. If my university were to lock me out or if my faculty association, which is a certified union, would vote to go on strike and I would be on strike and my research would stop, I would make no representation to go and continue research. My colleague down the hall from me who has 50 or 100 white mice, another colleague who looks after a greenhouse, because the research is done on insects or plants etc, access must be allowed to those. That is the point we are making.
Mr Daigeler: I certainly appreciate it and I support that point. However, where I disagree with you, or we seem to come from different angles, I don't see the difference in that argument with the just-in-time presentations, for example, that we've received from the automobile sector where they say, "If we don't provide these particular parts to the next plant we have lost the whole contract, and the whole company goes down the drain." I don't see the substantial difference in the argument you're making versus presentations we've received from others.
Dr Ross: Then allow me to try to clarify, please. I am not arguing for the continuation of all research if there's a strike or lockout. What I am saying is that as the amendments now read, the provision for looking after indigent people, for looking after people who cannot look after themselves, there is an allowance made for those kinds of emergency interventions.
As it reads, we do not believe that this applies to non-human, live entities. In the university, considerable research is done on non-human, live beings, and we must insist that this category be included as well so that we could have access to ensure that these things don't die.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Offer and then Mr McGuinty.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. You've brought forward another new wrinkle in this legislation.
It seems there are two areas. The first is the area you've spoken about, where the process in the area of an exception to the prohibition firstly, is not there. Secondly, you're saying it's too narrow as far as what you are doing is concerned.
There's another area which I think is probably more fundamental, and that is a grinding of principles here: Section 75 of the Labour Relations Act -- not of the bill, but of the act -- allows an employee during a strike, for reasons only known to the employee, to return to work and makes it obligatory for the employer to get that person back. This bill has repealed that right of an employee.
My question is, do you believe that if that were brought back into the act, as it now is and has been the law of the land for many years, that could deal with the issue you've brought forward?
Dr Ross: Before I could offer a definite answer, I would have to look at that section in the act. But it seems to me, whether we use that section of the act or whether we modify the amendments at present, there needs to be a recognition that there are live subjects other than human beings that need our attention. It just so happens the university is a repository, it is the location where much of this takes place, rather than other institutions. So that has to be accounted for.
Mr McGuinty: Dr Ross, I can appreciate the concerns you have raised, and you have raised those on behalf of the research component which is found at the university level. I want to talk to you about the teaching aspect, though, and I think that if there were university students here this evening, they might be concerned that you were advancing arguments on behalf of the researchers and not on behalf of the teachers. I think students who have paid their tuition fees would be concerned about your association not speaking out for the rights of students to attend classes, especially after they've paid for them.
I'm wondering if you have any position on this, or am I to take it simply that, no, you consider it acceptable that if there's a strike, classes are shut down? That's the end of it, notwithstanding the rights of students.
Dr Ross: It seems to me that any time there's a strike or a lockout somebody's rights are being trampled on in one sense or another. From that point of view, whatever situation we have, somebody's rights are being shortchanged. It seems to me, if I can extend this just a little further, that in effect what the great debate that is being conducted now is really about on all of the amendments on this entire act, Bill 40, is a question of, in one sense, a rearranging or a shifting of various rights.
It seems to me that somewhere along the way we have to accommodate or we have to begin to believe that there are times when certain people have to stand up and be counted, and if standing up and being counted means that other people's rights are being shortchanged at the time, maybe that's what has to happen.
To answer your question directly, and here I think I'm on reasonably solid ground, the largest part of the debate that is carried on before university professors go on strike is the concern about students not having access to the educational process. We have had very few strikes and very few lockouts in universities in Ontario, and to a large extent that is because of the wholehearted commitment of university faculty to the teaching and research process and its concern for its students. So if you have a situation where there is a vote to go on strike, it is with full knowledge that students are being shortchanged. But you can be absolutely certain that the motivation, the provocation has been because the rights of the faculty members have been seriously infringed upon.
