Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO, CANADIAN OFFICE

CONTENTS

Monday 15 November 1993

Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1993, Bill 80, Mr Mackenzie / Loi de 1993 modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail, projet de loi 80, M. Mackenzie

Ministry of Labour

Hon Bob Mackenzie, minister

James R. Thomas, deputy minister

Pauline Ryan, labour-management policy adviser

Catherine Laurier, labour-management policy adviser

Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Canadian office

Guy Dumoulin, executive secretary

Joe Maloney, assistant to executive secretary

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

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

*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)

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

*Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)

Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)

Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)

*Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)

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

*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND)

*Wood, Len (Cochrane North/-Nord ND)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L) for Mr Offer

Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND) for Mr Waters

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Johnson, David (Don Mills PC)

Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis

Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1549 in committee room 1.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Consideration of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 80, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail.

The Acting Chair (Mr Paul Klopp): Ladies and gentlemen, we'll call this meeting of the standing committee on resources development to order to talk about Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. Everybody has the agenda in front of them. We have representatives here from all three parties. We'll have opening statements by the Honourable Bob Mackenzie, Minister of Labour, then the deputy minister, Mr Thomas, and then opening statements by member Steve Mahoney, the official opposition critic, and then this afternoon we also have the Canadian building trades department here. Mr Minister, take it away.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): My presentation will be relatively brief, the deputy will go into a little more of the detail and then we'll hear from the other parties and the first of the delegations before us.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Point of order: It's just a question. I noticed the minister working from notes and I wonder if there's a prepared text that might be made available to the members.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I haven't got extra copies with me but we can get them to you very quickly. This is quite short.

I am pleased to take this opportunity to launch this period of public review on Bill 80. I believe that this legislation will promote fairness and balance in the relationships between internationally based parent unions in the construction industry and their Ontario-based locals. This bill reflects the government's commitment to give workers a greater say in the workplace.

For many years now, Ontario-based construction locals have called for greater control over their affairs. They have raised concerns about the powers of international parents when the parent disagrees with local decisions. There have also been concerns raised about the sometimes arbitrary and unjustified punitive actions a parent can take against individuals and locals.

Throughout my years as Labour critic and now as the Minister of Labour, I have heard concerns from a number of locals about the powers enjoyed by international construction unions. Elected Canadian local officials have often expressed that this makes it difficult to represent the wishes of their members, particularly when the concerns of the local run counter to policies and practices of the international union.

As you will no doubt hear from presenters, these problems are acute in the construction industry, where all of the major unions in Ontario are chartered affiliates of the international unions. As the committee members will know, the Labour Relations Act contains special rules for the construction sectors because of the distinct features of the industry. These rules are unique to construction and were developed to promote stability in an industry with unstable employment and high mobility.

Under the Labour Relations Act, international unions and their provincial councils are officially designated as exclusive bargaining agents for province-wide bargaining in the industrial-commercial sector or ICI sector. These special rules, combined with closed-shop provisions that tie employment and benefits to the union rather than to the employer, make it extremely difficult for construction workers to exercise their democratic rights without paying a potentially high price.

Bill 80 is designed to correct some of this imbalance by safeguarding the right of local unions to act in the best interests of their members without fear of reprisal.

Since this bill was introduced over a year ago, there have been numerous consultations with international unions, local union representatives and employers in the construction industry. My office has been involved in discussions with the provincial building trades council and the Canadian construction department of the AFL-CIO. These consultations and discussions resulted in my announcement of a number of proposed amendments to the bill at second reading.

The two major areas of concern that have been raised revolve around the disaffiliation provisions and the provisions dealing with local jurisdiction. As I indicated at the beginning of second reading debate, the government is proposing to remove the disaffiliation provisions and to modify the absolute prohibition on parental alteration of local jurisdiction.

These amendments reflect the concerns raised by parties while retaining the key objectives of fairness and balance to this sector. The government will be introducing these amendments later in this committee's proceedings during the clause-by-clause debate of the bill. The government looks forward to hearing the committee's recommendations following the public hearings and is prepared to make further amendments to the bill based on these recommendations.

In closing, I would like to say that I believe this bill is about balance and fairness. This bill should mark a positive step forward for workers in the construction industry. Our ultimate goal is to enact a law that brings a sense of balance and fairness into the relationship between local unions, their members and their international parents. The government thinks that Bill 80 follows the progressive spirit and tone of the major labour reforms we have already introduced.

I want to thank the committee for its time and attention today, and I look forward to seeing the results of its hard work on this important piece of legislation.

The Acting Chair: We now have the Deputy Minister of Labour here to make comments to update us on the bill.

Mr James R. Thomas: I propose today to give you a technical briefing on Bill 80, and I do have a text that I would be happy to hand out to people if people wish to follow along with it.

The Acting Chair: Sure, if you have that here.

Mr Thomas: I'll just wait for that to happen. I also have staff here with me from the Ministry of Labour. If I need them to help with some of the questions, I'll introduce them at that time.

As members of the committee will know, the minister announced an intention to amend the bill at second reading, and during the course of consultation, the government developed some ideas on possible alternatives and some draft language was circulated prior to second reading to give members of the House an indication of where the direction of possible amendments lay. However, no formal amendments have been prepared. After the public hearings are concluded, formal motions to amend the bill will be tabled by the government for the clause-by-clause work of the committee.

None the less, the ministry wishes to advise this committee of the proposals for amendments that are under consideration and I will review some of those proposed changes later in my remarks. It is our hope that presenters to this committee and the committee itself will consider not only the first reading version of the bill but also the possible amendments to the bill that the government is considering.

I propose to provide you with the following: First of all, a general overview of the five major provisions of Bill 80 at first reading; secondly, a general overview of the government's proposed amendments to Bill 80; and thirdly, a clause-by-clause technical analysis of the first reading version of Bill 80.

Let me start with the general overview of the bill's five major provisions. The first reading version of the law provides new rights for Ontario construction local unions in five areas:

(1) Local unions will share bargaining rights with parent trade unions in all construction sectors covered by the Labour Relations Act, just as bargaining rights are shared in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector;

(2) Parent unions may not alter the jurisdiction of a local union without consent;

(3) Parent unions are prohibited from imposing trusteeships or otherwise interfering with local unions without just cause;

(4) All of the local unions within a particular trade may disaffiliate from a parent union with the consent of the parent union;

(5) Local unions may appoint trustees for benefit plans that govern their members.

Let me give you some detail with respect to each point. First of all, on shared bargaining rights: Section 138.2 deems that local trade unions will share bargaining rights wherever an international union now exercises bargaining rights on behalf of the local trade union. Currently, an international union is able to assert control over collective bargaining in Ontario in the non-ICI sectors.

The construction industry is divided into seven sectors: ICI, residential, roads, sewers and watermains, electrical power systems, pipelines and heavy engineering. Shared bargaining rights are already guaranteed in the ICI sector by virtue of ministerially designated employee bargaining agencies. There are also some shared rights in non-ICI sectors. Bill 80 would guarantee shared bargaining rights in all cases.

Because the ministry was concerned that this new rule of shared bargaining rights might disrupt collective bargaining with employers, section 138.2 provides a mechanism to ensure resolution of disputes between a parent union and its locals over how to share bargaining rights. This mechanism is modelled on the existing province-wide bargaining scheme in the Labour Relations Act. In that part of the act, construction unions in the ICI sector must bargain on a trade-by-trade basis through employee bargaining agencies which are designated by the Minister of Labour. There is a single agency for each ICI trade and each agency is made up of the international parent union and a council representing all its provincial locals.

Under the section 138.2 scheme, the minister could require that internationals and their locals form a similar type of bargaining structure where the parties cannot work out a shared bargaining structure on their own.

The second part is prohibition on alteration of local jurisdiction. In the first reading version of Bill 80, section 138.3 prohibits parent trade unions from altering the jurisdiction of any of their local trade unions in Ontario without the consent of those local trade unions.

Nothing in Bill 80 affects the processes for resolving intertrade disputes between different unions. Section 138.3 simply gives more protection to locals within the same union.

The section also provides that local trade unions may agree to a role for the parent trade union in resolving disputes between them. If they make such an agreement, the parent would be permitted to alter local unions' jurisdiction to the extent necessary to resolve the dispute between the locals.

Finally, the ministry was concerned that the act should provide for some dispute resolution mechanism in the event that Ontario local unions do not agree to permit the internationals to resolve their disputes through alteration of local union jurisdiction. Accordingly, the bill allows an affected union or employer to apply to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to resolve an interlocal dispute. Accordingly, there would be recourse for an employer whose project was disrupted because of a dispute between local trade unions.

You should also note that section 138.4 would ensure that local unions could not use the new provisions regarding shared bargaining rights and protection against alteration of local jurisdiction to upset existing province-wide bargaining schemes.

1600

The third area is imposition of trusteeships and other interference. Section 138.5 would apply a just-cause standard to international unions if they imposed trusteeship upon a local union or otherwise interfered with a local union.

An example of interference other than formal imposition of supervision or trusteeship might be the international appointment or assignment of a business agent or some other official to the staff of a local union. Another example might be a requirement by an international that a local union assign the international control over its funds.

Section 138.5 also imposes a just-cause standard upon international unions or provincial councils of unions that dismiss or impose other penalties on local union officials. In addition, the first reading version of the bill requires that the international or provincial council must continue to pay wages to a dismissed or penalized local union official until the labour board orders otherwise.

This section of the bill also states that the board is not bound by the union constitution when determining what constitutes just cause.

The fourth area is successorship by local trade unions. Section 138.6 of the bill would permit all of the local unions of a particular trade to disaffiliate from an international parent union. The section sets out a process by which a double majority must be obtained. A majority of all of the locals involved plus a majority of all members in the province must support such disaffiliation. Finally, no disaffiliation could take place without the consent of the parent union. However, the labour board would be able to declare a successorship if it concluded that the true wishes of the members could not be ascertained because of a union or employer's conduct.

The last area is administration of benefit plans. In this section, Ontario local unions are given control over the appointment of union trustees to boards of trustees that administer pension or benefit plans affecting local members.

If a pension or benefit plan mainly provides benefits to the members of one local union, then that local union is guaranteed the right to choose the majority of union trustees. If a pension or benefit plan covers a number of local unions, then those local unions together are entitled to appoint a majority of the union trustees. In the case of these multilocal plans, the provisions in section 138.7 go on to provide that local trade unions each have a vote concerning appointments of trustees.

Finally, the section provides for a six-month transition period during which the new appointment rules must be met.

The second area I wish to cover is the government proposals for amendments to the first reading version of Bill 80.

As noted earlier, the government is considering a number of amendments to the bill as a result of submissions made during consultations. I want to cover those very briefly: first of all, the alteration of local jurisdiction, and these are proposed amendments which I want to take you through.

The first reading version of this alteration of local jurisdiction provision prohibits a parent union from altering a local's jurisdiction without consent. Next to the disaffiliation provisions, this section of Bill 80 appears to have caused the greatest concern among international unions.

