Manitoba Committee Hansard — 21 July 1983 (Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 2, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-ir2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STA NDING COMMITTEE on INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 31-32 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. S. Ashton Constituency of Thompson VOL. XXXI No. 2 - 8:00 p.m., THURSD AY, 21 July, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Provmce or Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name Constituency Party ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) Ste. Rose NDP ANSTETT, Andy Springfield NDP ASHTON, Steve Thompson ND P BANMAN, Robert (Bob) La Verendrye PC SLAKE, David R. (Dave) Minn edosa PC BROWN, Arnold Rhineland PC BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. Gimli ND P CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. Brandon West IND CORRIN, Brian Ell ice ND P COWAN, Hon. Jay Churchill NDP DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent St. Bon i!ace ND P DODICK, Doreen Riel ND P DOERN, Russell Elmwood NDP DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth Kildonan ND P DOWNEY, James E.

Arthur PC DRIEDGER, Albert Emerson PC ENNS, Harry Lakeside PC EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. Brandon East ND P EYLER, Phil River East ND P FILMON, Gary Tuxedo PC FOX, Peter Concordia NDP GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) Swan River PC GRAHAM, Harry Virden PC HAMMOND, Gerrie Kirkfield Park PC HARAPIAK, Harry M. The Pas NDP HARPER, Elijah Rupertsland NDP HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen Logan ND P HYDE, Lloyd Portage la Prairie PC JOHNSTON, J. Frank Stu rgeon Creek PC KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene Seven Oaks ND P KOVNATS, Abe Niakwa 4 PC LECUYER, Gerard Radisson NDP LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling Charleswood PC MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI St.

James ND P MALINOWSKI, Donald M. St. Johns ND P MANNESS, Clayton Morr is PC McKENZIE, J. Wally Roblin-R ussell PC MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) St. Norbert PC - NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) Assiniboia PC OLESON, Charlotte Glad stone PC ORCHARD, Donald Pembina PC PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. Selkirk ND P PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson Transcona ND P PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland Fort Rouge NDP PHILLIPS, Myrna A. Wolseley ND P PLOHMAN, Hon. John Dauphin ND P RANSOM, A. Brian Turtle Mountain PC SANTOS, Conrad Burrows NDP SCHROEDE�Hon. V� Rossmere NDP SCOTT, Don ln kster ND P SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) Fort Garry PC SMITH, Hon.

Muriel Osborne NDP STEEN, Warren River Heights PC STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. Flin Flan NDP URUSKI, Hon. Bill lnterlake ND P USKIW, Hon. Samuel Lac du Bonnet NDP WALDING, Hon. D. James St. Vital ND P

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, 1983. Thursday, 21 July, 1983 Time - 8:00 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN - Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): ATTENDANCE - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Cowan, Kostyra and Storie, Hon. Ms. Dolin Messrs. Ashton, Enns, Mercie r, Nordman, Scott, Steen and Ms. Phillips. WITNESSES: Representations were made to the committee as follows: Bill No. 87: Mr . John Walsh, Manitoba Fed eration of Labour Mr. Jack Benedict, Canadian Manufacturing Association Mr . Jim Wright, Winni peg Cham ber of Commer ce Mr.

Murray Smith, Manitoba Teachers' Society Mr. Rail Kyritz, Mantitoba Teachers' Society Bill No. 88: Mr. Richard Rybiak, Canadian Manufacturers' Association Mr. Bruno Zimmer, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr. Sidney Green, Q.C., Manitoba Progressive Party Mr. John Huta, Injur ed Workers Assoc. of Man itoba, In c. MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill No. 54 -

An Act to amend The Payment of Wages Act Bill No. 87 -An Act to amend The Workpla ce Safety and Health Act Bill No. 88 -An Act to amend The Workers Comp ensation Act MR. CHAIRMAN: I call the committee to order. The Min ister has a statement to make first. Ms. Dolin. BILL 54 - THE PAYME NT OF WAGES ACT HON. M.B. DOLIN: The statement I have to make is, of course, in regard to Bill 54. In the course of this 10 Session of the Legislature, Bill 54 was introduced for the purpose of improving and strengthening procedures for the collection of unp aid wages.

This action was prom pted by the inability of my department to collect unp aid wages due principally to the low priority that is given to these wage claims relative to the claims of other creditors. Since we firmly believe that wages worked for and earned by emp loyees should be paid in all circums tances, we felt it imperative to take some form of legislative action. This was done in the form of Bil 54. Since the bill was introduced we have discussed its provisions with various interested parties including emplo yer representatives and spokespersons from the banking and financial commun ity.

Throughout these disucssions, there was consensus on the fact that some means had to be found to ensure that wages earned by empl oyees were, in fact, paid to them. Having agreed upon this common objective, various alternative means of achieving this objective were advanced. For example, as an alternative to elevating the priority of wage claims it was suggested that a small levy be imposed on all emplo yers and that the money collected in this fashion be put into the Payment of Wages fund.

Su bsequently in cases where my department has been unable to collect wages on behalf of emplo yees the unp aid wages could be paid out of the fund. Since an alternative such as this one could achieve the same objective as elevating the priority of wage claims and would, it appears, be more acceptable to emplo yers and the financial com munity we think it is worthy of further considera tion.

For this reason we are, at this time prepared to ask this committee not to report Bill 54, in effect to withdraw it, so as to allow sufficient time to explore a numb er of alternative means of ensuring the payment of unpaid wages and to introduce appropriate legislation at the next sitting of the Legislature. For this purpose I will be asking representatives of the various interested parties to meet as an advisory board to inquire into, and to provide advice to me as to an appropriate mechanism for collecting monies from emplo yers and for the use of such monies to satisfy all claims for unp aid wages.

The parties I refer to include emp loyer and emplo yee representatives, as well as representation from the financial commun ity and from the government. The advisory group will be asked to proceed with its inquiries without delay so that the necessary legislation can be developed and introduced early at the next Session of the Leg islature. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mer cier. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Minister's statement, I simply want to go on record as saying that there is no reason on earth why the Minister

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 could not have made that statement in the Legislature this afternoon. The people who are here tonight could have been phoned by the Clerk's Office and told that it wasn't necessary for them to come down here tonight to hear this statement by the Min ister. The Min ister is correct in asking that the bill not be reported; I'm not sure whether her reasons and her consideration of future action is appropriate.

That's something we can examine later on, but I simply want to go on record as saying the Min ister should have made this statement in the House today or prior to then. so that the people who are here tonight could have been notified prior this evening's meeting so that they didn't have to come here tonight. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Perhaps I could answer that briefly. I did seek the advice of various parties to find out the best way to handle the withdrawing of a bill once it has been referred to comm ittee. I was advised that this is the appropriate way. I believe that many of the parties were informed. MR.

CHAIRMAN: What is the will of the comm ittee in regard to public presentations on Bill No. 54? MR. G. MERCIER: Hopefully we'll have the same kind of statement from the Minis ter - the other Minister who is responsible for the other two bills. MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the will of commi ttee in regard to public presentations? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr .

Chairman, as far as I'm concerned the parties did choose to be here, even though as I say some of them were aware that I was going to sugge st that the commit tee not report this bilL If they wish to say some thing anyway, I would say that we should leave it up to them, whether they have some thing to say. I don't kn ow. I would certainly be ruled by the will of the comm ittee. I want you to know that I have no object ions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it the will of the comm ittee to hear the presentations? Mr. Storie. HON. J.