Mr Villeneuve: Thank you, Dr Ross, for being here. I think you make a very valid point and I'm going to suggest to you that it should be extended now. It should be extended to food and agricultural producers. There is a task force report that has been presented to the Minister of Labour regarding an exemption for agricultural workers and for food producers. I've questioned the minister in the House on a number of occasions and his reply was ambiguous at best and appeared to be favouring the inclusion of food producers and of agriculture in general. I think you make a very articulate argument for an exemption for the research group, and they're very important, although very minimal in number, I guess.
1950
Could you comment on the exclusion of food producers, including the looking after and feeding of livestock, production of crops, which is very seasonal, and what suggested solutions you might have on that?
Dr Ross: That's a real tough question. I am not familiar with that industry at all, but it seems to me, once again, we're talking about two aspects at least. Where animals are involved, I think there is general consensus that we ought to treat them as humanely as possible. Certainly, if there is a strike or lockout that would create such dire conditions that it would inflict pain and suffering on animals, then there needs to be provision made so that they be treated humanely.
In terms of the agricultural aspect, and I fully appreciate the fact that in many cases it's a very short growing season and if the crop isn't harvested and marketed there can be dire financial consequences, once again I'm not in a position to offer much of a suggestion unless I have some time to study it.
It also seems to me that we as a society and we as a government -- you, the government -- need to make a decision about what is a vital service. We state that our policemen cannot go on strike, our firemen cannot go on strike. There is a whole range of individuals that we prohibit from striking because that is considered a vital service.
If we deem agriculture to be a vital service, the provision of basic food for us, then there has to be an exemption. If we deem agriculture not to be a vital service, because we can obtain food elsewhere -- but this is another area where there is a continual relationship between employer and employee -- then we don't grant an exemption.
I'm sorry, I can't answer any more fully because this has not occurred to me until you raised it.
Mr Villeneuve: It's been suggested in the agricultural task force report that people involved in that particular industry could not have the right to strike nor could they be locked out by their employer, and binding arbitration would therefore follow. Could you comment on what you have seen of binding arbitration settlements in the last five or 10 years?
Dr Ross: Most of my knowledge revolves around the university and we haven't had too many settlements involving binding arbitration. It seems to me that the major drawback with binding arbitration is that neither the employer nor the employee owns that decision and so, while it may bring peace, it may also be the seed of future discontent for both sides.
Mr Villeneuve: I think you hit the nail right on the head there. I put it to a very articulate union representative of the Steelworkers last night and I used the example of an arbitrary settlement for the firefighters in the city of Cornwall, where retroactively, in an economy that is devastated, they were granted a 13.25% increase. This very articulate Steelworkers' representative said that indeed, if that were too high, in his opinion, he'd recommend that maybe his union should take less.
I've never heard that before. I thought that was an interesting prospect. I don't think it's a real-world situation. But these are some of the problems that binding arbitration will bring forth and by forcing it on people I think we're creating an atmosphere that may not be tolerable. Could you comment on that?
Dr Ross: I go back to what I said before, that if you impose things on people, then in effect they do not feel a sense of responsibility and ownership, and where people can negotiate and settle things between themselves, then they have a built-in sense of responsibility because they're a part-owner of that decision. So far better to have that settled through negotiation than imposed.
Mr Villeneuve: I appreciate that and this is my final comment --
The Chair: No, Mr Villeneuve, we've got to move on because we've used up a whole lot of time. Mr Bisson will be angry at you for using his time and we wouldn't want that to happen. Go ahead, sir.
Mr Bisson: I'm just going to keep it really short, just to clarify something here just very quickly. Your tenure is based on the research that you do within the university, I would imagine.
Dr Ross: Yes. Well, it could go outside.
Mr Bisson: Yes, I know, that's why I raise it, but generally that's the way it works. Now, the research itself is the property of the university, not the researcher, right?
Dr Ross: In most cases, the agreement is between the granting agency and the university, with the faculty member or the professor actually conducting the research.