We heard during consultations that parent unions can play a legitimate and necessary role in making jurisdictional determinations. As a result, the government is prepared to change the alteration of local jurisdiction provision to permit alterations where just cause exists. For example, the provision might be amended to require that a parent trade union apply to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for permission to alter the jurisdiction of a local trade union. If there is just cause for such an alteration, the board would authorize the action.

In determining what constitutes just cause, the government proposes that the board would be required to consider the following factors: (1) the union's constitution; (2) the ability of the local to carry out its responsibilities under the Labour Relations Act; and (3) the wishes of the members of local. The government hopes that international unions that make submissions here will comment on these proposals.

Secondly, on the imposition of trusteeship or other interference with locals, the amendment that we're suggesting would be as follows: The first reading version of the bill would require that parent unions continue to pay the wages of dismissed or penalized union officials until the Ontario Labour Relations Board determines otherwise. The government proposes to drop this requirement.

Additionally, the government proposes to amend these provisions to require that the board, when determining what constitutes just cause, must first consider the provisions of the union constitution. However, the union constitution would not be the sole determining factor when the board decided whether the parent union had just cause for its action.

The third amendment that the government is proposing is in the area of successorship and the government proposes to delete those provisions in their entirety.

The fourth is the administration of benefit plans. The government recognizes that it's not appropriate that Ontario local unions would be entitled to appoint a majority of trustees in a nationwide or international benefit plan. Instead, the provisions would be amended to clarify that Ontario locals may choose trustees in numbers proportionate to their members' numbers in the total plan.

Finally, in terms of proposed amendments, a general one: In addition, the government proposes that the bill should provide for expeditious labour board resolution of proceedings under Bill 80. New rules were brought in under Bill 40 to permit the board to develop special rules to expedite the handling of intertrade jurisdictional and other disputes. That part of the LRA, the process part, would be amended to permit the board to adopt similar speedy rules for Bill 80 proceedings.

Let me, as the third part of my technical briefing, take you through a clause-by-clause analysis of first reading version of Bill 80. You may wish to follow along with your copies of the bill. Let me start from the beginning of it, section 138.1, definitions in the application of Bill 80.

Subsection 138.1(1) sets out a number of definitions that would apply in addition to the special list of definitions already contained at the start of the construction part of the Labour Relations Act. The most important one is the definition of "jurisdiction."

The definition of "jurisdiction" is important for the later section which governs the authority of a parent union to alter the jurisdiction of a local union. The government's intent is to protect the local from unilateral alterations of its geographic, work or sectoral jurisdiction.

Geographic jurisdiction refers to the physical boundaries within which an international permits its locals to operate.

Sectoral jurisdiction refers to the specific sectors of the construction industry that are defined in the definition of "sector" in the existing section 119 of the Labour Relations Act. The LRA sets out seven different sectors, which I mentioned earlier.

Work jurisdiction refers to the jurisdiction that a local union might hold with respect to an area of construction work that is something less than one of the statutorily designated sectors. For example, some local unions are assigned jurisdiction to bargain for hydro employees; hydro is just one part of the electrical power systems sector. There are other types of work jurisdiction that do not clearly fall within any particular designated construction sector; for instance, landscaping.

It is important to note that neither the definition of "jurisdiction" nor the provisions governing the international's authority to alter jurisdiction are intended to affect current procedures for resolving intertrade jurisdictional disputes. The Labour Relations Act, section 93, already governs these matters. Bill 80 deals only with disputes within the same union.

Subsection 138.1(2) provides that the new rights and obligations set out in Bill 80 override any other rights and obligations described elsewhere in the Labour Relations Act.

Subsection 138.1(3) provides that Bill 80 rights and obligations prevail over international union constitutions. This general provision is necessary since not all provisions of Bill 80 expressly address the issue of international unions' constitutions. The rule in this subsection will govern such provisions.

For example, an international union constitution could contain a provision requiring that the international will control local bargaining rights. This subsection 138.1(3) ensures that the new shared bargaining rights provisions will prevail over such constitutional rules. Similarly, international constitutions might give the international the exclusive right to choose benefit plan trustees, and this subsection ensures that the new Bill 80 rules will prevail.

1610

Section 138(2), shared bargaining rights: That's the first substantiative piece of Bill 80. Subsection 138.2(1) is intended to provide that the new shared bargaining rights provisions only apply in the non-ICI sectors. Shared bargaining rights are already guaranteed in the ICI sector through ministerially designated employee bargaining agencies. With Bill 80, shared bargaining rights would be statutorily guaranteed for the other six sectors. The subsection is worded so as to ensure that the new rule also applies with respect to bargaining units that perform work that may not clearly fall within one of the six enumerated sectors. Subsection 138.2(2) provides that a local trade union is deemed to share bargaining rights wherever an international holds bargaining rights on behalf of a local union's members.

Subsection 138.2(3) states that a local trade union is deemed to be a party to a collective agreement wherever a parent union is now the sole party to a collective agreement that governs members of the local union.

It should be noted that the definition of "parent union" in section 138.1 includes not only international unions but also provincial councils of unions. As a result, the shared bargaining rights provisions give local unions rights not only where internationals hold exclusive bargaining rights, but also where provincial councils of trade unions hold exclusive bargaining rights.

Subsections 138.2(4) to (6) set out a mechanism to resolve disputes that might arise between parent unions and local unions as a result of the new rule requiring the sharing of bargaining rights. This responds to employers' concerns that the normal process of collective bargaining with internationals might be disrupted by Bill 80's shared bargaining rights provisions.

Where an international and its locals are unable to decide on how they will jointly bargain in such circumstances, these subsections provide a mechanism whereby the minister could intervene to ensure that there was no disruption of collective bargaining.

The mechanism we're talking about for the minister is based on existing mechanisms in the province-wide bargaining part of the Labour Relations Act. In that part, which governs the ICI sector, the minister has the role of assigning bargaining rights to employee bargaining agencies. Employee bargaining agents are councils of unions that consist of the international, the provincial conference or council, and local unions. Under these new subsections, the minister could order that the international and its locals form a council similar to an employee bargaining agency if they're unable to reach their own arrangement on how to share their bargaining rights.

Section 138.3, prohibition on alteration of local jurisdiction: Again, just to be clear, I'm taking you through the first reading, clause-by-clause of Bill 80, not the proposed amendments that I've already talked about.

Subsection 138.3(1) prevents a parent union from altering the geographic, work or sectoral jurisdiction of the local union without consent. The provision is retroactive to prevent alteration of jurisdiction as it existed on May 1, 1992.

Subsection 138.3(2) creates an exception to the absolute prohibition. If two local unions of the same parent agree to permit their parent union to resolve a jurisdictional dispute between the two of them, the international union may alter the locals' jurisdiction to the extent necessary to resolve the jurisdictional conflict.

Subsection 138.3(3) creates an avenue to resolve interlocal disputes within the same trade in the event that the disputing locals do not agree to let their parent resolve the dispute. For example, an employer might be unable to continue work on a particular project that falls on the boundary line between two locals of the same trade union if the two locals each demand the right to assign workers. Subsection (3) permits the employer to apply to the OLRB to resolve the dispute between the local unions.

The subsection goes on to import the powers and procedures that the labour board has under the Labour Relations Act, section 93, which governs intertrade disputes. Those new procedures have greatly speeded up the resolution of intertrade disputes, cutting lengthy hearings to one day of informal consultations. The government proposes to amend these provisions to permit a parent to alter a local's jurisdiction if just cause exists.

Section 138.4, province-wide bargaining: Section 138.4 provides that province-wide bargaining arrangements that existed on May 1, 1992, may not be disrupted as a result of the new provisions for shared bargaining rights or protection of local union jurisdiction.

Section 138.5, imposition of trusteeships and other interference: Section 138.5 prevents parent unions from imposing trusteeship or supervision or otherwise interfering with local unions unless just cause exists. This provision protects the autonomy of local unions.

Subsection 138.5(2) prevents parent unions from dismissing or otherwise penalizing union officials without just cause.

Subsection (3) permits the board to look beyond the provisions of the trade union constitution when determining what constitutes just cause. Accordingly, an international cannot impose trusteeship or dismiss a local union official and rely solely on the provisions of its constitution when arguing that its action was taken for just cause. In other words, the international cannot point to its union constitution as a complete defence for its action. The government proposes to amend this section to clarify that the board is required to consider the union constitution.

Subsection 138.5(4) provides that a dismissed local official is entitled to continue to receive wages until his or her case has been finally disposed of, unless the labour board orders otherwise. As I mentioned earlier, the government proposes to drop this requirement.

Subsection (5) describes the remedial authority of the board in relation to the imposition of trusteeships or other interference with a local union. In particular, the board could make orders permitting or preventing the continuation of a trusteeship.

Section 138.6, successorship by local trade unions: Subsections (1) to (5) set out the process by which all of the local trade unions of a parent union might disaffiliate from the parent union. Disaffiliation would include either separation from the international union to form a new, independent union or merger with another existing union. As I've already mentioned, the local unions would have to reach a double majority of local unions and of individual members across the province.

Subsection (6) provides that no disaffiliation can occur unless the parent trade union approves the disaffiliation.

Subsection (7) would permit the board to order successorship if it considered that the true wishes of locals or members are unlikely to be ascertained because of unfair labour practices.

Subsection (8) ensures that the successor union acquires all of the rights, privileges and duties that the parent would have held in respect of the disaffiliated locals.

Subsection (9) would permit merger with unions other than construction unions.

As I mentioned, the government is proposing to drop the successorship provisions in their entirety.

Section 138.7 is the administration of benefit plans, and that's the last substantive section. Construction industry collective agreements provide for the creation of a number of welfare plans through employer or joint employer-employee contribution. Such plans are often administered jointly and trusteed by the union and employers with joint boards of trustees to administer and oversee the plans. In jointly administered plans, the unions and employers appoint an equal number of trustees whose role is to protect the interests of the plan's members.

Subsection 138.7(1) ensures that if a benefit plan provides benefits mainly to members of one local, then the local is entitled to appoint a majority of the unionside trustees.

If a benefit plan covers a number of local unions, subsection 138.7(2) ensures that those locals are "entitled together to appoint...a majority" of the union trustees. The government is proposing to amend the provision to clarify that in the case of national or multiprovincial plans Ontario locals would be entitled to a proportionate number of trustees in relation to their representation in the plan rather than a majority.

Subsection (3) provides that Bill 80's provisions governing the selection of benefit plan trustees prevail over any contrary provision. For example, they would override any contrary provision in a benefit plan document.

Subsection (4) sets out a process to govern the appointment of trustees for multiunion benefit plans. Unless the locals agree otherwise, they will be required to select their trustees through a majority vote. Each local union would get one vote.

Subsection (5) provides a six-month transition period during which the new appointment rules must be complied with.