STORIE: Well I was going to recommend that if there is anyone here that would like to make their presenta tion, in any event, that they're certainly welcome to do so. I would hope the commit tee would feel that way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I frankly don't see any necessity to hear them on the bill when the bill is not going to be reported out of the comm ittee. Perhaps the compr om ise would be if they have written submissions, which many of them probably will have, that they wish to leave them with the commit tee for future reference. I think that would be satisfactory. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Nordman. MR. R. NORDMAN: But I do think, Mr. Chairman, that we do owe them a vote of thanks for coming down 11 and showing the interest in at least appearing. They were prepared, no doubt, to make a presentation and being as how it's being withdrawn, I don't see any point in them making that presentat ion. I agree with Mr. Mercier that if they have written presentations, that they leave them with us and we'll go through them and use them in future referencing.

I might suggest that maybe they should become part and parcel of the committee that is looking into this, the advisory comm ittee that you are going to have in the future. That's all I have to suggest, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other comments? If there are no object ions. we will proceed to public presentations on other bills. If members who had planned to make presentation on Bill 54 would like to ieave written briefs, they can do so. BILL 87 - THE WORKPLACE SA FE TY AN D HEALTH ACT MR.

CHAIRMAN: Proceeding then to the next bill in terms of public presenta tions, the first person making pres entation on Bill 87 is John Walsh, Man itoba Federation of Labour. MR. J. WALSH: John Walsh, should I proceed? MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure, please, Mr. Walsh. MR. J. WALSH: John Walsh, as secretary of the Manitoba Federation of Labour. Mr. Chairperson, people who came to speak on Bill 54 were not allowed the opportunity to say anything. You had suggested that written briefs be submitted.

I just wanted to publicly register our concern that for one more year this matter is being left over and that the interests of the business community are being acco mmoda ted at the expense of workers. We und erstand that discussions have been held and a compromis e pr opo sal on thi s qu est ion has been reached; but for one more year this question is being put over and I wanted to publicly register our concern about that. On Bill 88, I had hoped that Mike Maclsaac, the Chairperson of our Safety and Health Committee, would be here. He wasn't able to be here - (I nterjection) - Pardon? - 87, sorry. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Walsh, could we have some indication? We have presentations on 87 listed first. Could you possibly make your views on this first. MR. J. WALSH: Yes, thank you. I had hoped that our Chairperson of our Safety and Health Comm ittee, who happens to be on vacation, could be here. He's not available.

I just wanted to register that we are generally favourable to the amendments that are being suggested here: The strengthening of the right to refuse; and, second ly, the increased penalties in the act where violations have occurred, that increased penalties are called for in the event that emp loyers are found to have violated the act. So general ly, on this bill, we are in favo ur of the amendments as propo sed by the government.

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. Perhaps if you could return for your comments when the other speakers address strictly Bill 88, on your comments on Bill 88. Are there any questions for Mr. Walsh? There being no questions, thank you. Mr. Cowan. HON. J. COWAN: I just want to, if I can, thank Mr. Walsh for coming out on a hot summer evening to make those comments, and we look forward to the comments from his organization on Bill 88 as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. On Bill No. 87 next, the public presentation is from Jack Benedic t of the Canadian Manuf acturing Associ ation.

Mr. Benedict. MR. J. BENEDICT: Thank you. My name is Jack Benedict. I make you a subm ission on behalf of the Canadian Manuf acturers' Asso ciation, Mani toba Branch, to the Ind ustrial Relations Comm ittee re Bill 87,

An Act to amend The Workplace Safety and Health Act. As a foreword, this subm ission is made as a result of: First, a letter to the Manitoba Branch of CMA from the Min ister, dated November 23, 1982, in which he asked for our comments and suggestions concerning the acc ompanying pape r, entit led "Pro posed Amend ments to the Workplace Safety and Health Act." Second, a reply to the above-mentioned letter in the form of our letter, dated December 17, 1982, over the signature of the chairman of the Manitoba branch of CMA.

Third, a meeting was called by the Minsiter at 9:00 a.m., Monda y, May 2nd. lt was attended by Messrs. Elliott, Horner, Sutton and J.L. Ross, represent ing CMA; and Fourth, a letter from the Min ister, dated June 16th, advising that Bill 87 had been introduced and would probably come before the Law Amendments Committee within ten days. During the period of time under review, it appeared that most matters had been dealt with to the satisfaction of both parties. However, examination of Bill 87 revealed that this is not the case, as discussed in the few pages we have.

There are three or four items included in our comments: 1. Recipient of Report to Carry Out Ins pection This is covered und er the new

Section 43(3) and reads as follows: "The person receiving a report under Su bsection (2) or a person designa ted by him shall, together with the worker and at the option of the worker, another person repres enting the worker, make an immed iate inspection of the work site and take or cause to be taken such action as is necessary to remedy the dangerous conditions." We see no reason for creating a two on one situation and recommend that the words "and at the option of the worker, another person repres enting the worker" be removed. The old comparable

section was

Section 43(2) which reads: "Where a safety and health officer receives a report under Su bsection (1) he shall forthwith make an examination and inqu iry and make such order as he 12 deems necessary to achieve the remedying of the condition." We feel this is perfectly satisfactory. 2. Relates to Disciplinary Action Against Worker. In the existing act this is covered in

Section 43(7) and reads as follows: "Where a worker takes unfair advantage of this

section for frivolous reasons, he may be sub ject to such discipline as is available to be imposed upon him by his employer subje ct to the contractual relations between the emp loyer and the worker, or a bargaining agent on behalf of the worker." Bill 87 contains no such clause whatsoever and leaves the door open for frivolous activity in very sensitive areas. Bill 87 must contain an equivalent of the old

Section 43(7). 3. "Worker" Bill 87 con tains no defi ni tion of "worker" and therefore we must conclude that it is has not been chan ged from the origina l act , which means that "worker" as defined in the

definitions 1(

t) is as in the present act. This then means that some establishments, such as restaurants, bars, banks and many others may have staffs of considerably less than 50 full-time emp loyees which at times are augmented with part-time emp loyees, so that the total number of workers will at times be in excess of 50. We can also see problems existing in the same sort of estab lishments where the quantity of 50 is exceeded possibly with week-end work or holidays. I think that should be looked at. 4.

Suppl y of Trained Safety and Health Officers We are continually advised that th department lacks a sufficient numb er of well-trained safety and health officers. Introd uction of this legislation along with almost simu ltaneous introduction of regulations for hearing conservation and first aid regulations can do nothing but add to a set of conditions which is anything but good. 5.

Timing of New Legislation and/or Regulations The Canadian Ma n ufac tur ers' Assoc iation is concerned about the short length of time which is being given to the private sector to introduce new and usually costly changes in legislation and regula tion. lt appears the recession has bottomed out. However, this does not mean that cash flows, profits, inventories and balance sheets are back to what was considered normal. Labour, management and government still have a lot to do, particularly in the area of reestablishing our pla ce in the glob al village.

Ours mus t be a reasonably planned recovery with priorities carefully considered and established. That is our submission. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Benedict. Are there any questions from members of the committee? There being no questions, thank you for your presentation. Mr. Cowan. HON. J. COWAN: Personal ly, I want to thank Mr. Benedict and his organization for not only coming out this even ing and making this presentat ion, but also for being involved for nigh on six, seven months now in the development of this particular piece of legislation and these amendments to The Workplace Safety and Health Act.