Mr Bisson: Who actually owns it in the end if it brings fruit? I would imagine it's the university. I don't want to get into that debate, but normally it would be the property of the university, from what I know of the system.
Dr Ross: It depends on what you mean by "brings fruit," because if I conduct research that's funded, what I publish is, I guess, the joint ownership of me and my university.
Mr Bisson: So the university is implicated in the ownership.
Dr Ross: Well, I don't know of any granting agency that would direct the money to the professor.
Mr Bisson: I see what you're getting at, but I'm asking the question for a reason. Let's hypothetically set out to settle the situation. There's a legal strike that goes on, the professors feel there's a really outstanding issue they can't accept and they go out on the picket line. What you're advocating is not for the researcher to go in eight hours a day and do normal work; what you're talking about is to go in and make sure the rats are fed.
Dr Ross: Yes.
Mr Bisson: To make sure the experiment you have going on is -- there are measurements or something that have to be taken. You're not talking about complete workdays.
Dr Ross: No, no.
Mr Bisson: I'll just get to the point. When you went through your presentation, I was thinking of what I understand as section 73.2. Let me just read subsection 73.2(3) very quickly:
"Despite section 73.1, specified replacement workers may also be used in the circumstances described in this section to perform work" -- and it goes on to explain one of them as "danger to life."
If that's animal, I don't see why it would be any different between animal or person. So as far as the animals are concerned, I would see them being covered under that particular part of the act. Would you agree?
Dr Ross: When we read it, the preceding section talked about human beings.
Mr Bisson: Oh, I see what you're saying.
Dr Ross: It seemed to us that everything that follows thereafter continues to apply to human beings. If your interpretation is the correct one, then we don't have to make the submission, other than to request that the wording be such as to indicate clearly that it is not limited only to human beings.
Mr Bisson: Okay. That's fair. Clause (b) of that same subsection says, "the destruction or serious deterioration of machinery, equipment or premises." That covers somewhat the research itself, the material itself. What you're saying is that it has to say it a little bit more clearly.
Dr Ross: Yes. It doesn't give us enough comfort. If it specifies these kinds of things, as we have indicated in our brief, then we know there is no discussion or debate between the professor and the administration. It's covered in the statute.
Mr Bisson: I have just one other thing and then I'll go to my colleague. When you made the presentation, I took a look at it. The way I read it, the way the act is set out, subsection 73.2(3) is separate from subsection (2) when we're talking about life. Are you are aware of subsection 73.2(15)? I'm going to let my colleague deal with that, because from what I can see in the act, there are provisions to deal with your situation.
Ms Murdock: If I could direct your mind to page 27 of Bill 40, subsection (15):
"Agreement re specified replacement workers
"The employer and the trade union may enter into an agreement governing the use, in the event of a strike or lockout, of striking or locked-out employees and of specified replacement workers to perform the work described in subsection (2) or (3)."
That could be negotiated between you and the university during the life of the contract. As research changed, you could do that, or during the collective bargaining process itself, rather than waiting until a strike occurs and doing it then. Have you looked at that section in relation to research?
Dr Ross: We've looked at that section, but we may envisage a really recalcitrant administration. We may face an administration that says, "Yes, the legislation says: `We may enter into an agreement.' We're not going to, because we don't think this is important or necessary."
2000
Ms Murdock: That's actually fairly interesting. I know I asked a somewhat similar question, although I didn't cite the subsection, to the children's aid society in terms of getting its employers to agree to whether a lawyer would be considered a specified replacement worker, say, in a child abuse case where they had to go to court in a small CAS office, and actually the answer was almost identical.
I can understand, and certainly I have lived through strikes in my lifetime where, during the strike or towards the end of the negotiation where a strike seems to be inevitable, tempers are running and feelings and emotions are really tight and, as you say, an employer might be a little or the union might be very temperamental in making some kind of cooperative or consensual decision.