Finally, subsection (6) defines the types of plans governed by this part of Bill 80. An employment benefit plan includes a pension or benefit plan and any other plan that provides benefits because of one's employment or because of one's membership in the union. Thank you.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, and you can have a glass of water now. We'll open it up for questions and I'll go in the order of Liberals, Progressive Conservatives and then the NDP.

1620

Mr Mahoney: I'm assuming, Mr Chair, that we are now in a position of talking about this bill as it is being proposed to be amended and there's no restriction on discussing, questioning or debating any of the amendments that were put forward, unlike the debate on second reading.

The Acting Chair: I think that's --

Mr Mahoney: Is that clear? My concern is that we were provided the amendments. The deputy referred to, "During the course of consultations, the government developed some ideas on possible alternatives and some draft language was circulated prior to second reading...." It was 10 minutes prior to second reading debate when that stuff was circulated and then we were told we couldn't debate it.

The Acting Chair: Okay. It's now in the committee. Proposed amendments have been talked about. Everybody knew about them. They can be talked about, as far as I understand.

Mr Mahoney: A couple of questions to the deputy: Your first point, "Local unions will share bargaining rights with parent trade unions in all...sectors...." What happens now outside --

Failure of sound system.

The Acting Chair: The deputy has requested that staff come to the microphones up here in case there's some technical information that he would like you to answer. Could they come to the mike, please, or up to the table.

Go ahead, Mr Mahoney. Your light's on.

Mr Mahoney: All set?

The Acting Chair: Yes, they seem to be.

Mr Mahoney: My question to the deputy is with regard to sharing bargaining rights or not sharing bargaining rights. Can you tell me what the practice is now? I'm not so much concerned about whether or not it's written down anywhere, but about what, in your experience, really happens in that regard.

Mr Thomas: My understanding is that the practice varies from sector to sector and from bargaining table to bargaining table. In some situations, depending on the way in which the particular organization got certified, there may be shared bargaining rights in many cases and in some there aren't shared bargaining rights, but I think it varies from sector to sector and table to table.

Can I also indicate for the record that I've asked Catherine Laurier and Pauline Ryan, who are policy analysts with the Ministry of Labour, to join us, if they wish to add to that?

The Acting Chair: Okay. Introduce yourself and then answer the question, if you can.

Ms Pauline Ryan: I'm Pauline Ryan. I'm a policy adviser with the Ministry of Labour. I don't think I could add much more to what the deputy has said, other than to say that the bargaining rights right now in the non-ICI sector are generally outlined in the collective agreement. In some cases, it's shared rights between signatories, both the international and the local are signatories to the collective agreement, and in other cases it's solely an international that has signed the agreement.

Mr Mahoney: Are there cases where it's solely a local?

Ms Ryan: There may be.

Ms Catherine Laurier: Yes.

Ms Ryan: I couldn't give you an example.

Mr Mahoney: Do you know of any examples?

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: He's got his hour coming. He'll get his shots in.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): He might be able to answer your question.

Mr Mahoney: You don't think I know the answer?

The Acting Chair: Now, now. You have only a couple of minutes each, so --

Mr Mahoney: Yes. That's what I wanted to ask you. How much time do we have?

The Acting Chair: The Liberal critic ends at 4:30. We're going to start with him.

Mr Mahoney: I'll leave that then, because I have a couple of other more technical ones, if I could just get to them.

The issue of just cause and the fact that a board is not bound by the union constitution: I wonder if the deputy would expand on that a little bit. First of all, the definition of "just cause": Is that going to be something the minister will simply rule on, the board will rule on? Are there going to be criteria or rules drawn up that will make that clear to everyone? The top of page 5 is what I'm working from in your report.

Mr Thomas: You're referring to just cause as it pertains to the imposition of trusteeships or other interference, which is a matter that would be determined by the labour board, and so it would be the jurisprudence of the labour board that would determine what constitutes just cause.

Mr Mahoney: Without guidelines being set up or agreed upon or brought down from the ministry?

Mr Thomas: There already is jurisprudence in general around just cause. I don't know whether it would be necessary or advisable to have guidelines on just cause.

Mr Mahoney: Notwithstanding the fact that you're deleting the disaffiliation section, what would happen if local members, by a vote, decided they wanted to disaffiliate from an international parent or council of some sort? Would that be something you would see the government normally interfering in?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Not if I can help it.

Mr Mahoney: Not if you can help it, but you don't mind interfering from the other angle of going in and precluding votes and telling them --

Hon Mr Mackenzie: No, I think we're trying to set in place provisions where, through the board, they can raise concerns or raise the issue of just cause. If you're asking me if I'm intending to set down the guidelines, not if I can help it.

Mr Mahoney: But my question was more related to a local or a group of locals -- take the electrical workers. They get together and decide, as has happened in recent history in industrial unions, the auto workers being one, that they simply want to set up their own operation and disaffiliate from any international union they may or may not be involved with. They want to run their own shop. Is that something this government would interfere in or condone or not condone?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't think the purpose of the legislation -- if you're asking this, and it may not be the proper answer to what you're looking for -- is to run the show for the local unions. It is to set down certain rules and regulations under which they'll operate and to make sure there is a procedure, a process for workers who want to raise some concerns about whether or not there is just cause in an action that's been taken by their union.

Mr Thomas: I think one of the concerns, Mr Mahoney, is the fact that it's our understanding that a number of the international constitutions have clauses that are very restrictive on the ability of members of local unions in Ontario to do the kind of thing you're talking about doing. It's that kind of situation that Bill 80 is trying to address.

The Acting Chair: On that note, we're going to move on. But they think that if they shut the whole issue down here, they can fix it in about a minute. So I'm going to ask that we just stop for a minute while they see if they can fix this mike problem.

Ms Murdock: It won't be taken off your time.

The Acting Chair: It won't be taken off your time.

The committee recessed from 1629 to 1630.

The Acting Chair: Okay, everybody. That was the shortest minute in history. I think we're ready to go. We are running a little bit behind so I'm going to call the meeting back to order again. The mikes seem to be on. Mr Turnbull, if you wouldn't mind, if you have one question I'd appreciate it and then I'll allow one or two very short ones from the other side, but very quickly. I want to get Mr Mahoney on and then we do have some people here.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Minister, specifically, and going back to when you introduced this legislation in June of last year, my colleague Mrs Witmer has asked on many occasions specifically what the demonstrated need is for the legislation. We don't feel we've got a satisfactory answer for that. Could you respond to that now?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: You may not get a satisfactory answer now either, but the demonstrated need for the legislation is a request that reached me in a period of some 11, 12 years as opposition critic in the House.

Mr Turnbull: From whom?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: From building trades people who arrived in my office from a number of the different locals in considerable numbers with complaints.

Mr Turnbull: Can you be specific, please?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't intend to be specific. I think the building trades people themselves will go into some of the details when they appear before the committee.

Mr Turnbull: Whom have you consulted with, leading up to this legislation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: We did not go through an extensive consultation process, to begin with -- I'm going back a year or two now. However, it was apparent and it was outlined at both the last two provincial building trades council's conventions -- and in addition to that I've had most of the gentlemen who are in this room and a good number of others on both sides of the issue into my office a number of times and I've had my own staff and the ministry staff talking with them as well.

Mr Turnbull: Okay. For the record, whom have you consulted with?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can't name you all the individuals, but just about --

Mr Turnbull: Name a few.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Just about the entire gamut of the building trades group.

Mr Turnbull: Okay, so we've got two very, very fuzzy answers which are about as unsatisfactory as your answers in the House, Minister.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: You never liked my answers in the House.

Mr Turnbull: That's true, but, nevertheless, I'm asking you in committee specific questions and we're getting these fuzzy --

Hon Mr Mackenzie: And my specific answers are that there have been extensive discussions on this with both sides of the issue in the building trades.

Mr Turnbull: You won't name any of the names and you won't tell us who has asked for this legislation. That's most enlightening.

The Acting Chair: Sharon has a question. Mr Mammoliti is first, though, I believe, and we have about five minutes for each caucus.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Very, very quickly, and my question is to the minister or to the staff, whoever would feel comfortable answering this.

A number of unions have approached me individually and have given me what they think is a huge concern in terms of what this would do in the way of a precedent. When I talk about precedent I talk about government precedent. If this were passed, what would this do for future governments, perhaps? If possible, can you give me a legal opinion on whether or not future governments might have a precedent set perhaps interfering with union constitutions? Does the minister feel comfortable with the bill going through and, more specifically, will this set a precedent for future governments to interfere with the constitutions?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I personally don't think it will set a precedent any more than we've had for interference in a number of labour issues over the years. We were trying to do away with some of that in part of the Bill 40 procedures as well, and we were trying to guarantee that there were adequate rights for workers and the local unions in the legislation. I don't think it'll set any precedent. I'm comfortable with it, if that's what you're asking.

Mr Mammoliti: Are you comfortable because we've sought a legal opinion on this from the ministry?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm sure our actions are legal. I have not been told otherwise in terms of the legislation itself at all.

Mr Mammoliti: Does the staff know of any legal opinion that may have been sought in this regard?

Mr Thomas: No. We know there have been some concerns raised about some possible violations of ILO convention, but our view is that, first of all, we're not going to comment on that.

Secondly, it seems to me that there are some features of collective bargaining that are unique to the construction industry that have created situations this bill attempts to address.

Ms Murdock: Any of the questions that go to the OLRB are complaint-driven. I am wondering, on page 6 when you're talking about the amendment that's coming forward and that the provision might be amended to require that a parent trade union apply to the OLRB for permission to alter jurisdiction, if you have looked at the reverse of that and, rather than having internationals each and every time apply to the OLRB, staff shortages as they are, whether or not it would be more in tune with the OLRA to do it from a complaint-driven aspect.

Mr Thomas: You're asking, are there other processes that could accomplish the objective of allowing the parent trade union to alter the jurisdiction in certain circumstances? To answer that question, I don't believe that the government is wedded to any particular solution or any particular process to get to the end result of recognizing the fact that there are circumstances we have heard through consultations where parents can play an important role in making jurisdictional determinations. The proposal around amending that section is to allow that to happen somehow. We just suggested one possible way of doing it. There could be others.

Ms Murdock: Okay, cause I know absolutely that it happens that internationals often -- or not often, but on occasion -- do alter jurisdictions. But it seemed to me, when I was looking at that before, that it would then mean that on each and every alteration the parent would have to apply, whereas it would make more sense that if the local didn't like what the parent was doing, then they could apply to the board for review. Then you wouldn't have each and every one of them being done; you'd only have the ones that the locals didn't like. That's just the point I wanted to make.

Mr Thomas: Let me just respond to that. Just to be very clear, the only point that I was trying to make on page 6 was the fact that because of the concerns that we've heard through consultation that the parent union can play an important role in some circumstances, the government has felt it appropriate to recommend that there be an amendment to allow that to happen somehow. My comments that are captured on page 6 were simply an attempt to describe one way in which that could happen. We would hope that people who present to the committee over the next period of days would want to comment on whether that or other ways would be more effective in accomplishing the objective.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: There have been one or two other suggestions in the same area, but this was the one that we had come up with in the draft. I presume we'll hear in the course of the hearings if somebody's got a better idea.