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 i think the record should be clear that as a result of those consultations, changes have been made, and I think Mr. Benedict would agree that there have been a numb er of changes made from the pro posed legislation to the legislation which you have before us. When I spoke to this in the House, I said very clear ly, while it is apparent that not a comp lete consensus has been reached, I think we have moved a long ways towards clarifying a lot of the difficult parts of the legislation where there was no consensus previously.

For that reason, I want to reiterate my earlier comments of appreciation for his assistance. To comment on the specifics -c omments in his brief - he will recall that there was a change in respect to the reporting of a right to refuse, and that there was some concern in the first instance that that right to refuse could shut down an entire operation. We certainly did not want that to have happened, so we made changes on the re commendation of var ious organizations in that regard.

This particular section, as it stands now, was a compromise between having a full comm ittee attend with that worker, which would have tied up a significant num ber of individuals in the work place, and having one individual, at the request of that worker, attend to that site investiga tion. I can assure you it was not intended to create a two-on-one situation, and there is no decision-making authority given by the act in that regard so that it would not create that sort of a situation where two people could overrule one individual.

What it is there for is so that a worker who is not well-versed in his or her rights or not well versed in the legislation or not well-versed in safe procedures can draw upon expertise of someone in the workplace whom they trust. There is nothing to prevent the supervisors from bringing along as many individuals as the supervisor would wish and that is certainly a managerial prerogative, but we did feel it was necessary to entrench the right of the worker who does not have that same ma na gerial pr erogativ e to direct other individuals in the workplace to have an opportunity to have someone with them.

The reason we removed the clause dealing with frivolous reasons was twofold: Firstly, it had never been used, but that is not a good enough reason to remove a clause but second ly, we felt that the act contained the same protections implicitly contained within the act as were contained in this particular section. In other words, if a worker abuses the rights and responsibilities which accrue to them under the act, then they are in violation of the act. So we felt that it went without saying that if they were frivolous in their purp oses, then they were not in fact within the law.

So we see no real difficulty with having removed that

section and did so according ly. In regard to the numb er of workers and the definition of workers, this is an area where we have some real concern and share your concerns. For that reason, we have attempted to say that we will develop regulations arou nd some portions of the act wher e we have threshold limit values for committees. Those regulations, I hope, will be fine-tuned enough to take into account the kind of considerations which you have.

I can give you this assurance; that in the development of those regulations, we will be consulting with the different organizations, both emp loyer and emplo yee 13 representatives, and try to clarify any of those specific problems by way of the regulations. I can't guarantee you that we'll reach a full consensus, but I can guarantee you of our co-operation and, hopeful ly, we can add ress it in that way. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Cowan. There being no further comments or qu est ions related to Mr. Benedict's presenta tion, the next presentation is from Mr. Jim Wright of the Winnip eg Chamber of Commerce. Mr.

Wright. MR. J. WRIGHT: I am Jim Wright, President of the Winn ipeg Chamb er of Commer ce. The Winnip eg Chamber of Commerce appreciates this opportunity to speak to the Ind ustrial Relations Committee about Bill 87. As you are probably well aware, the Winnip eg Cham ber of Comme rce repr esents over 1, 500 busi nesses and 4,0 00 busine ss and pr ofes sional members. As dr afted , the amend ments pro posed to The Work place Safety and Health Act will enhance the safety of empl oyees on their worksite or workplace.

This is a very credible objective and one which all members of The Winn ipeg Chamber of Commerce certainly support. it has been said on numerous occasions that we cannot place a dollar value on safety. However, as emplo yers, we urge the government to recognize that if regulations and legislation burden empl oyers too heavily, busine sses will be forced to close their doors in Manitoba and even more people would be out of work. With those remarks as our

preamble, I wish to advise you of some of the specific concerns the Chamber has about Bill 87. We must say that we have had an excellent relationship with the department and have had input to this date, but we still have a few concerns that we wish to speak about. The proposed wording under

Section 40( 1)(

a) requires further clarification of the word "workers." lt is difficult to und erstand whether "workers" includes the full-time or full-time and part-time empl oyees. Just simply a clearer definition, we feel, is needed. The proposed exception or limitation in

Section 40 (1.1) may apply to a workplace until the num bers of workers exceeds 50. We question why this except ion could not be increased to exempt a workplace where the number of workers exceeds 100 workers, where applicable, because it could be rather onerous, some of the regulations that would apply to companies employing less than 50 people. Under the proposed

Section 43(3), we recommend deletion of the words "and at the option of the worker, another person representing the worker." The Chamber would prefer that the "person" be defined as a member of the safety and health committee of the company concerned. The propos ed wording under Sections 43(6) and 43(7) imply that there are a sufficient numb er of safety and health officers to respond to investigations in a timely manner. If the department does not intend on increasing the numb er of safety and health officers, the Chamber fears there could be a considerable backload of investigative work. This could act to the detriment of both the busine ss and the employee.

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 The proposed deletion of

Section 43(7) from the existing act causes emp loyers very serious concern.

Section 43(7) as it cu rrentl y exists per mitted an emplo yer the right to take disciplinary action against an emp loyee who took unfair advantage of this

section for frivolous reasons. The proposed removal of this

section from the act will make disciplina ry action far more difficult to proceed with in either an arbitration setting or in a court of law. Frivolous action could subs tan tially in crease dur ing periods of labour management unrest, and management will bear most of the unjust effects of a frivolous claim.

Section 43. 1(2) proposes there be two normal working days allocated to educational leave. The Chamber would recommend that the words "up to" be inserted before "2 normal work ing days" to coincide with "to a max imum of 16 hours" to prevent un necessary expenditures in retraining of emp loyees.

Section 43. 1(3) proposes 30-minute safety meetings every two weeks for the construction indus try. The Chamber questions who is responsible for providing this training. Would it be the general cont ractor, or each sub-trade? The portability of man power, that is being on tile job site for short periods of time, could create a problem in this area.

Section 43(9) discusses supervisory liabilities. The Chamber cautions the government that the imposition of these liabilities might have the effect of decreasing the desirability of having a supervisory position. In conclusi on, the Cham ber encou rages the government to pay particular concern to our comments about the removal of the existing

section dealing with frivolous claims. The removal of this

section could have particularly neg ative effects on emp loyers, and could leave the judgment of unsafe workplaces wide open to abuse. Thank you for the opportun ity to present our views. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Wright. Mr. Mercier. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Wright, do you see any necessity to impose the blanket requirement for workplace safety and health commi ttees that this legislation brings with it versus the situation as it exists now where the Cabinet can require a workp lace safety and health committee in a workplace or in a class of workplaces where it is deemed to be appro priate? A blanket requirement?

MR. J. WRIGHT: Well I think our submi ssion certainly in dicates that we don't see the ne cessity for a comp letely blanket requirement. MR. G. MERCIER: In fact, Mr. Wright, I don't believe you said that. MR. J. WRIGHT: lt is the removal of the existing

section dealing with frivolous claims. Some of the other is a bit of housekeeping or rewording that we would like to see done, so there is a better understanding by both the emp loyee and the emp loyer. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Wright, would you see under this legislation the imp osition of workplace safety and health commi ttees where, up until now, there hasn't 14 seemed to be that requirement for them, and a resulting cost implication to the concerned businesses? MR. J. WRIGHT: I don't think that we have really addressed that concern particularly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions for Mr. Wright? Mr. Scott. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Wright, in your

preamble, you make reference to the cost of regulations and legislation, a burden on emp loyers to have a business and be forced to close their doors in Manitoba, even more people would be out of work.