But that isn't the case all through the life of the contract. Usually, particularly at the university level, where during the collective negotiations, the bargaining process or the life the contract or the collective agreement, as your research changes -- it doesn't stay the same year after year necessarily -- it could be done when emotions are not running high, and in this instance it's in the best interests of the employer, who gets prestige from your research and its value as a university increases. It's in its best interests, would you not agree, to work out a deal with you -- say you were working with plants or animals -- that you would be a specified replacement worker?
Dr Ross: I'm glad you point this out to me, and we will make certain that this information is conveyed to all the faculty associations, with the advice that they look to this particular subsection and include it in the collective agreement, because the collective agreements that I have seen invariably don't have it. My concern here is, whatever mechanism is used, that we protect life, whether it means some minor rewording or we have to do more work or both.
Ms Murdock: Wendy Jarvis says to say hi. She was in my office.
The Chair: She did. Mr Bisson.
Mr Bisson: This is a suggestion just to take back to your membership. One of the things that possibly can be done is, as new research is coming on line, part of the contract you sign includes subsection 73.2(15), and that would sort of get around the problem, because I agree with part of what Mr Daigeler said. There is some danger in making it wide open. It allows for you to deal with it on a specific basis.
The Chair: Professor, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee. You have raised some issues which had not been raised before, which clearly have attracted attention to the sections of the bill that you've referred to and that may well, as they should, result in constructive amendments being brought. I trust that you'll keep in touch with the committee's work and see whether indeed your contribution has fostered that type of thing.
Dr Ross: Thank you again for the opportunity. I wish the whole committee good luck in wrestling with this difficult issue.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. You can wish us good luck twice, if you wish.
RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION
The Chair: The next participant is the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. People, please be seated in front of a mike. Tell us your names, your titles, if any. Proceed with your submission. Try to save time, at least the last half of the half-hour, for discussions and exchanges.
Mr Tom Collins: Tom Collins, Canadian director of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, and with me is James Donnelly, international representative in the Ottawa district area.
Mr Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee and to review, in some part, our position on some of the reforms and amendments to the act. I want to say from the outset that the document you have in front of you goes through, in some detail, some of the sections that we are concerned about, with a lot of illustrations of where these particular amendments are and where they might be strengthened, based upon our experience in the field that we are in. I'm not going to read the document. I'm just going to talk directly to some illustrations of what has gone on in the labour movement and what has gone on in the service sector.
We represent some 20,000 members in Ontario, most of whom are in the retail industry, in grocery stores, department stores, warehousing, drugstores, taxicabs and all those areas of the service industry. It is from that experience that we bring to you something that is very personal to our membership. Our membership has lived through the law as it presently stands.
In reading a newspaper today, the Financial Post, I want to illustrate out front what's really involved in this reform of the act. There are some comments by someone who has been in front of this committee, that is, David Posluns, the chief financial officer of Dylex, the largest clothing retailer. His comments, if they are quoted properly, are: "Posluns said Dylex's stance is not about whether unions are good or bad, but he made it clear unions have no place in the retailing sector."
Now that is strange and that is funny because the law as it is presently comprised says that the decision whether you join a union or not belongs to the employees. I think what we are specifically talking about in amendments to the act is the right to organize or not to organize, and the opposition is there for one purpose, that is, to provide deterrents to free collective bargaining and deterrents to the right of many women, minorities and new Canadians we represent to have the right to collective bargaining in a modern-day Ontario.
I want to say to you that I don't believe the labour movement, the trade unions, gave up their birthright, the right to organize people, when you created the Ontario Labour Relations Act. We have spent the last 15 years, by lawyers and by firms, trying to get around what is the principle of the law, that is, that these people should be free to make these decisions in a proper process, a due process and an efficient process.
I want to say as well -- and you'll note in this document and I want to point out to you specifically -- that one of the areas attention has been paid to is the question of a purpose to this act. You'll see some yellow pages in the middle. If you take the first one of those, you will see that this is an internal document of the Hudson Bay retail company. It's an internal document that comes out of the human resources department for that entire retail operation which includes the Bay, Simpsons, Zellers, Fields: "The Bay Ontario Union Avoidance Action Plan."