The Acting Chair: Seeing that we're moving along here, we can now move to the opening statements of Mr Steve Mahoney, the official opposition critic for the Liberal party. You have half an hour, which is -- as you can see, it's about 25 to 5, so about five after. You can have questions, comments, whatever; you've got the floor.

Mr Mahoney: First of all, let me say that I appreciate the brief report by the minister and the technical briefing by the deputy. I will have some comments and perhaps some questions where I might want the deputy during my half-hour to respond, but we'll see how things evolve.

First of all, let me tell you that in bringing this issue to our caucus, it's one of those that is very complex and everyone's eyes sort of glaze over as you try to present a briefing and they go, "What is all this about?" So it tends to get short shrift at times, I think, when it really shouldn't. On the statement made in the beginning that -- the minister referred to this; I wrote it down somewhere -- he's delighted to be here at a public review of Bill 80: The reality is, the public doesn't much care about Bill 80. They don't understand it. To the public, which I say generically, this is just sort of some internal battle in government bureaucracy where politicians and bureaucrats are wasting time. I'm not so sure that the public's perception is not the correct one in this particular case.

1640

But this is not a public -- as I see it in a generic sense -- issue. It's an issue where interest groups, primarily the labour movement in the construction sector, have a direct interest with the government interfering in their organization.

Mr Mammoliti asked a very interesting question that really says to me that this is not going to end at this committee, it's not going to end on third reading or even proclamation of this bill, all of which I say to my friends in the room is a foregone conclusion, frankly. I don't mean to discourage you. I know you're here with the hope that this government might listen to some of the balanced viewpoints that you're going to put forward. But at the end of the day, in the short three years of the NDP government, it's been my experience that when they have an agenda and they're on a rail and they're going down the line, it's very, very difficult to get them to stop the train or to listen or to make changes. Again, I don't mean to discourage you from making your presentations in an open way, but I'm not overly optimistic that it's going to have an impact. But we will all try.

Mr Mammoliti made the reference to the legal challenges or concepts. I want to read something that I have here. This is Convention 87, Article III of the International Labour Organization's resolution out of Geneva. Think of the ILO like the GATT when you think in terms of settling disputes on an international scale. Think of them in terms of looking at fights between countries over trade issues. The ILO is set there really to bring some calm to the labour movement internationally and to put in place on a broad scale -- you know, we all get so myopic. We all think in terms of what's going on in our backyard in our community. It's the ILO's job to do exactly the opposite of that and to think of the greater good for the international community.

Some of you may know that my dad was heavily involved in the ILO, spent many times as a member of the board and spent a lot of time in Geneva. Major union leaders today are heavily involved and so they should be.

As I talked to Shirley Carr just a couple of weeks ago about this to get her perspective, I really think they try to look out and say, "We don't want to be so biased, that everything doesn't revolve around what happens just in Ontario or just even in Canada, for that matter." The ILO is set to try to bring some calm and some broad thoughts to labour disputes.

I want to read the quote. This is right from Convention 87. It says, "Workers and employees associations shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programs." It goes on to say, "The public authorities shall" -- not may, shall -- "refrain from any interference which would restrict the right or impede the lawful exercise thereof."

It doesn't talk about defining something like just cause in a dispute. It's very clear. In an unusual twist of fate, an international body has written something in the simplest language anyone could ever possibly wish it to be written in: "the public authorities -- ie, the government. Who else could they be referring to? "Shall refrain" means, stay out of their business -- "from any interference which would restrict the right or impede the lawful exercise thereof."

I submit that this document is going to lead to a major court challenge. It may not even be right away, because the reality is, you're trying to fix something that ain't broke.

We've asked for examples, and what do we get? We get one story about something that went on in London years ago that apparently has been resolved in any event. We've asked for examples. I hear we're going to get examples at this committee and that the reason we haven't had examples before is that the locals who want to complain about interference and bully tactics from an international are afraid to complain.

If you want to make something of a public concern, then show us an example like that, and I would dare say that you'd have both opposition parties lining up to say that that kind of stuff should not take place.

We've said, "Name names; give us examples." We don't get them. So I predict that what you're heading for, and the unfortunate part of it is it's a matter of energy, is a major confrontation. You talk about a future government, Mr Mammoliti, and I think that's very appropriate.

Mr Mammoliti: I'm afraid of yours.

Mr Mahoney: Ours will probably be there, but in any event, a future government is in fact going to be faced with a difficult decision. Actually, it won't be that difficult. We'll just repeal it.

Are we going to spend tens of thousands of dollars, hundreds of thousands of dollars, in going to court under a challenge under the ILO convention? Because indeed that's what we're going to be facing. It is so clear-cut. It says you've got no business interfering, that these people have the right to draw up their constitution and rules, elect their representatives in full freedom, organize their activities and their administration to formulate their program.

Why don't you just let them do that? If you see that there's a problem, why would you not play the role as a government of mediator, if indeed you see there's a problem, and call these people together, instead of going through this incredible exercise of trying to justify?

Let's go back. I wouldn't ask the government members to show any kind of perspective or balance on legislation during the term that we were the government. Let me tell you that the labour bills that we dealt with were things like Bill 208 and Bill 162.

We took the Workers' Compensation Board. Whether you agree with what happened in Bill 162 or not, it's interesting now that the member for -- I'm not sure what Ms Martel's riding is; Sudbury, whatever -- was a strong opponent of Bill 162. I don't hear that any more. I hear sort of a different song now that she and her colleagues are in government. We were concerned about injured workers and the impact that they were having and whether or not they were getting service delivery, and felt that workers' compensation needed some revisions.

God knows, it needs it more drastically today than it needed it then. God knows that it's in total disarray, on the verge of financial collapse. There are calls for a royal commission. There are questions virtually every day about the governance of workers' compensation, about the ability of the chair, the bias perhaps, all kinds of issues that should be brought out on the table. If in fact those criticisms are not justified, then it should be proven that they're not justified.

You talk about Bill 208. We've got a Workplace Health and Safety Agency that's totally going around terrorizing the business community instead of trying to work with it.

We dealt with labour issues. The former government before us dealt with labour issues. There's no question that labour is a major constituency in the province, not only politically but for everybody, and we dealt with those issues. Those issues are not resolved.

I would have hoped that we could have taken the energy of the unions and the associations that are involved with representing those unions, be it the trades council, be it the Canadian Federation of Labour, which I spent a couple of hours with in Ottawa the other day, be it any of those umbrella groups, and we could have allowed them to put their energy into perhaps negotiating better working conditions or better health and safety conditions or things that really matter to the men and women involved in the labour movement, not this tinkering and internal labour politics of getting involved and deciding whether or not an international union should have certain rules or certain power over a local union, or whether or not a local union should be able to stand up and flex its muscles and wrap itself in the flag for some perceived nonsense that it's being beaten up by a bunch of Yankees.

The key to the relationship between the international labour movement and any local, whether it's in an industrial union or whether it's an -- and that's an interesting point, one that many of the people in the construction sector have been asking: "If this is so good for the construction unions, why don't we bring it in for the internationals?"

1650

I heard the other day that someone was actually getting Leo Gérard nervous because he thinks that might happen. I can understand why he'd get nervous; he's going to be working out of Pittsburgh in the not-too-distant future and he wouldn't want to have any of his powers taken away from him by the current government. So Leo'd better be nervous, because the reality is that I think it may expand to that.

But the question has never been answered. I remember that the very first question that I heard asked on this was exactly that to the minister in the Legislature: If it's good for the construction sector, why isn't it good for steel, auto, mining, whatever? Why isn't it good for the industrial sector? And we can't get an answer on that.

I think we heard the real answer behind what's being driven here. The minister said that in his many years as a critic in opposition he heard from many people. So the reality is, this is simply driven by the minister and his perception of what problems might be out there from his days as a critic. I don't see anything else. We've asked for it and it hasn't come forward.

There is a role in opposition, which the current minister knows full well, that you just almost automatically oppose something a government is doing. We didn't do that in this case; we really didn't. We looked at this; we met with groups on both sides of the issue. There's a lot more on the other side, on the side against it, than there is in favour, which raises an interesting point.

The minister said, and I wrote it down, that we see this as "a positive step forward." If this is such a positive step forward, why are 80% of the people involved against it? I don't understand that. If there was such great democracy instituted in consulting with all these people, why won't the minister answer Mr Turnbull and just name some names?

I guess maybe the problem is your definition of consulting. I saw the minister talking in the hall to Joe Maloney. Is that consulting? I kind of overheard the conversation. It was: "How's it going?" "Not bad so far." Is that consulting? Consulting means taking down -- I mean, look at the documentation that we've got here, the briefs. You're going to hear from the Canadian Federation of Labour. You're going to hear from all of these different groups. Guy Dumoulin and Joe Maloney are going to lead off for an hour in the beginning. You've got a huge brief here.

Why do we have to get to the stage where we're in a sort of public forum here, where all the decisions have already been made? You've gone as far as you're prepared to go and tabled some amendments, and these people have got to spend countless hours putting together these incredible briefs to try to show a balance when what they really want, Minister, is they want you to withdraw the bill and live by the ILO convention and stay the hell out of their affairs. That's what they really want.

If there are disputes, if there are problems, no one would object -- I wouldn't object -- to sitting down with the people who are having these disputes and finding out how we can resolve those concerns. I can see how maybe in the trade labour movement, and I said -- you know, I was in St Catharines, the minister will recall, and I'm sure with some trepidation he and others saw me invited to the microphone. But frankly I said that I don't question the minister's commitment to the labour movement in general. I know his background and I don't question that. I know he's dedicated to that. What I question is his judgement, the judgement in this particular case of going against ILO conventions, of interfering in a democratic process that's in place where those problems can be resolved. It's absolutely Big Brotherism within the labour movement.

Why not tackle the real problems of public policy? If in fact you're so proud, I say to the minister of the health and safety agency, why not bring that forward in a committee like this and let's attack the real problems there?

If we in opposition are so wrong about those issues, tear us apart on them. Take your best shot. Open season. Instead, we have to get involved in internal union fights. It's just very, very hard to understand why.

The powers of international parents in labour relations, it's interesting. International unions, for years, you wonder why anybody would be involved. I mean, we're Canadians; we can stand on our own. What's the point? In the construction industry, I think it's obvious; certainly, in many of the industrial industries, in steel it's obvious. We live in a global marketplace and have for years. If you go down to the Ohio Valley, all of the steel producers down there and everything, there's a lot of commonality, and there's strength in numbers. If a Bob White comes along and decides that he, for whatever reason, wants to lead his men and women out of the international union and form his own union in auto, God bless. There was a process by which he was able to do that, and I support that.