Are you aware of any situations where safety legislation in Manitoba, or in other jurisdictions, has forced companies to close; and would you say that the main reason for companies ceasing operations is because of - I don't know what to call it, I don't want to make an allegation or whatever - but far more often it is lack of good management skills, in keep ing up-to-date with the marketplace, that the busine ss is in today, rather than due to safety legisla tion? MR. J. WRIGHT: Well, I didn't realize I was here to probably engage in a philosophical debate.

I think what we're saying is that if regulations and legislation do become too onerous and burdensome it would be like anything else, it would have an effect of causing business to either close or leave this province. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind members of the comm ittee that questions are for clarification. We can debate merits of the bill at a later stage. Ms. Phillips. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Wright, in your brief in

Section A, you're concerned about whether "workers" is incl usive of both full-time and part-time emp loyees? MR. J. WRIGHT: We're simply asking for a clearer definition. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I guess I'm wondering what difference it makes if a worker is at the work site and is injured, does it matter whether that person was there half a day, or a whole day, or part of the week, or the whole week? MR. J. WR IGHT: Well, I think it's our unde rstanding that we really wish to have simply a clearer definition of the

Section 41 (

a) to really clarify what you mean by the word "workers" in that section; and does that include all workers, and we'd just like that definition to be quite clear. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairperson, through you to Mr. Wright, it seems to me that workers would mean all workers, regardless of their status under this. lt seems that you are indicating it should be broken down and be very specific about which category workers should be covered. Is that what you're suggesti ng? MR. J. WRIGHT: Yes.

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 MS. M. PHILLIPS: Ok ay, my question then to you is. what difference does it make whether they're full-time or part-time workers. in your opinion, if a person is injured? MR. J. WR IGHT : lt pro bably doe sn't ma ke any difference, but we still feel that that clarification is necessa ry. HON. J. COWAN: I personally thank you. Mr. Wright, for coming out. as others have, on a hot and muggy evening.

As well, thank you for the participation of your organiza tion throughout the dev elopment of the legislation and, again, I don't think we reached a full consensus but I think we moved a lot closer from where we started, in the beginning, through that sort of work. I want to make a few comments in regard to the brief, very quickly. - (Int erjection) - Well, the Member for St. Norbert asks if I have a question and I could phrase it by way of a question, but that would be transparent. I would just rather thank him for his comments and try to answer some of his concerns while we have an opportuni ty.

I think that information may benefit mem bers of the commit tee in their deliberations on the bill when we go clause-by-claus e, line-by-line. word-by-word, or page-by-page, whichever we decide to do, at whatever time we decide to do it. Firstly, again on the definition of workers, we hope to be able to fine tune some of those questions in the regulations and, again, we will be consulting. I'm not certain exactly what we will be able to do in that regard, but we certainly intend to review the situation. The reason we chose 50 vs 100 was because we felt that when dealing with offices - and this particular

section was designed primarily to deal with offices - that once you got up above 50 individuals in a particular work site, and that's really what we're attempting to do is. say, if there are 50 individuals in a work site, that you are getting into a relatively different type of office than a small office, and you were into a lot of the higher technology and into much more of an assembly line process than you have in your small offices.

We chose that numb er because there are not that many work offices of that sort that would fit in the definition which we have in our mind that would require a safety and health comm ittee; but there are some which we believe should have a safety and health commi ttee because of the new technologies that are being used there and because of the style of the office. So we didn't want to impact upon the smaller offices and that was, I think, a very good suggestion that was given to us by the emp loyer organizations, specifically the Chamb ers, durin g a meeting a number of months ago.

So we believe that 50 will meet those needs. If it's found that it doesn't and we take a look at this in an evaluative way in the future, then we would be prepared to review that numb er, but we've looked at the stats and we don't think 50 will be an onerous obligation. In regard to your suggestion that a person be defined as a member of a safety and health comm ittee under Item C. We had consid ered that, but the difficulty was that on certain job sites there may not be a member of a safety and health committee there.

If the act required that that person be a member of the safety 15 and health commi ttee, then one would have to be brought in, which might be a difficulty on remote sites; or there would have to be a time delay, and we didn't want to impose that sort of burden on the emplo yer, in waiting for a safety and health individual to be brought in, someti mes on overtime. So we felt that the recommendation would be that it is a member of a safety and health committee, but to mandate it in the legislation would be too restrictive and would be a burden on the part of the empl oyer, in most instances.

So that is why we have it loosely defined but our recommendation is certainly that it be a safety and health commi ttee member. We would like more safety and health officers. I've heard the best arguments for them this evening and over a numb er of months now, perhaps even a couple of years, and I would just hope that members of the oppostiion will recall those comments when we come back forward to the Legislature, during an estimates procedure in the future asking for more safety and health officers. In regard to

Section 43(7) in frivolous purposes. I'm prepared to take a look at that and I indicated earlier why we felt it was not necessa ry. I'm not prepared to make a commitment at this time to bring it back into the act, but I'm prepared to look at it in a reasonable fashion. We may decide that it is not necessa ry, but 1 would not make that definitive categorial statement now. If we can be disabused of that notion we'd certainly be prepared to review its inclusion.

In regard to F, which proposes that there two normal working days allocated to educational leave, and you're asking that we clarify that to be up to two norma! working days. I'm afraid I would have to reject that suggestion. We want it to be at least two normal working days, and that's why we had it very clearly stated that it should be two normal working days.

Now we kno w that some individuals work up to 12 hours a day, and we felt that it would be unfair to them to have them required to provide 24 hours educational leave in a year, so we put the restricting "up to 16 hours" in to cover that sort of a situation, but we certainly want it to be two normal working days. The 30-minute safety meetings; it has been something that has very thoroughly discussed with the construction industry and, quite frank ly, it's their suggestion more than ours. We're prepared to go along with it as being a workable solution.

I am not saying they are saying that educational leave is necessa ry, but if there be educational leave, that is the solution they would like to see. The supervisory liabilities that are imposed in 43(9) are the same that are imposed elsewhere in the Act in that a supervisor should not and is required by law not to allow a worker to work under unsafe or unhealthy conditions if they know of it or ought to know of it. So it's no more a burden than what is already in the Act. So I hope that provides some further insights and some assurances to you and again thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Cowan.

There being no further questions or other variations thereof, the next presentation is from Murray Smith and Rail Kyritz of the Manitoba Teachers' Soc iety. Mr. Smith. •

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 MR. M. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. In the absence of Dr. Linda Asper the President of our society, Mr. Kyritz and I are here tonight repres enting the Manitoba Te achers' Socie ty, the pr ofe ssional organization of the province's 12,000 teachers. I am Murray Smith, a teacher in the Winn ipeg School Division and Vice-President of the Society. My colleague is Ralph Kyritz, who has been President of the Manitob a Teachers' Society, most recently a teacher in the St. James-Assi nib oia Division and now a staff officer for the Societ y.

The Teachers' Society appreciates this opportunity to addr ess the Stan ding Comm ittee on Ind ustria l Relations on the amendments proposed by Bill 87 and on some other amendments which we feel should be considered. We do no t intend to add ress all the propo sed amend ments, in stead we shall restrict ourselves to those which directly affect teachers and those which, though not yet included in the bill, are, in our opinion necessary to amelio rate a situation that has already signif icantly diminis hed the rights of the teacher. Because thi s one case so sharply focused two concerns, I shall deal with it first.