This is what we're dealing with. We're dealing with the interference with the free right of employees in the retail industry to join a union. You'll find in here things like instructions to managers to isolate employees if they think there's a union around, to put them all on one shift, and many other instances to create a retail environment against the free rights of those employees. This is an actual, true document that can be traced back, and we have confronted the Bay company with this -- effectively a declaration of war against its employees.
From that, I say to you that we have a lot of experience and I want to lead by example as to why some of the amendments are necessary and where we think they're deficient in some small ways.
We were involved in the attempt to organize the T. Eaton Co. In six stores we had majorities of employees decide and sign cards in the range of 75% to 80% of every one of those stores. Those people then went through a process of trying to negotiate a collective agreement where, up until the day that they struck, the employer refused to put any wages in the collective agreement, refused to put even the most basic things in that collective agreement. Those people were forced to go out on strike and that company then hired in excess of 500 strikebreakers within the confines of those stores to operate during the strike.
At the six-month point under the law -- and we're happy to see there is a proposal on this matter -- where beyond that their jobs were not protected, we had petitions from the scabs and the strikebreakers to have another vote on the company's last offer for the sole purpose of keeping those people out on strike and losing their jobs and being replaced by the strikebreakers.
I want to point out to you that through that entire process we were not able to have first-contract arbitration because it did not exist and at the very end of that process, after some two years in front of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, when decertifications came forward from the strikebreakers, the number of employees who voted for the union was still in excess of the number who were on the picket line. Now that was a dishonest process and one, we believe, that is partially corrected by some of the amendments to the act here.
2010
I want to say to you further and by example that the question of first-contract arbitration in its present form does not do the job where there is a complete impasse. We have decisions as of this week where we have organized four Brick stores in southern Ontario in which the board is saying we do not have access to first-contract arbitration even where the employer will not put in the commission structure, the commission rates or anything in the collective agreement and will leave it to the unilateral decision of the employer to make a decision as to whether they get 1% or zero or 5%. In effect it dilutes the entire process of collective bargaining.
We have other examples of areas of these reforms, such as the taxicab industry. A year ago June, and for a year prior to that, we were organizing the taxicab drivers in the city of Toronto. That process lasted about a year. We made an application for 5,000 taxicab drivers in the city of Toronto -- which is no small job -- from the eight largest companies before the OLRB. We went through the process. We were then given the employee lists the employer had. Those employee lists included people who were dead. They included the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team. Someone said to me earlier today, "Are they the same thing as the people who are dead?"
The point is that there were several thousand people on those lists who did not exist as cab drivers in the city of Toronto, but even in the presence of some applications where we had in excess of 55%, we were forced by the time delays and the time constraints to conduct a vote of all those cab drivers in the city of Toronto. Those ballots have never been counted to this day.
We have since spent 14 months and 25 days of hearings in front of the labour relations board arguing with employers who say that taxicab drivers do not have the right to join a union in the province of Ontario. That decision was made in our union in Hamilton, in Ottawa, in Oshawa and in Peterborough, but we are going over the same ground and those taxicab drivers have not had the right to free collective bargaining or even to have those votes counted for a period to date of 14 months.
We went through the same exercise in the city of Hamilton with the Yellow Cab company. We were three years in front of the labour relations board arguing over whether they had the simple right to join a union. And what happened? After three years in front of that board, the OLRB threw up its hands and said -- and this was because of the lists -- "We'll accept the union's list because we're never going to make hide nor hair of what the employer's doing."
I say to you that in the current form of the amendments, one of the absences that is there is the necessity of having accurate lists and accurate information and there should be some guideline by which that is provided to the union. An employer who puts the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team on a list should be found in contempt of that board, should be prosecuted and a certificate should be issued to the union, rather than have legitimate rights of employees deterred for months and years.