I asked the question at the beginning: What would you do if a local or a group of locals decided to vote to leave an international or to change their own constitution in some regard? Would you interfere in that? I didn't get an answer, but I suspect the answer is no. So the question has to be asked: If you don't interfere in that kind of a process, what makes you think you can or should interfere the way you're doing it in Bill 80?

Shared bargaining rights: I've talked to the people. I understand that's the practice today. I can't imagine today where a local that had some concerns would go to the international and say, "We have concerns on a local basis, and we want to be involved." They are involved. That's the way business is done in the international trade-labour movement today. These are not unsophisticated people. This is not the 1930s and 1940s, when you were just concerned about people getting ripped off from unscrupulous employers who didn't even understand things like holiday pay or sick pay or any of those kinds of things.

This is a very modern time in labour relations. Companies understand today the significance of health and safety legislation, and they understand the importance of having less lost time due to illness and due to accidents in the workplace, because it affects the bottom line. I don't care what their motivation is. Their motivation may indeed be profit, it may be growth of the company, but the bottom line is that they understand it and they agree with it. You don't have to shove it down their throats.

Unions today: Talk about the relationship in international unions and megaprojects. You're going to hear from Jim McCambly of the CFL, the Canadian Federation of Labour, about the impact that legislation like this could have on megaprojects. I'm talking about Ontario Hydro, Hydro-Québec projects, billions of dollars at stake over many, many years.

There has to be some forum. What happens now is that in many cases the union will come in and offer a no-strike, no-lockout agreement. It could be for the duration of the project. It could last 10 years. There has to be the ability to be able to do that. There has to be the ability to have a referee. Up to now, an international has played that role.

If I saw this as some need to exert our Canadian identity in the trade labour movement, maybe I'd understand that. I just don't see that as a requirement. People in the labour movement don't even see that as a requirement. Is this just more empowerment? I go back to my friend Gérard's comment the day the deal was signed on Algoma and his quote that I always found so incredible, "This is a great day for worker control." Not a great day for the future of the Sault or for Algoma or a great day for the labour movement or a great day for labour-government relations or a great day for Algoma Steel or a great day for the men and women who work there; this is a great day for worker control.

That kind of mentality, frankly, has really come to light during the term of this government, the fact that the government would find, instead of dealing with reforms to health and safety in a positive way and settling down the relationship that has been created between employers and that agency, instead of calming things down and trying to make a bipartite board work when we know it isn't working, that it has to get involved in amending the Labour Relations Act in Bill 40 and causing even more problems in the business community and in the community at large.

1700

Mr Mammoliti: Okay, Steve, just get on with the bill, will you? This is Bill 80 we're talking about.

Mr Mahoney: I appreciate your coaching.

Then instead of dealing with 208 --

Mr Mammoliti: You're getting on my nerves.

Mr Mahoney: I'm glad I'm getting on your nerves. Maybe I should get through to some of your common sense, never mind your nerves.

The Acting Chair: Let's be nice.

Mr Mahoney: Why? Common sense says that we should be dealing with the problems that are broken in this province and not trying to fix the ones that aren't. Health and safety is broken, it's in a disastrous state, and workers' compensation is sure broken, it's in a mess. Yet I see us tinkering around.

I go through the deputy's presentation. There was a section in here -- I just find this incredible -- on trusteeships and other interference. This section also states that the board is not bound by the union constitution when determining what constitutes just cause. I'm not a lawyer, but I think I could even argue with the ILO convention 87 that this clearly contravenes international law. It is so blatant. How can you say you're not bound by a union constitution? What's the point of having a constitution in place if you're going to pass legislation that will just eliminate that requirement?

Then the next question is that the government says, "Don't worry, it's okay, we've taken out the disaffiliation section." Let me tell you, much of what happens in the province of Ontario does not indeed happen by legislation but rather by regulation. I get very nervous at the thought of a bill being in place that would allow either this minister or a future minister in the cabinet to decide by regulation that they're going to make amendments somewhere down the road that just might allow for this provision to come back in. Clearly, that can happen. We have countless examples. And it's not a partisan statement; it can happen by any government. The fact of the matter is, we are governed by regulations one hell of a lot more than we're governed by legislation.

So you can't just say, "It's okay; they've taken out that worst section of the bill so we don't have to worry about it." Believe me, we have to worry about it. This is not a positive step forward, but this is rather a pandering to a current Labour minister's fantasies about what the problems were, based on what happened when he was the critic in opposition. Maybe there were problems that he and others heard about, but we didn't hear about them. I think the only fair, responsible way to ask anybody to deal with a bill is to bring forward specifics of what those examples are.

The labour relations board: Does it not have anything to do? Do they just sit around and drink coffee all day? They don't have any problems? I would have thought that they were very, very busy, that there were all kinds of things they had to deal with. So we're going to give them some more. Now we're going to get them involved in determining what "just cause" is.

Members on the government side will know better than many members in opposition that there is already in place a dispute settlement mechanism in the construction industry that has been there over 70 years and has worked. It deals with jurisdiction geographically; it deals with jurisdiction from a work perspective; it deals with jurisdiction from a sectoral basis. It works.

The interesting thing is that it's the international that acts as the referee, because it can come in without fear of reprisal, without fear of not being re-elected, because it's not elected by the particular groups that it's settling the disputes of. So if you get the pipefitters and the plumbers fighting with one another, there's a way to solve the problem already. It's there and it's in place. Why not use it? If it needs to be updated -- it's been updated periodically; it's been updated on an ongoing basis for years and years and years -- why not use the system that's in place today, rather than requiring the labour board, which, as I say, should be, if it's not, busy in dealing with problems that are currently on its plate?

So I must tell you, Minister, we have tried to find some basis, any basis, whereby there was any support available in our caucus for this bill. This is just nothing more than simple meddling by a government that is attempting to pander --

Mr Mammoliti: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I have reason to believe that the comments that Mr Mahoney is saying are out of order. If you'll bear with me, I'll --

Mr Mahoney: Mr Chairman, he's just trying to take up my time, so stop the clock or else --

Mr Mammoliti: On February 2 --

Mr Mahoney: This is nonsense.

The Acting Chair: Just settle down.

Mr Mahoney: This is not a point of order. If you can't stand the heat, George, get the hell out of the room.

Mr Mammoliti: On February 2, the then Premier of the province, Mr Peterson, wrote to the then Minister of Labour, Mr Ramsay. In the letter, in one paragraph --

The Acting Chair: Mr Mammoliti --

Mr Mammoliti: -- he wrote him, "I am asking you, Mr Minister, to act immediately to stave off the potential takeover of Local 1059 of the Labourer's International."

The Acting Chair: Mr Mammoliti, that is an interesting point, but it's not a point of order.

Mr Mammoliti: "I urge you to introduce amending legislation to the Labour Relations Act" --

The Acting Chair: You've got another 35 seconds of your time.

Mr Mammoliti: -- "to provide a mechanism by which either the international must justify trusteeship" --

The Acting Chair: Mr Mammoliti, please, you have your day.

Mr Mammoliti: -- "before implementation, or the local can effectively challenge the action in" --

Mr Mahoney: Mr Chair, the point is quite clear here. There are other problems. You say I have only 35 seconds.

The Acting Chair: An extra 35 seconds.

Mr Mahoney: I didn't even get into the Quebec issue. I had the opportunity to meet with Normand Cherry, the Minister of Labour in Quebec. They're very interested in resolving the problems down there. I think the deputy knows -- he's talked to their staff -- that's an area where we should be concentrating our efforts. If you want to solve problems for workers in the construction industry, then solve the problems in the dispute between Ontario and Quebec.

You could have done that. Instead, you've chosen to meddle in internal union affairs. It's an absolute disgrace. Eighty per cent of the industry is against this and is opposed to this legislation. The reality is that while there will be amendments, because it's not going to be withdrawn, this legislation should be withdrawn to allow us to get on with fixing things that are truly broken in this province in relationship to labour.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Mahoney. Those are the opening statements by the official opposition critic. Just for the record, the clock stopped. If it isn't the mikes, it's the clock. The official time now is about six or seven minutes after 5. If it's okay, we'll have a two-second recess -- or is everybody ready to carry on? Everybody's ready to carry on? Okay.

BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO, CANADIAN OFFICE

The Acting Chair: The next presentation will now be the Canadian building trades department. The executive secretary is here, and the assistant to the executive secretary. Could you please come up and introduce yourselves on the mike so it's officially in Hansard. I notice the clock is working now, but hopefully the mikes will be working too.

You have approximately an hour. If it's okay with everybody, that'll take us a little bit after 6, but if you honourable gentlemen want to leave at 6, I'm sure nobody will disagree either. All right?

Bob Huget is here now, the official Chair, and I'll give it back to him. Things are getting rowdy. It needs a bigger guy up here.

Mr Mahoney: It's unfortunate that the minister and the deputy have decided to leave. I would have thought they would have wanted to hear these comments.

Mr Mammoliti: We have the parliamentary assistant here.

The Chair (Mr Bob Huget): If the committee could come to order, we have witnesses who wish to make a presentation before the committee, and that is the order of business for today, if we could proceed with that. If each of you could introduce yourselves into the microphones and then proceed with your presentation, you have one hour for your presentation. The committee would like a portion of that, if possible, for questions and answers. So proceed at your leisure.

1710

Mr Guy Dumoulin: I'd first of all like to thank the committee for giving us a chance to express our concern in regard to Bill 80.

My name is Guy Dumoulin, the executive secretary of the Building and Construction Trades Department, Canadian office. With me is Brother Joe Maloney, assistant to the executive secretary, who will make most of this presentation. I presume all of you met him at least once and I'm aware that Brother Maloney has been involved in this matter since the introduction of Bill 80.

First, I want to take a few moments of our time to introduce the Building and Construction Trades Department and our position on Bill 80.

The Building and Construction Trades Department affiliates 14 international unions, representing more than 400,000 members working in the construction industry in Canada. Our charter in Ontario, the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, represents more than 100,000 members in Ontario.

The Building and Construction Trades Department was founded on February 10, 1908, an affiliated organization of proud history, stretching back more than 100 years, 100 years of service to the members.

I'm wondering why we even have to be here today. The government has never explained what problem Bill 80 is trying to fix. Our affiliated organization and its members strongly support their organization within the existing structure. If it isn't broken, why try to fix it? So why Bill 80?

At the last building and construction trades Canadian convention, the delegates unanimously opposed Bill 80. At the last two Ontario building and construction trades conventions, the delegates have gone on record opposing Bill 80. The most recent took last month in St Catharines. Of our 12 charter local councils, only one partially supported Bill 80; 13 of 15 trade bargaining conferences opposed the bill, as do the vast majority of local unions.

I think Bill 80 was introduced to satisfy a very small minority within the building trades. In a democracy the majority rules. The government, of all people, should understand what it means, the majority rules.