The situation referred to occurred in the Swan Valley School Division. A teacher , who was about two-and-a-half months pregnant, was informed by her principal that a child infected with rubella or German Measles had atended the school. Accor ding to the Department of Health and virtually anybody else you ask, when a woman in her first three months of pregnancy is infected with rubella, there is a high risk that the child will be born malformed.

In this instance, the teacher consulted her doctor immed iately but, as she was a recent immigrant to Canada the doctor did not have the results of any test taken to determin e her immuni ty to the disease. He ordered another test and advised her not to attend that school until the results of that test would be known in about four days. The woman immediately informed her superintendent who agreed she could take the time oft school but stated that she would lose the salary normally earned during those days. This loss of salary will also affect her pension.

When it was determined she was immun e, the teacher returned to work. The Society requested the Workplace Safety and Health Division to investigate the matter. We discovered we were unable, on two grounds, to lay a complaint under

Section 43(3); or that if we laid it, it would be unl ikely to succeed. First, it was uncertain from the

definitions in

Section 1(

t) that "worker" includes a female worker's unb orn child. The Workplace Safety and Health Branch requested an

interpretation from the Attorney-General 's Department and relayed to us orally that there was some doubt that the unb orn child would be protected by the act. If a distinction were to be made that the danger in the school was to the health of the un born child rather than to that of the pregnant woman, an action under 43(3) might not succeed. Adm ittedly, there is a precedent in our neighbouring province, in Ontario, where the Minister of Labour stated in a Globe and Mail

article that there was no distinction between a worker and her unborn child for purp oses of the Ontario Act. This is a quote of the report that we received. "In response to an editorial in the Globe and Mail of December 10th, R.H. Ramsay, Ontario Min ister of 16 Labour wrote a letter to the editor of that newspaper on December 22, on the question as to whether or not a pregnant worker could refuse uns afe work under

section 23 of The Occupational Health and Safety Act, it the reason for the refusal was concern for the health of her unb orn child. In his letter the Min ister stated that he ' . . . obtained a legal opinion from the Ministry of the Attorne y-General dealing with this important issue. "I", that is the Min ister of Health in Ontario, "I am adivised that there is no distinction between a pregnant worker and her unborn child for the pruposes of

Section 23 of the act. In other words, assuming one of the hazards enumer ated in the

section is present, the protection conferred by the

section to the pregnant worker would include her unb orn child. Risk to the fetus is attributed to the mother and, thus, the Act in its present form provides the necessary protection. Conseque ntly, the amendment of the statute is not required ."' That may indeed be the case in Ontario, but no such statement has been made in this province and one can only wonder how much this province would be bound by the statment of the Min ister in another province.

Second, our legal counsel, after discussions with an official of the Labour Board, informed us that there is no provision in the Act for the payment of salary of a worker who was absent from work due to a dangerous condition in the workplace. Now, that sentence was so surprising to us that I can only repeat, we were informed that there is no provision in the act for the payment of salary of a worker who was absent from work due to dangerous condition in the workplace. Frankl y, we found this incredible, but we could get no reassurance that the act did provide that a worker so absent would be paid.

If anyone is in a position to assure us of that, we would be the first to applaud. I should inform you that in view of the difficulties with proceeding under the Workplace Safety and Health Act, the Socie ty has taken the teacher's problem to arbitration. The board has been appointed but has not yet met. In order to stop similar discriminatory actions on the part of school boards or other emp loyers against female emp loyees, the society proposes two amendments to the act.

These amendments are not included in the bill which has been tabled, but we have com municated them to the Minister responsible in a letter on June 9th. First, the Society proposes that the Act be amended to guarantee that there be no distinction between a pregnant worker and her unborn child. This could be accomplished by stating, in

Section 1(t), that in the instance of a pregnant worker, the term "worker" includes her un born child. In support of this position, the Society indicates that if this

section is not amended, there would be serious conflicts between this act, other acts and the federal Charter of Rights. The Emp loyment Standards Act gives a worker the right to work during a part of her pregnanc y. Therefore, she is in legal attendance at her work place. Since the unborn child cannot be separated from the mother during working hours, or indeed at any other time, the unborn child must also attend the workplace. The Society considers it unreasonable to give the worker the right to attend the work place under

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 the provisions of one act, the Employment Standards Act; but to allow the emp loyer to leave the workplace in an uns afe condition by the provisions of another act if it does not include the un born child in the definition of "worker." The Society also notes that

Section 28 of the Charther of Rigts provides for equal rights to both male and female persons and that, once is enacted,

Section 15 guarantees the equal benefit of the law to all persons. Since men cannot conceive a child, it could be argued that the current act contravenes both these sections of the Charter of Rights. Sec ond, the Soci ety pro poses tha t the act be amended to ensure that a worker, absent from work due to an unsafe condition, does not lose pay. We may note that there is little onus on the emp loyer, even with the proposed amendments in Bill 87, to correct unsafe conditions if the worker is the only one to suffer a financial loss. The amendment to

Section 43 proposed does not address this issue. In fact, if anything, the amendment makes conditions worse in this respect for the worker. Under

Section 43 of the current act, a worker is able to report an unsafe condition directly to a Safety and Health Officer. Und er the proposed amendment the worker must report to the emp loyer first. Upon receipt of the report, the emplo yer inspects the premises and, assumed ly, corrects the condition; only if the condition is not remedied will the Safety and Health Officer be informed. During this whole time the worker is off the job and, by our und ersta nding, ma y not receive remuneration. We shall consider

Section 43 in more detail later. At this time, we would raise only one question. Under these conditions, why would any worker absent himself, or herself, from work and, in so doing, risk losing salary for an indetermina te amount of time? it seems to us to be a rather vacuous right to say that you have the right to refuse to work because the conditions are unsafe, but then you lose pay for as long as you're absent. We believe the revised act should give more protection to workers than this. The society is aware that under

Section 1(

g) of the current act, the

section defining discrimi natory action, it may be argued that the words "reduction in wages" could be interp reted as "loss of pay" and, therefore, handle our problem. However, there seems to be a sign ificant dif ferenc e between th ese two terms. "Wages" usually refers to the scale or rate of remune ration - so much per hour, so much per week; "loss of pay" refers to the non-earning of income for a specific period and for a specific reason. For example, in many collective agreements there are provisions for a personal leave of absence.

A worker, taking advantage of such a provision , may be absent from work but will lose the salary earned for that period. The provisions of collective agreements do not consider this loss to be a "reduction in wages"; this is clearly a loss of pay. Therefore, the society proposes that

Section 1(

g) be further amended to include the words "loss of pay," and that a new subs ection be inserted in

Section 43 which would ensure that a worker, refusing to work due to uns afe conditions, will continue to receive his/ her regular pay. Of course, it's un derstood that, instead of paying wages for work not done, the emp loyer has the right to transfer the worker to a safe workplace; 17 however, this issue is al ready add ressed in the amendment to

Section 1( g). The Society would not wish to add ress the specific amendments to Sections 42 and 43. In general, with respect to

Section 43, the Society believes the new streamlined procedure significantly clarifies what, in the present Act, is a rather confusing set of conditions. If the employer cooperates, the new procedure should guarantee the quick resolution of any dispute respecting uns afe conditions. Unfortuna tely, there is little legal or financial onus on the employer to act quick ly. In the proposed

Section 43(5), the Safety and Health Officer is informed only if the dangerous condition is not remedied. There is no specified time limit, thus the emp loyer could easily stall under the pretext that the condition is being remedied, or that studies are being carried out to determine whether and how it can be remedied. Some members of the committee may recall a situation in the Winnipeg School Division in which removal of an asbestos ceiling took rather longer than most people expected it would.