I also want to say in terms of the Hamilton situation with the cabs that we then spent two and a half years in first-contract arbitration after we were certified -- because we were certified by an overwhelming majority -- before the arbitrator awarded a contract. That's six years now, and that was just given to us most recently.
So there is a purpose and a reason for changing some of the law, because this is the actual world that we're talking about. We're not talking about plants and mice now; we're talking about working people in Ontario.
As far as petitions are concerned, this union in the last year and a half has had over 50 certification applications in front of the board and we've gone through a lot of them. With almost every one you have a petition.
For example, at Rich Products in the city of St Catharines, again we had signed up in excess of 85% of the employees to join the union. We made our application. We had a petition. We then spent six months in front of the OLRB arguing over the voluntariness of the position in the final analysis of the employer. The board found that the employer had sponsored and was the one who had put the petition forward and threw it out. But those people had to wait six months to get that decision. We were certified and we bargained a contract in good faith and we did it without the services of conciliation and mediation and they have a collective agreement today.
It is the process at the certification stage. It is the game at the certification stage, which every practitioner knows is one of delay, of absolute delay. Right or wrong doesn't matter. In the last 10 applications we've had in front of the labour board, we've had discharges of employees; in one case, 11 were put back and in another case two were put back. It doesn't matter that there is a breach of the law; it only matters that it takes time to correct it. That's what's wrong with some pieces of the act as it currently stands.
We had another situation dealing with the question of access, both Eaton's and Simpson's and all of these. The purpose in a strike situation is to get it over with. We had one situation in the city of Toronto with the Regis hair salons -- these are hair stylists, not the most militant trade unionists in the world -- where we had over 12 hair salons, most of which were located inside in the big department stores, about six people in each store; the total number of persons in the city of Toronto was 100. They couldn't picket in front of their salon; they couldn't picket in front of their store. They were expected, all six of them, to picket the 26 entrances to the Scarborough Town Centre, which is ludicrous. Striking rights are meaningless for those people,
Of course we went to the court. Do you know what the court said? The court said, first of all, "Well, you haven't proven there's any damage yet, because the strike hasn't been going long enough." Four months later, when we got in front of the court again, they said, "Well, now the strike's over it doesn't really matter anyway."
So it is necessary, because when there is a strike situation it is the desire of the union, the desire of the employees, to affect only that employer and not every other employer in that mall. But what is happening is a conspiracy because of the financial dependence, of those large department stores in particular, with the mall owners.
A further area of concern in the changes in the act is the question of contract agencies where it affects cafeterias and so on. We applaud the efforts to provide successor rights in those areas, because we have had a number of cafeterias in the last couple of years in Windsor, Talbotville and Oshawa, where for 25 years they have negotiated collective agreements and then, when it comes time, the company tenders it out and somebody comes in with cheap labour and we have to start all over again. Some of the people are dumped, conditions are changed, and the bargaining process and the rights of those employees are infringed upon in a manner that is unconscionable.
I have attempted to provide some examples. I will take any questions you might have. I can only say that, from the point of view of our union, legislative change is long overdue. I hear a lot of arguments about balance. We have to provide balance, because there is none right now. There is no balance because it's weighted so heavily in favour of the business that employees have no meaningful rights in a number of these service sector and retail situations.
Mr Ward: I'd like to thank you for your presentation and the very compelling arguments you make on behalf of the retail workers union in favour of Bill 40 and the amendments that are included in that bill.
Just so I understand, in one incident obstacles were in place as far as organizing taxi cabs in Toronto, I believe you said, where the employer abused the list provision during certification and included names of people who are dead as well as the Toronto Maple Leafs. Did I hear you correctly?
Mr Collins: Absolutely correctly. It is a matter of record today.
Mr Ward: And how long did this delay the certification?