Bill 80 will set a very dangerous precedent for the labour movement and all other organizations. What I mean by this is that even the political party -- our organization with constitution to order its affairs. How would you feel and how would you react if the precedent of Bill 80 was used to attack your rules and bylaws, laws democratically adopted by the members of your organization?

The precedent of government interference in construction union constitutions will, with the stroke of a pen, be applied to all Ontario's unions. Eventually it will spread to other jurisdictions and seriously cripple labour unions. Bill 80 violates our charter of rights, ILO convention and the first nations' treaty rights. Freedom of association is a right far too precious to interfere with.

I want to be very clear. We do not support Bill 80 and we urge you to recommend that the bill be withdrawn. However, having listened to the minister at the last building trades convention in St Catharines, we were led to believe that it is the strong intention of the government to proceed with the bill.

With this in mind, we, the building trades department, have carefully reviewed Bill 80 and the proposed revisions. Our presentation is the result of a serious review of both documents. We try today to make the best of an unwanted bill.

I want to share with the members of the committee some of my own experience. Coming from another province, I have experienced a similar situation before. When workers fight among themselves, it hurts them, their union, the construction industry and the entire economy. My feeling is that if Bill 80 is adopted, our members in Ontario will face the same kind of conflict I experienced elsewhere.

At this stage, Brother Maloney will now proceed with our presentation. I ask the committee to give it very serious and careful consideration.

Mr Joe Maloney: My name is Joe Maloney and I'm the assistant to the executive secretary of the Canadian Building and Construction Trades Department. Before I start today, I'd like to thank the committee for the time, the one hour, because we want to go through most of the things the deputy minister spoke about.

Briefly, just before I get into the nuts and bolts of this whole thing, going back to when this bill was tabled for first reading, and we are hearing these words of consultation today, I want to be clear on the record that this bill was tabled prior to any consultation with the Canadian building trades or the provincial building trades. We only heard about it after the fact and we do have some concerns about that.

We also have other concerns that the application of Bill 80 is only to the construction industry. We wonder why, because there are other international-based unions that are outside the construction industry that this does not apply to. That's a question that still hasn't been answered.

Also, we're very concerned at a precedent that's going to be set of government interference into duly formed constitutions of building and construction trade unions.

The provincial building trades have two resolutions that were adopted at their 35th and 36th conventions respectively opposing Bill 80. The Canadian building trades as well have opposed Bill 80 by way of their convention.

As well, in the brief that you have in front of you, if you look at tab 5, we have filed a complaint with the International Labour Organization. It shows you in tab 5 the actual convention resolution that we feel is being violated and then some letters of documentation back and forth between Mr Dumoulin's office and Geneva.

Having said that, we realize that Bill 80 -- we've been told, anyway -- is a fact of life. It's going to be a reality anyway, if we like it or if we don't like it. Having heard that and having to live with that, I suppose we have to work within the confines of Bill 80.

What I'm going to do is address the remainder of this presentation to the modified version today that was explained earlier, and that will be, as I know it, in tab 3.

As well, being an umbrella group of the Canadian building trades, we are only going to deal with section 138.2, which is the bargaining rights section; section 138.3, which is the jurisdiction section; and section 138.5, which is the trusteeship section. We will not be dealing with the section on benefit plans as we feel that the different affiliates will be better equipped to deal with that on their individual, separate issues, because of the uniqueness of every affiliate when it comes to its benefit plan structure.

Having said that, I'll take you to tab 1, which is going to be our presentation. We feel that we're coming into this thing on these three sections with a very balanced approach. Even though we are opposed to the bill in its entirety, we understand that we're living in a reality and the reality is we're going to have a Bill 80. So we feel that we should come into this thing with a balanced approach and not a negative approach.

We feel that what we're about to present encompasses what the pro side of Bill 80 has been asking for, we feel that it encompasses what the government's intentions are, and also we feel it's very important that the integrity of our trade union constitutions remain intact. Those are the three issues we are very concerned about, and we come into this thing with a very balanced approach, in our opinion, when I say that.

1720

Now I take you over to section 138.1, which is the definitions section of the legislation. The deputy minister probably clarified it for me in his comments.

If you notice at the top of the page, that being tab 1 on page 3, 138.1(1), the squared-off section at the top is what the proposed revision from the government is, where it says, "`Jurisdiction' includes geographic, sectoral and work jurisdiction." We had a concern. We didn't know what the word "work" meant in "jurisdiction." We were under the assumption that "work" meant work within a single trade. That was clarified today. We didn't want it to be as a traditional work jurisdiction between two separate crafts. That's already covered under section 93 of the act.

Now that we know that "work" is work within a single craft, we feel that the word "work" could be removed without changing any intention of the legislation, because when you say "work within a single craft" that means work inside a geographic jurisdiction. So what we're saying there is that we feel the word "work" could be removed without changing any intention of the legislation.

The next one, 138.1(3), says, "In the even of a conflict between any provision in sections 138.2 to 138.7 and any provision in the constitution of a trade union, the provisions in sections 138.2 to 138.7 prevail." We find the actual wording, where it says "and any provision in the constitution of a trade union" to be offensive due to the fact that right now, sections 105 and 108 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act give the Ontario Labour Relations Board full authority already to exercise whatever powers it feels it has to exercise in the matter of labour relations. Also, sections 120 and 121 of the construction industry provisions in the Labour Relations Act already contain conflict language and they don't make any mention of a trade union constitution.

As a matter of house cleaning, we are suggesting that you can remove references to a trade union constitution without affecting the intent of the legislation, but it won't sound so offensive when you specifically zero in on our constitutions. I show you examples of that over in tab 2. There are excerpts from the existing Labour Relations Act, and as I'm going through this thing I will refer to tab 2 and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The next section, 138.2, the bargaining rights section: The question we have here first of all is, does this section apply to all other sectors in section 119 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act? Again, in tab 2 those sections are outlined in the legislation. The deputy minister today mentioned that there are seven sectors in the construction industry, the ICI being one of the sectors, so we know it doesn't apply to the ICI sector. Does that mean it applies to all the other sectors? It doesn't say that clearly. It's ambiguous there. Now, having asked that question, we don't have a general problem with subsections 138.2(1), (2) and (3). We don't have a real problem with them.

If you look over in tab 4, what I give you there and why I say we don't have a problem with that is that you'll see at the top of the page it says, "Non ICI Sector Bargaining Rights." I've done a poll with all the affiliates and the ones that responded are here.

This is the actual day-to-day practice of what happens out there now outside the ICI sector as to who holds the bargaining rights. If you take the operating engineers at the top, in pipeline they're 100% owned by the international but on a day-to-day basis they're jointly administered; the residential sector of the operating engineers, 100% local; sewer and watermain, 100% local; and IBEW, ironworkers, it goes all the way down the line to those. So that's the day-to-day application.

Now, the problem we've got with subsections (4), (5) and (6) is that we feel this is where the minister and the government are starting to interfere in our collective bargaining affairs. We've got no problem, from the international point of view, on sharing bargaining rights, because in our point of view, on a day-to-day practice this is what normally happens anyway, in most cases.

What we're suggesting is to adopt subsections (1), (2) and (3) of section 138.2 but don't force the affiliates to form councils, because what happens when you force them to form councils is that the bargaining rights then will travel through the local and go to a council, and the council and the international will jointly hold the rights. The local itself will not hold the rights.

The minister keeps making reference to the ICI sector, where they currently enjoy these rights, but what happens in the ICI sector is that if there's more than one local union in the province, they're bound to form a council. Those individual locals do not hold the bargaining rights. They're held by the council and the international jointly.

What we're saying here is that as far as we're concerned, the vast majority of bargaining rights outside the ICI sector are equal bargaining rights. Let's put it in writing -- we don't have a problem with that -- but don't force the people to form councils. If they want to form councils for the purposes of bargaining, they can do it on their own. They're very mature, educated men and women and they can handle their own stuff that way, but don't force them, because it will only create problems down the road.

Another question I've got: Right now, outside the ICI sector, if we organize a company, we get a board area certification. It could be board area 8 or 4, whatever. If we're forced to form provincial councils, future certifications, would that mean now that we get a province-wide certification on that company, like we do in the ICI sector?

What we're suggesting here, as I mentioned, is that we don't have a problem with adopting subsections 138.2(1), (2) and (3), but we ask that subsections (4), (5) and (6) be deleted. That way the bargaining rights will be shared but they'll be truly shared with the local and the international parent.

I take you over to section 138.3, the jurisdiction section. There was a clarification I was going to ask for but I think it got it answered, that the jurisdiction section should be specific as to geographic within a single craft, keeping away from a traditional jurisdictional disputes, as we know them, between crafts under section 93 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

Another problem we've got with section 138.3 and the jurisdiction is that under subsection (2), you're asking the parent trade union to apply. We feel that the remedial treatment in subsection (2) should be complaints-driven, as in the Labour Relations Act now, sections 92, 93, 94, 95 and almost every other area of the act where there's a problem. Again, in tab 2 it says, "on application by." It should be complaints-driven. We don't have a problem with that.

The concerns we have under jurisdiction are that the international parents issue and own the charters of a local lodge and they should retain the authority to alter the jurisdiction. But we agree that there should be just-cause provisions there and the factors should be outlined in the act that must be considered.

1730

We agree, even though we've asked and we haven't got the answers where the arbitrary heavy hand has been, where these things have happened in the past, that nobody should have an arbitrary heavy hand. But we also maintain that decisions have to be made and someone's got to be in charge to maintain, control, structures that we live in.

Section 7 of the Labour Relations Act gives authority to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to merge bargaining units and they set out criteria. Now even though this doesn't apply to the construction industry, it does have a mechanism on how industrial-based unions can merge bargaining units, usually under one roof or whatever, and it sets out criteria. But there's nothing offensive in those criteria like in the suggested language of the government in subsection (3), where they use such words as "We'll take your constitution into consideration but we're not bound by it."

We find that to be extremely offensive. We already know that the labour relations board has full authority to look at whatever they want to look at anyway, so why do we have to be so offensive in specifically stating that "We'll look at your constitution but we don't have to be bound by it"? Things that go through your mind, "It's a nice cover, thank you, goodbye," who determines this? It could drive you crazy trying to think what could happen.

As I said at the outset, our mission here is to make sure that the integrity of our constitutions are intact after this legislation is proclaimed in law, and the way it's written right now where it says, "must consider but is not bound by," those words are very offensive and would not comply with what we're looking for to maintain integrity of the constitutions.

This wording could be removed and having the section complaints-driven and without any change of the intent of the legislation whatsoever. When I say "complaints-driven" -- and I'll get to that in a second -- also this would complement the purpose of the Labour Relations Act. If you look at subsection 2.1(4) of the act, it says "Purpose," and I quote, "To provide for effective, fair and expeditious methods of dispute resolution." Now, if that doesn't complement complaints-driven legislation, I don't know what does. So I ask you to look at that.

Mr Mahoney: What was that wording again?

Mr Maloney: Section 2.1(4), "Purpose of the OLRA: To provide for effective, fair and expeditious methods of dispute resolution."