Section 43(5) also states that the persons carry out the inspection will notify the inspe ctor. Since these persons are the worker and the immediate supervisor, and since in any stalling action, should there be one, the opinions of these two parties may well differ, one must question whether the agreement of both parties is implied before any report is made, or can the worker make a report on her own. Thus, the Society proposes that in

Section 43(5), after the words '"if the dangerous condition is not remedied", there be inserted the word "immedia tely". If the company cannot immediately remedy the situation the inspector would be notified. If the company is not stalling and has bon a fide reasons for some delay the officer would no doubt be agreeable to such a delay. The Society also proposes that the worker have the right and duty to inform the Safety and Health Officer, without necessarily first receiving the mutual agreement of the supervisor as proposed in

Section 43(5). These amendments we consider are essential to protect the worker's rights in this difficult situation. Furthermore, if Sections 43(6) and 43(7) are invoked, and if the inspector issues improvement orders, which are appealable, still further time delays may occur. During this whole time the worker might be off work and under present provisions, as we understand them, might not be receiving any pay. The Society also proposes that the intent of

Section 43( 1) of the current act be continued in a new subsection of the proposed

Section 43. This intent was that the worker directly report an unsafe condition to a Safety and He alth Officer where such conditions is no t corrected after being reported to management. Under the pr opo sed

Section 43, even if the So ciety's recommendations immediately above were accepted, the worker must first refuse to work before any such report is made. Considering that such refusal to work may mean a loss of pay, we hope the Government will continue to provide the worker with direct access to a Safety and Health Officer without that condition of refusal to work. With respect to

Section 43( 1), the Society exp resses some concern over the change in wording from that contained in the current act. The words "in or about a workplace" have been changed to "at a workplace". I

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 The word "at" is too cons tricting and could be interpreted as meaning specifically within the work place, that is, within a building, within a facility. We believe that the neighbour hood of the workplace should also be protected , and we've had examples within the City of Winnipeg of that problem. Therefore, we request the words "in or about" be re-substituted for the word "at". Furthermore, the words "a condition exists that is dangerous" have been changed to "the particular work is dangerous". Again, we believe the new words are too restrictive.

Teaching, by itself, is not a dangerous occupation; however, if the ceiling were &bout to fall down, or poisonous fumes were present in the room, a condition would exist which is dangerous, while the "particular work" of teaching still continues to be safe. Therefore, we propose that the words "a condition exists which is dangerous to his/her safety and health or" be inserted before the words "the particular work is dangerous" in that proposed section. With respect to

Section 42( 1) , the Society would make two comments on the proposed changes. This

section deals with protection for workers who are involved with Work place Safety and Health Com mittees, or who take certain actions regarding the safety of the workplace. In subsection (a), the words "or in any way associates with" have been deleted from the current act and replaced with "exercising any right or carrying out any duty in accordance with the provisions of this act or the regulations". We believe the new wording restricts the rights of workers to rights and duties directly specified in the act.

The wording of the current act is mu ch pr eferable, since it allo ws workers to be associated with the com mittees, even where such association is not specifically spelled out in the act. Mo reover , we note tha t the words "re garding workplace conditions affecting the safety, health or welfare of that person or any other workers", which under the current act were attached to subs ection (

c) only (the one about giving of information), now applies to all three subs ections. This may be a small point but, in our view, it is a restriction upon the rights granted in sections (

a) and (b). For instance, the application of the noted words to subsections (

a) and (

b) could restrict the workers in this way. The wording used is "that person or any other workers" and, therefore, a person involved with a Work place Safety and Health Committee would have to be directly involved in the matter. The Society notes that in

Section 2(1) (b), the object and purp oses of the Act are to extend to "other persons", not necessarily only workers. Therefore, a person acting with a Workpla ce Safety and Health Committee under subsection (a), or testifying under subs ection (b), or On a matter affecting persons who are not workers (perhaps visitors), could no longer be pr otected agains t discriminatory action. The Society subm its that, unless there is a specific reason for applying those words to all three subsections, they be applied again only to subs ection (c). The Society is pleased to see the retention of students as workers under

Section 1(t)(iii). We believe it is imperative that students be protected und er the same rules and regulations as are paid workers. We kno w that there's a difference of opinion on this issue, and we're very pleased to see that the present provision is being retained. it is our view that the students in a school or a university or a commu nity college are very 18 much affected by the environment in which they study, just as much as the teachers or non -teaching personnel are affected by the environment in which they carry out their paid work.

We further beli eve that students should be rep resented on the Workpla ce Safety and He alth committees, and we have a precedent for that in the Winn ipe g School Division wher e a student has participated on the committee and been most useful. In addition to protecting the rights of students, we see this as an educational device in that if students participate in such commi ttees, they and their friends and their classmates are more likely to understand how acts such as The Workp lace Safety and Health Act or The Labour Act affect emplo yees and others in the commu nity. We are also pleased to see that under

Section 40( 1), Work place Safety and Health Com mittees will be required at all workplaces meeting the criteria of that

section unless exempted by the Lieutenant-Governor in-Council. This is consistent with the Society's policy, and the policy is quoted in the Appendix along with all the other policies on this issue in our books; that Workplace Safety and Health Committees should be required in every school division or district without being specifically designated in regulations.

Perhaps all members of the com mittee are aware that at present there are only five school divisions requir ed to have Workp lace Sa fety and Health Com mittees. it has been our view for some time that there is now sufficient evidence of the usefulness of these com mittees in school divisions as in universities and commu nity colleges and City of Winnipeg and Manitoba Hydro and other large emp loyers that they should be required in all jurisdictions. I might comment on the question of how these com mittees are developed within a school division.

Generall y, the committees in the five divisions that are required to have them have been established on a division-wide basis, so that there is one committee for the Winnipeg School Division, one committee for the Lord Selkirk Division, one committee in River East, one committee in Kelsey and one committee in Swan Valley. lt was our view in Winnipeg, however, that it would be more effective if there were com mittees for clusters of schools, perhaps a group of four to six schools centred around one of the larger institutions.

Then you could have teachers and non- teaching emp loyees and management people involved with the conditions in that geographical area, that region, that feeder cluster, whatever you wish to call it, without having to deal with all of the other 14 0-odd workplaces in the Winn ipeg School Division. When tha t was pr op osed by the Teac hers' Association, it was not acceptable to management, and we have ended up with two committees, one involving teachers and management and one involving non teachers and management.

At present, they are rather surprisingly meeting concurr ent ly, but they are still logically distinguished as separate committees and they have separate minutes. In Lord Selkirk School Division, there is a division wide committee, and there is also at the initiative of the people in that particular school, a commi ttee for the Lord Selkirk Regional Secondary School. However, it's on their own initiative. Although they were not

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 required or asked to have a committee, they developed one, no doubt because of the special concern over vocational areas including many indus trial areas. That commit tee, I un ders tand, has been working very effectively. I have ch ecked within the last 48 hour s with rep resentativ es from all of the school div ision committees in existence, and the feedback that we have is that they are all function ing, though some better than others. There are no teachers who would like to see them discontinued. They all recommend that such committees be established in every school division.

They gave me examples of how the comm ittees had been useful in remedying unh appy situations. They believe that there had been significant improvements made, and that the teacher representatives and management representatives had found ways of working together amicably. I haven't for you, an example of a teacher who refused to work because of unsafe conditions, but I have an example of one who certainly consid ered it.