Mr Collins: At this point, 14 months. We have not yet resolved it. As a matter of fact, the process will be stretched out -- we know it well -- to the type of time frame we had in Hamilton. Except you can multiply that: Instead of the 300 people who were involved in Hamilton, we have 5,000. The process is impossible where you do not have true and accurate information if you're talking about that kind of number, because under the current process, board officers have to examine, they have to go out and find all those people and come back and report: "Yes, it's right, he's dead," or "Yes, he belongs to the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team; he's not a cab driver." So it's a ludicrous process right now.
2020
Mr Bisson: Just to get a handle on something, you were saying you had some 50 certification applications before the board within the last year and a half?
Mr Collins: That's correct.
Mr Bisson: Of that, how many of those had petitions?
Mr Collins: Almost all of them.
Mr Bisson: And in almost all of those situations, let's say 90% or whatever, where did the petitions, in your mind, come from?
Mr Collins: In all instances, the petition has to be dealt with and the board has to rule, so in all those situations it came from employer involvement in the petition.
Mr Bisson: Were you able to prove that through the --
Mr Collins: Yes, we were, and as a result of many of them we were certified, but it was the delay of the process that counted.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I know you're certainly well aware of the organizing procedure, so in your opinion, is there ever an occasion in an organizing drive where an employer during that drive expresses an opinion where it would not be viewed as intimidating coercion, by you or by the employees?
Mr Collins: I guess that depends on where it's done and when it is done, but in most cases it's done to a captive audience, and that is considered intimidation, in the same way that discipline is imposed or instruction is imposed. The employer opinion is quite clear when it is done on work time.
Mr Offer: The reason I asked is that it is permitted under the legislation and we might be getting into something that's very deep and fundamental, based on that response.
The second question I have is whether in an organizing drive there is ever, in your opinion, an occasion where not only the employer but sometimes the union seeking certification may be involved in activities that might be viewed by the employees as intimidating or coercive?
Mr Collins: The only thing I can say from my experience is that's not the case. There is certainly access for any employee to bring any kind of complaint against either party under the current act.
Mr Offer: I have a question based on that response. If we are seeking to protect the rights of the employee from coercion and intimidation in an organizing drive, from whatever source, Bill 40 contains a very steep and severe penalty now on the part of the employer if the employer uses intimidation or coercion. Do you believe that in order to fully protect the employee, that provision should be expanded to not only include the employer but also the union so that there is absolute protection to the employee in an organizing drive?
Mr Collins: I think it's a different set of penalties involved. The employer wins. The union neither wins nor loses. It's the employees who lose, and the employees are a party to the certification process. The employer has nothing to lose, when it gets right down to it. The onus is often upon the employee or the union to prove what is done in some very closed circumstances.
Mr Villeneuve: I won't be long. Of the 20,000 or so employees you represent, are any of them in essential services?
Mr Collins: In defined essential services, no.
Mr Villeneuve: So you have not been subject -- or you maybe have. Have you been subject to binding arbitration?
Mr Collins: No.
Mr Villeneuve: What's your opinion of binding arbitration?
Mr Collins: It should be the last resort. It should only be where there is no ability to bargain or there's no demonstrated will by one party or the other to bargain.
The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen, Mr Collins and Mr Donnelly, both appearing here on behalf of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union. Your union has been active in a number of legislative issues with the government of Ontario, some disappointing, other perhaps less disappointing. In any event, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee. I'm not referring, in terms of "less disappointing," to this legislation, of course; I am referring to the Sunday shopping legislation.
Mr Collins: Do I get the opportunity to address this group on that question too?
The Chair: Sir, I'd love to give you another half-hour to address that group, but you've made your point and I thank you for that. I thank you for being here this evening. You've played an important role in this process and we're grateful to you. We trust you'll keep in touch, and you're welcome to do that.
You and all others who have made presentations, of course, can receive copies of Hansard transcripts of your presentation or others' presentations by writing to your MPP or getting hold of the clerk of the resources development committee.
We are adjourned until 10 am tomorrow morning.
The committee adjourned at 2026.