Mr Mahoney: Thank you.

Mr Maloney: Now, I take --

Interjection.

Mr Maloney: Pardon me. If I didn't know you so well, Sharon, I'd be wondering.

Ms Murdock: No, I wasn't talking to you.

Mr Maloney: This is like a union meeting of sorts, you know.

Mr Mahoney: No beer.

Mr Maloney: That's after the meeting. Sometimes before the meeting.

I take you over to page 8. Our suggested language for section 138.3 will, in our view, cause the least amount of damage to the construction industry, and I'll quickly read it out.

Subsection 138.3(1): "A parent trade union shall not alter the jurisdiction of a local trade union, whether established under constitution or otherwise, as the jurisdiction existed under on the first day of May, 1992, unless there is just cause for the alteration."

Subsection 138.3(2): "Despite subsection (1), on application" -- please, this is the important one -- "by the local trade union, the board may review the alteration of the jurisdiction of a local trade union to determine if there is just cause for the alteration."

Subsection 138.3(3): "In an application relating to this section, the board may take into account such factors as it considers appropriate and it must consider the following factors when determining what constitutes just cause:

"1. the provisions of the trade union constitution;

"2. the alteration would enhance viable and stable collective bargaining and servicing." By the way, item 2 is already in section 7 of the Labour Relations Act in merging of bargaining units. By the way, item 2 is already in section 7 of the Labour Relations Act, merging of bargaining units;

"3. the ability of the local trade union to carry out its responsibilities under this act, and

"4. the wishes of the members of the local trade union."

Now, if you look under the government's three factors it put in there, we've got no problem with their three factors and we've put in the fourth factor that's already in section 7 of the Labour Relations Act. The only change here is that it's complaints-driven and there are just-cause provisions, but we've taken out the words that are offensive, "is not bound by."

Also, in section 92.2 of the Labour Relations Act, they have language there for expedited hearings. We don't have a problem with expedited hearings under this if the local applies to the labour relations board that its jurisdiction has been altered in an arbitrary or heavy-handed way. You know, you have a hearing within 14 days, 10 days, whatever you think is fair.

That's not a problem, because for the amount that this thing happens out there -- we don't know where the examples are where it has happened, so all we can say is we think this would be fair and balanced to everybody concerned. The just cause would be there for the people who feel they need protection, the government's intention would be there on giving that protection, plus the integrity of the constitutions would remain in place for the international parents.

Having said that, I take you over to page 9, 138.5, the trusteeship section. This one here is a beauty. We have some concerns with this one, first of all in subsection 138.5(1). Could somebody please tell us what "otherwise interfere with a local trade union directly or indirectly in such a way that the autonomy of the local trade union is affected" means? Could somebody tell us what that means, because we don't know.

We feel that lacks definition, and if there's just cause put in this section, and I'll explain it in a moment, this again very offensive language could be removed without affecting any of the intent of the legislation whatsoever.

Part of the problem with that specific wording is that no representative of the international parent union would know if they're acting legally or illegally in Ontario. If they are taken to the labour board, the board would have to make that determination. They'd be handcuffed. They wouldn't know what to do on a day-to-day basis when they're working with the locals.

The legislation is offensive again by suggesting that the Labour Relations Board can ignore constitutions with the words "not bound by" in subsection (3).

Already in section 84 of the Labour Relations Act there's a review process for trusteeships. When you place a local under trusteeship, you've got to file on the board's prescribed forms that you have put one under trusteeship. I don't know; I've never seen one of those forms, but I would assume you'd have to state your reasons why, and after one year of a trusteeship being imposed, you have to go there and ask for an extension.

Trusteeships in construction locals are only imposed by way of a constitution. No Canadian director or international representative can just come in and say: "I don't like you because you wear blue suits on Tuesdays. You're under trusteeship." It's done under the terms of the constitution; something's been violated there. When you put a local under trusteeship, that is the very, very end of the day. After you've exhausted every other avenue you have and the trusteeship has to be imposed, it's the end of the day.

1740

I'll take you to a nasty little story that took place in Toronto here not long ago when some of the elected officers of Iron Workers Local 721 were arrested. It was all over the news. It didn't look good for the labour movement and the members were crying that they wanted the Labour minister himself to put the local under trusteeship. Those people, I can tell you, went to court. They were all cleared 100%. They are all back at work now, but the international or anybody didn't put them under trusteeship. These things aren't taken lightly and we suggest you should not take them lightly.

I take you quickly over to tab 6. There are some quick facts there. There are 146 locals represented by the Building and Construction Trades Council in Ontario. From 1985 to 1992, there were six supervisions and one trusteeship imposed: seven occurrences in seven years that we're aware of. In 1984, the most up-to-date CALURA report states that there were 10 trusteeships: two by construction unions, two by government unions and six by industrial unions. There is no difference between construction unions and industrial unions in terms of trusteeship provisions in their respective constitutions.

I also put at the bottom here, because we've studied them, the New Democratic Party has provisions for discipline both federally and provincially in their own constitutions, as I'm sure the Tories and the Liberals have as well.

I take you over to the next page on that one.

Mr Mammoliti: And the Liberals are perfect.

Mr Mahoney: We don't need it.

Interjections.

Mr Maloney: They're right on Bill 80 so far.

Mr Mahoney: Did you guys hear that? They said we were right on Bill 80.

Interjection: So are we.

Mr Maloney: So are the Tories, that's right.

I take you over to the next page, which says "Building Trades Trusteeship Provisions." Here are excerpts from their constitutions, and those photocopied excerpts are in here as well. We've got the carpenters, boilermakers, bricklayers. It says who has the authority and what happens when a trusteeship is being imposed: the appeal procedure, the hearings that take place and different things along those lines.

If you keep flipping over, I've even put in there non-building trades trusteeship provisions. The CAW, CUPE, Public Service Alliance, Steelworkers and again -- sorry, I should have got the Liberals and the Tories to put in here too, but there are excerpts there from the NDP constitution, article 15, discipline. I don't want to pick on the NDP, but --

Mr Mahoney: Why not?

Ms Murdock: Everybody else does.

Mr Maloney: -- you are the government and it is your bill.

The point I'm trying to get through here is that all unions, whether they be construction unions, industrial unions, political parties, have provisions for discipline in their organization. They have a structure in place, and what we're saying is that constitutions should not be treated as lightly as this legislation is attempting to treat them.

I'll give you one more thing and again I apologize. I even take you to an article in the Toronto Star of November 3 where your leader, Premier Rae, refers to his constitution. These things are in place for a reason and for legislation to say, "We'll look at your constitution but we're not bound by it," we can't accept. It is very offensive and we ask that that wording be removed. This is when they were talking about a leadership review.

Mr Mammoliti: That's not past tense, by the way.

Mr Mahoney: I was hoping for you, George.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): The federal Tories had a leadership review.

Mr Mammoliti: I'd do about as good as you did, Steve.

Mr Maloney: Once again I say that the constitutions are there for a reason and trusteeships are only imposed by way of a constitution. We also agree that nobody should have an arbitrary heavy hand over anybody else and there should be just-cause provisions in place and there should be checks and balances in place if there's going to be a trusteeship imposed.

We feel that a trusteeship again should be complaints-driven, and I take you over to page 10 of our brief, on tab 1, where I say, "This suggested language for subsections 138.5(1), (2) and (3) will, in our view, cause the least amount of damage to the construction industry:

"138.5(1) The parent trade union or a council of trade unions shall not, without just cause, assume supervision of a local trade union.

"138.5(2) The parent trade union or a council of trade unions shall not, without just cause, remove from office, change the duties of or impose a penalty on an elected or appointed official of a local trade union."

Subsection 138.5(3) we took directly from Bill 84 of British Columbia where they deal with matters of a trade union.

"In an application relating to this section, the board must first consider the provisions of a trade union constitution when determining what constitutes just cause, keeping in mind that every person has a right to the application of the principles of natural justice in respect of all disputes relating to: (a) matters in the trade union's constitution; and (b) discipline by a trade union."

As I said, we agree nobody should have an arbitrary heavy hand over anybody else. We don't know where these trusteeships have been imposed arbitrarily. We've looked inside our organizations. We know there have been some problems down in the London area that have been resolved, and I'm sure you're going to hear some of the stories as delegations go through here.

But what I ask you to do when these delegations go through here is to ask each and every one of them specifically, can they live with complaints-driven legislation as we've set it here, where there's a structure in place and there's a protection in place if they feel they've got to be protected? Just ask them, and if they say no, ask them why, because I think you'll find out, if the answer's no, that person or whoever they're purporting to represent probably has a hidden agenda of some sort. You've got to get to the facts in this and get away from the hidden and personal agendas and get down to what's really necessary for the construction industry.

Having said that, those are the three issues we're dealing with. As I said at the beginning, we felt that we should come in here with a very fair and balanced approach. We feel that the legislation should be complaints-driven. We've dealt with the bargaining rights where we don't mind sharing bargaining rights because that's the day-to-day practice now. Let's put it in writing but let's not force the organizations to form councils, because the locals will not get the bargaining rights; they'll go to a council.

The jurisdiction and the trusteeship sections: We're asking that offensive wording such as "not bound by" be removed, those types of words, and that the legislation be complaints-driven.

Having said that, all I can say in conclusion, before we get into questions, is that Bill 80 has been a very divisive bill within the construction industry. People have taken positions on both sides of the issue. I know friends have argued tooth and nail over it for years and years and years. We'd just like this thing to be done with and get it put on the back burner somewhere so we can get on with doing our jobs. The people we're supposed to be representing out there are not being represented when we're arguing with each other day in and day out over Bill 80. We've got bigger fish to fry out there and we'd like to get on with doing that job.

So we ask you to please consider our proposals, consider our amendments and once this thing is behind us, we can all get on with what we're supposed to be doing and that's servicing the membership. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We started the testimony of this particular witness at 5:10. To complete the full hour and allow for questions, if there's unanimous consent we'll sit to 6:10, which will give about five minutes per caucus for questions. Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you very much to both Guy and to Joe for this. I know there have been a lot of people who have put in a lot of hours, blood, sweat and tears over this bill and I know that you and your organization have led the way in many areas. I think you have presented a very balanced presentation. While I understand that your preference would be to have the bill withdrawn, as it would be mine, the reality is that it's not likely to happen, so I think you've put forward some very responsible positions.

1750

I would like to officially ask, I guess, to the parliamentary assistant that before these hearings are over we get a written response to the amendments that are put forward by this organization from the ministry of either acceptance, and if it's acceptance, then that would be accompanied by an amendment, or if it's not acceptance, then perhaps the opposition will be putting these forward as amendments. Even though we're not in support of the bill, we've got to try to work something out. So I hope we would get that.

To Mr Dumoulin, I'd like to ask you this. You referred to fighting among each other and problems that you encountered in other jurisdictions, be it -- I'm not sure where; Alberta, perhaps, other places. Could you give us some examples? I don't know if this is civil war or what it is, but what happens out there internally within the brothers and sisters when they get into disputes, and what are you worried about?