If you can imagine a foods labo ratory, that is a cooking room, which has no windows; is equipped with air conditioning which is currently not functioning, you can imagine that the temperature in that laboratory would be even higher than it is here. You, at least, can open a window and have a fan. The temperature was well over 90 degrees, I am informed. The teacher decided that under those conditions, although she was still prepared to work in that room, she would not undertake to cook anything. That is, she would not turn on any stoves in that classroom.

I have another example of a teacher emplo yed at the Health Sciences Centre, though on the payroll of the Winn ipeg School Division, who was moved to another loca tion becaus e the conditions were aggravating her asthma. The Society also supports the provisions in the bill for educational leave or for educational programs on construction sites. As educ ators, we are naturally interested in people coming to understand better how the conditions in which they work can be improved and their role in so improving them.

As an individual who has attended workshop s pr esented by the Manitoba Federation of Labour and also presented by the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, I am well aware of how useful these seminars are and how much they increased my unde rstan ding of what is involved in the work of a committee to improve conditions in the workplace. In

summary then, the Society would propose the following: 1) That subsection 1(

t) be amended to ensure that no distinction be made between a pregnant worker and her un born child. 2) That

Section 1(

g) and

Section 43 be amended to ensure that a worker, absent from work due to an uns afe condition, does not lose pay. 3) That the propo sed

Section 43(5) be amended to ensure that the Safety and Health Officer is informed if an unsafe condition is not corrected immed iately and that the worker have the right and duty to inform such officer without prior consu ltation or without the approval of the superior. 19 4) That a new subs ection be inserted in

Section 43 which would ensur e that a worker has the right and duty to inform a Safety and Health Officer of an un safe and un corr ected condition without first having to refuse to work. 5) Tha t the propo sed rest rictiv e words and phrases in the proposed

Section 43( 1) be amended to reflect the less restrictive words of the current act. 6) That the proposed

Section 42( 1) be amended to reintro duce the worker's righ t to association and to apply the last paragraph only to subsection (c). 7) That students continue to be covered by the provisions of this act. 8) Th at Workpla ce Sa fety and He alth Commit tees be requir ed in every school division or district. With respect to No. 7, there's one point I didn't mention. Tha t is tha t as we read the pr op osed requirement for having a comm ittee, it refers to a specific numb er of workers being emplo yed. Now in the

definitions for this act, the word "worker" specifically includes anybody undergoing an education or training program and, therefore, inclu des school students, college students, un iversity students. We would ask whether it is intended that in the numb er of 20 or 50 or 10 as it appl ies, the count is to be only of workers who are emp loyed and not of workers as defined in

Section 1 of the act. The Society thanks the comm ittee for its attention to these matters, and draws your attention to the policies which we append. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. APPENDIX TO MR. SMITH'S REMARKS PO LICY OF THE MANI TOBA TE ACH ERS' SO CI ET Y ON WORKPLACE SA FE TY AN D HEALTH That the Society advocate that each school division/ district be required by legislation or regulation to have a Workplace Safety and Health Comm ittee. That the Society advocate that students continue to be classified as workers under The Workplace Safety and Health Act.

That the Society advocate the regulations under The Work place Safety and Health Act be amended to ensure that all provisions apply as the minimum requirements for all school jurisdictions. That pursuant to Policy 84.07.4 the Society urge the Province of Manitoba to inspect gymnasiums and further to upg rade safety reg ulations re gard ing gymnasiums. That pursuant to Policy 84.07.4 the Society urge that Workplace Safety and Health Commit tees include in their responsibil ities the monitoring of the health and safety aspects of working with computers.

That the Society conduct a study on the implications of The Workpla ce Safety and Health Act for the school system with a report, including recommendations, to be presented to the 1984 Annual General Meeting. That the Society advocate the following health and safety stan dards relative to the use of computer hardware: I -

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 (

a) Tha t teachers who work with Video Displa y Terminals for significant amounts of time be provided with eye examinations on a routine basis; (

b) That computer hardware be routinely checked for readability, general comfort level and radiation emission; and That pursuant to the above policy the Society urge the Provincial Government to immed iately prepare, distribute and pub licize a report on the possible effects of Video Display Terminals radiation on students and teachers in the Province of Manitoba.

That the Society advocate that provincial labour standards include safety standards relative to computer hardware; and That pursuant to this policy the Society approach the Min ister of Labour to seek amendments to provincial labour standards relative to health and safety standards for computer hardware. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Are there any questions from members of the comm ittee? Mr. Mercier. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Smith, on the example that you cited at the beginning of your brief, would teachers not consider it fairly normal that in an average-sized elementary school, there is bound to be, throughout the course of a year, the presence of a child with measles? MR. M. SMITH: No, cases of German measles are not all that common anymore. Most children experience the disease before they get to school and the situation of a woman who is with in the first three months of pregnanc y, is not at all a situation as you, Mr. Mer cier, or I might see it. She is immediately and seriously concerned.

She consulted her doctor and her doctor advised her - I have seen the note - the doctor advised her that she must stay away from work until her immuni ty was established. Norma lly, teachers are entitled to rely upon the advice of their physicians and normally school officials accept the advice of physicians. In this case the superintendent accepted it, with respect to her being absent from work, but said, you're going to lose four days pay, and that's what we consider to be inequitable. MR. G.

MERCIER: You wouldn't consider it to be a usual or normal risk of an elementary teacher, teaching in an elementary school . MR. M. SMITH: No. MR. G. MERCIER: You wouldn't? MR. M. SMITH: No. If I were in that position, I would wish to be out of the building. That is, as you realize, a hypothetical statement. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Storie. HON. J. STORIE: I gather, Mr. Smith , you're suggesting that conditions such as this, where an individual is in effect, forced to isolate thems elves in that situation, would be the only type of situation where this kind of provision would be imposed? 20 MR. M.

SMITH: The provision that there be pay despite the fact the worker . . . I imagine that there are other situations, in which the emplo yee might have to be away from work. The case of the teacher I quoted, who is a severe sufferer from asthma, the conditions in the building changed radically for a period of time because of construction being carried out. So that a building which was perfectly acceptable to her, at one date, was not acceptable a week later and her situation was resolved by having her work in another building, where the air was satisfactory.

But if the only place where she could have done her work was in her normal place of work, then she might well have had to refuse. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Smith, is it your position that workplace safety and health comm ittees should only exist for school divisions and not individual schools? MR. M. SMITH: That's a question on which we don't have consensus. I have heard concerns about having them at the school level. I have heard that in a division of moderate size, where perhaps there were 10 or a dozen schools, that having one at the division level makes good sense.

Where it doesn't make sense, in our view, is where you have a large division with a large numb er of work sites. In the Winn ipeg School Division it's patently im pos sible for six teachers on a join t tea cher management comm ittee to carry out insp ections of all the workplaces, which is what the act tells them they should be doing. So we would suggest, perhaps, a regional one or an area one and we'd certainly be open to trying them at a school level and seeing how that functions.