Mr Dumoulin: First of all, it's not the province of Alberta; it's the province of Quebec. You must have guessed this.

Mr Mahoney: Yes.

Mr Dumoulin: I have to tell you, then, that when you have a problem with a jurisdictional dispute within a job site, it does create major problems. If you have a different avenue to try to resolve these issues, which could be a provincial avenue or the international avenue, it does create a big problem, because which one are you going to choose? If the work doesn't belong to your trade, you're certainly going to go to the provincial avenue because you know in advance the decision you'll get from the international structure or the plan for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes.

When I say workers fight among themselves, I saw it personally. I saw it on a big site; I saw it at Seven Islands. I saw it at Murdochville and I saw it at a lot of places where there was a major project, and it's not nice to see. When you say war, sometimes it might look like a war when you get to these sites.

I don't think there's any problem in the construction industry in the province of Ontario, but with legislation like this, you could create these types of problems. When the situation happens to be the way it is now within the construction industry where there's not that much work, I tell you one thing: You really fight for what belongs to you and maybe try to steal a little bit from another trade. These are the types of things that could occur with such legislation there. That's what I'm scared of.

Mr Mahoney: Let me ask you, though: Do you feel that the dispute settlement mechanisms that are in place now, the document that's been in place for seven years that gets used, simply will solve those disputes even though there's not a lot of work to go around?

Mr Dumoulin: As a matter of fact, we've put it together in Canada. It's going to apply in Canada and the decision will take place in Canada.

Mr Mahoney: So you're drafting your own documents?

Mr Dumoulin: It's already done. It's already been approved and it's all ready. All we have to do now is decide on the date that it's going to be applied.

Mr Mahoney: Who approved it?

Mr Dumoulin: It's approved within the structure of the international. This came out of a resolution of our last two conventions, the Canadian building trades conventions, requesting that we put in place a mechanism to resolve the jurisdictional dispute which the owners, the contractors, were complaining about. So we did this and it's in place now and it's called --

Mr Mahoney: Is it approved by the members, Guy? Sorry to interrupt you, but I want to --

Mr Dumoulin: It's approved by the members through the convention of each organization. Each organization has their convention every four or five years.

Mr Mahoney: And they voted on this?

Mr Dumoulin: They decided that they will be part of the plan or they won't be part of the plan.

Mr Mahoney: You did this, I presume, without government interference?

Mr Dumoulin: We did that among our own structures. That's how we did it.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you very much.

Could I ask, Joe: The ILO convention that I referred to, and you did as well, have you sought a legal opinion on this? I know you filed a complaint.

Mr Maloney: No, we filed a complaint with the ILO. We haven't got a legal opinion. We haven't got a legal opinion in writing. We've talked to several lawyers about it and they've alluded to the fact that there's a possible charter violation there as well.

Mr Mahoney: Will you be following through on that, getting a legal opinion and attempting to challenge the bill if it's passed?

Mr Maloney: Definitely. If the bill passes the way it is, we have no other choice but to go the whole route.

Mr Mahoney: Help me out on a couple of things, because if the government doesn't agree to your suggestions I may have to put your suggestions in the form of resolutions and I want to understand them. You suggest deleting in subsection 138.1(1) the word "work," and say that it's covered because it's the same as geographic. I don't follow that.

Mr Maloney: When work jurisdiction pertains to a single craft, it pertains to the boilermaker or the ironworker as an individual craft, then that local is assigned a geographic charter and that encompasses the work inside that charter. The word "work," if it means what the deputy minister said it means, is not necessary because it's already included in geographic jurisdiction.

Mr Mahoney: But does it cause a big problem if it's there?

Mr Maloney: The concern I had with it is that right now if the ironworker and the boilermaker are fighting on a job site over who puts that steel up, a tower or something, and they can't agree on it, normally the two international reps from the respective organizations would come in and say: "Okay, Steve. I know it's your work. You take the work back."

We had a concern that the local business agent or manager would say: "Hold it. Section 138.1 of Bill 80 says `work jurisdiction.' You can't give that away." That's the concern we have, and we don't want that to be misinterpreted down the road.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'd like to congratulate you for your deputation today. I must say that I'm not totally familiar, but it's been quite an eye-opener for me.

This is a question to either one of you, whoever could address it. I wonder if there is any way of prioritizing your concerns. They've been well enunciated here today; there are quite a number of them, and government may or may not accept them. If they don't, are there any ones that are of particular concern over and above the others? For example, in subsections 138.2(4) to (6) it's being suggested that you form councils, and this is obviously one of your major concerns. What is your number one priority?

Mr Maloney: Our main concern here is the intrusion on our constitutions, and that would come in sections 138.3 and 138.5. Section 138.2 deals with bargaining rights, and that's government interference into the collective bargaining procedures in Ontario. But I wouldn't like to prioritize them, because we're only speaking to three of the four pieces of legislation that the government's dealing with. That's our list, and we're very serious about these three issues. They deal with government intervention in the collective bargaining procedure, and they deal with government intervention into the trade union constitutions.

On the definition section, it's just a matter of housecleaning. So I don't want to prioritize, because they're all of equal value to us and they're all very important issues that could disrupt the way things are happening out there.

Mr David Johnson: I'm very concerned when I read on page 10 your suggestion that these amendments would cause "the least amount of damage to the construction industry." That's really damning with faint praise. In your other remarks you indicated that the legislation was tabled before you had an opportunity to be involved, and I just wonder how that came about.

Mr Maloney: I don't know how it came about either, but that's the problem we've got with it. We heard some rumours on the street prior to June 1992 that there was going to be some construction legislation coming down. We inquired about it and we were told no. Then, all of a sudden, voilà; around the end of June 1992, Bill 80 hit the streets. Why? Where is the problem? Who do you discuss it with?

We've heard through the industry that there were talks going on for well over a year between certain individuals in the construction industry. The newspapers have alluded to them as high-ranking union officials in and around the Toronto area. I've talked to the provincial building trades; they weren't consulted. The Canadian building trades weren't consulted about it. All of a sudden, the legislation was tabled and then we had to start dealing with it.

Mr David Johnson: I presume that during that period of time you and your members had contact with the government about what was going on, whether these rumours --

Mr Maloney: Oh, yes.

Mr David Johnson: What kind of information were they feeding you back?

1800

Mr Maloney: They were just saying that they were going to consult with us and talk with us. We did have some meetings with the government -- I can't deny that -- but there was nothing ever put to us in writing besides what was tabled in the House. We were told that we were going to have something in writing on several occasions and it never came about. We were supposed to have some real input into the consultation process on trying to reformulate the legislation. That never took place. It was always just a five-, 10-, 15-, 20-minute situation where they talked about, "Yes, we're making more changes; we're talking with more people," and then that was the end of it. So we had to go around and talk to every individual MPP we could to try to gather some support for our concerns.

Mr David Johnson: You've expressed the concern that this should be complaints-driven.

Mr Maloney: Yes.

Mr David Johnson: I wonder if you could elaborate just a little bit more on that and how that works. I'm somewhat new to this.

Mr Maloney: If you take sections 138.3 and 138.5, those would be the two sections that would be complaints-driven. Right now, under the jurisdiction section, the international owns and issues charters. They'll issue the charter for a specific geographic area. For whatever reason, if there's no work in that area and that organi-zation can't keep a full-time office staff or a full-time business manager, then maybe it's better for all concerned that Local A and Local B merge together. There's usually a process that takes place. They would go and have meetings with the memberships and usually try to get motions passed by the members to do this.

There have been stories out there that the international just comes in and says, bango, "We're merging you," without any consultation or any process. We don't want that to happen either. But what we're saying is that the international should not have to apply to a tribunal in the government and ask for permission. They should be able to do what they have to do, and if they do it wrong or they do it arbitrarily, then that local should be able to complain and have it rectified.

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Maloney, welcome. I'm sorry that I missed, actually, most of your verbal presentation, but I promise I'll read the brief.

Mr Maloney: Okay, there's a test on it on Saturday.

Mr Mammoliti: Phone me tonight.

One area that you talked about while I was in the room and that I'm certainly concerned about is the whole area of trusteeship. You related the trusteeship to a part of the bill. Actually, you quote the bill. It says, "otherwise interfering with a local trade union, directly or indirectly, in such a way that the autonomy of the local trade union is affected." You say that it lacks any meaningful definition of "directly or indirectly." That's tab 1, page 9.

Am I safe in assuming, I guess with my stint in unions myself over the past, that most unions, and I think you said this earlier, don't necessarily interfere with local unions, that international unions, in their constitutions, don't necessarily interfere and use the trusteeship clause unless they absolutely have to, unless there's a problem within the local? I'm sure I could name 100 different types of problems that might occur. But at the same time, you're concerned about the definition and what that would mean.

Am I also safe in saying that the reason you're concerned about this is because of a ruling that the board might make later on that might set some precedents and create the definition that you're concerned about? I'm sorry if I'm all over the place, but I hope you've understood me. Are you concerned that somebody else will make the definition for the government if the government doesn't define what it means by this statement?

Mr Maloney: The problem we have when we see the wording in the government's language, "interfere with a local trade union, directly or indirectly," is we don't know what that means. If Local A is not organizing the non-union element and all its work is being done by non-union, can the international not go in and tell it, "Look, you better start organizing out there or they're going to eat up all your work"? Is that interference? It doesn't tell us that.

Mr Mammoliti: In my opinion, if a ruling was made by a board on this sentence, on its meaning, that would define it, would it not? And that ruling might be favourable to your concern.

Mr Maloney: I'll be as candid and blunt as I can. In our opinion, it's none of the labour board's business how we handle our internal union affairs. But if we're doing something that's arbitrary or heavy-handed, then there's got to be some remedy that the local can have.

Mr Mammoliti: Okay. We've established that and, quite frankly, if you haven't guessed already, I share some of the same concerns you do.

I'm sorry I haven't read the brief, but are you prepared to come back to me or to the members with some amendments, some proposed --

Mr Maloney: They're in here.

Mr Mammoliti: With every concern that you have, there's an amendment?

Mr Maloney: Every one. If you go over to page 10, that's our suggested amendment. Like, on page 9, in subsection (3) --

Mr Mammoliti: Okay, you've already given it. It's just a matter of my reading it, then.

Mr Maloney: Yes, that's right. Like, the words "not bound by" are just very, very offensive.

The Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for appearing here this afternoon. I'd like to thank the Canadian building trades department on behalf of the committee and each of you for your presentation here this afternoon. We trust that you'll stay in touch with the committee as we go through the process of dealing with Bill 80, and I'm sure you will. I encourage you to stay in touch with the clerk of the committee or any sitting member of the committee as we go through Bill 80. Thank you very much for appearing this afternoon.

We are then adjourned until Wednesday, November 17, at 3:30 pm.

The committee adjourned at 1807.