One thing we would like, in general , is to ensure that if it's done at a local level or an area level, that teachers and non- teachers be involved in the same comm ittee. We're having difficulty with that at the divisional level in Winn ipeg , but a local level, that makes a great deal of sense because the teachers and non-teachers all know each other and work together in the same environments. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Smith, I asked you the question because the amendments that are before us, in

Section 40( 1) read: "Every emplo yer shall cause a workplace safety and health comm ittee to be established at a work place where at least 20 or more workers are regularly emp loyed ," and workpla ce - and I'm not reading the whole definition - means any building, site, etc., in which one or more workers are engaged in work or have work. MR. M. SMITH: Are you asking me whether we . . . MR. G. MERCIER: No, we're going to have to ask Legislative Counsel. The Min ister of Labour is offering me an

interpretation which I don't really accept. There's a prima facie

interpretation here that a work place safety and health committee could be required in every school, in which there are more than 20 workers. That doesn't mean 20 teachers, but all of the people who work in the building. MR. M. SMITH: Yes, and we raised a question whether the count includ ed students. We agree that that's the

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 way it appears to read and if that's the way it is passed, teac hers will cer tainly co-operate with it. All I'm reporting to you is that we're not agreed that is essential. MR. G. MERCIER: You're saying then, Mr. Smith, that initially, at least, perhaps there should be consideration given to amendments, which would require a work place safety and health comm ittee for every school division, but not for every school within the school division, which complies with this act with more than 20 workers. MR. M.

SMITH: I suggest that there be latitude within the legislation so that different divisions could try it in different ways. That for some, a central comm ittee may be entirely effective; for others, individual schools might well have comm ittees. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions for Mr. Smith? Mr. Cowan. HON. J. COWAN: In this instance, I'll start with a question and that is in regard to the situation which you outlined respect ing the pregnant teacher and her un born child. Did that case go to the Manitoba Labour Board? MR. M. SMITH: No. HON. J.

COWAN: The reason I asked that question is that I believe that the act may have been interpreted that the health of that individual was effected, "health" being defined in the act as being fairly broad and making some reference to psychological conditions of the worker. 1 think that might have been a good way to clarify that.

I certainly wouldn' t want to impose my opinion on the Labour Board, but I think that person may have enjoyed protection un der the act from the definition of the word "health," and if that is the case, then there would be no need for the type of amendment which you have suggested is necessa ry. Would that not be true? MR. M. SMITH: If there is a definitive ruling to that effect, certainly, but the advice that we got, after the Attorney-General's Department had been consulted, was that we couldn' t rely on that. Of course, there would still remain the question of whether she's paid. HON. J.

COWAN: Well, I would suggest to you that if a worker is found to be exercising the right to refuse under the act, that, in fact, they are protected , far more so than you seem to indicate in your brief. MR. M. SMITH: That's very good news. HON. J. COWAN: Well, a person is protected against discrimination for exercising a right under the act and the right to refuse would be one of those rights.

Now, the definition of discrimination is very far ranging and while it does make reference to a reduction in wages, it also makes reference to any term or condition of emplo yment and include s, without limiting the generality layoffs, suspension, dismissal, loss of opportunity for promotion, demotion, transfer of duties, change of location or workpla ce reduction of wages 21 or change in working hours. So I would think that it would tend to cover any sort of discrimination which could be imposed. With that information, are you still of the opinion that we are too restrictive in the use of the word "wages"? MR.

M. SMITH: With respect to your first point, I can quote from a letter of April 14 th in which we were told that a member of the Workplace Safety and Health Division consulted with the departmental solicitor from the Department of the Attorney-General about what legal profile the division could assume, that is the Workplace Safety and Health. We wanted to know whether this teacher, on behalf of her unb orn child, could exercise the right to refuse to work in a workplace where a condition existed that was kno wn to be dangerous to the fetus.

We have been informed that The Workplace Safety and Health Act does not give us any legal standing in this case. HON. J. COWAN: What I understand that letter saying is that you are asking if the worker had the right to refuse on behalf of another being, in this case the unborn child, according to your letter. I indicate very clearly that's your

interpretation in your letter. What I am saying is that if the worker had refused to work on her own behalf, in other words refused because she felt it would have a negative impact on her health and her health being defined very definitively in the act, you might have gotten a different answer. I think in this instance, with all due respect , you asked the wrong question. MR. M. SMITH: Teachers are supp osed to be trained to ask the right ones. In respect of the other point , Mr.

Cowan, where it refers to reduction in wages, would it not be natural to say, loss of pay, if there is to be any distinction between those two things? I mean, what I und erstand by reduction in wages is the manager coming along and saying, because you have laid a complaint before Workpla ce Safety and Health, you are no longer going to be paid $5.60 an hour; you're going to be paid $4.95 an hour. HON. J. COWAN: If I can just interject because I think it migh t be helpful , if you read the act , it says, discriminatory actions means, "any act . . .

" which that would be, "or mission by an emp loyer or any person acting under the authority of the empl oyer or any union which adversely affects any term or condition of emp loy ment." That would cer tainly be adversely affecting a term and a condition of the employment, a change in wages of that nature. MR. M. SMITH: Again you see, we think of terms and conditions as being what hours the person works; where she works; what kind of breaks there are, morning and afternoon; what you have for lunch period and so on, rather than whether you got paid for Monda y, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursda y. HON. J.

COWAN: I am of the opinion that terms and conditions would include all benefits. I think it has been interpr eted that way consis tently. Now perhaps a court I

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 would interp ret it differently but, until that's the case, I wouldn't see a need for a change. MR. M. SMITH: Your reassurance is very helpful. HON. J. COWAN: To make a couple other points to try to clarif y some, what I bel ieve to be, misund erstandings, the right to refuse provision does not in any way restrict the rights of the individual which are available to that individual in other parts of the act. So an individual can call on a Workpla ce Safety and Health Officer at any time, whether there is a right to refuse situation or not.

So I don't think that we are restricting an individual or an emp loyer from calling in a Workplace Safety and Health Officer where a right to refuse has not been exercised. MR. M. SMITH: Thank you. HON. J. COWAN: So I believe that's one of the rights under the act. The subsection in

Section 43 which you ask would ensure that a worker has a right and duty to inform a Safety and Health Officer of an unsafe and uncorr ected condition without first having the right to refuse, and I would look to the Member for St. Norbert very quickly for a brief encounter here. If we were to change that to read that a worker . . . that any of the persons carrying out the inspection may notify a Workplace Safety and Health Officer , I think that would be more in keep ing with our intent and not sign ificantly change the objective of that particular section, 43(5).

I think we can consider that when we go through the clause by-clause. I think that the proposed wording which you find to be more restrictive is, in fact, broader for this reason. You say that because we have left out the word "a ssociate with a Work place Safety and Health Committee," we have provided a restriction and limited it more.

What we have said though in its place is that, "a worker exercising any right under the act," and one of the rights under the act is to associate with Work place Safety and Health Committees and to associate with Work place Safety and Health activities, so it is includ ed in the generalit y. For that reason, I would suggest, it would be broader than what is there at this time. 1 think that answers most of them. Have I neglec ted to address any of the other matters which you brought forward? MR. M. SMITH: You certainly provided reassurance on several of them. Thank you very much. HON. J.

COWAN: Thank you for your assistance and your advice. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? There being no further questions, thank you, Mr. Smith. MR. M. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further presentations on Bill 87? There being no further presentations on Bill 87, we move now to presentations with regard to Bill No. 88. 22 BILL 88 - THE WORKERS CO MP EN SA TIO N ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: The first presentation is from Mr. Richard Rybiak of the Cana dian Ma nu fac turing Association. MR. R. RYBIAK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me all right? MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed . MR.

R. RYBIAK: I'm Richard Rybiak. I am Chairman of the CMA's comm ittee addressing itself to Workers Compensation matters. Before beginning a reading of our written sub mission, I would like to express our appreciation for this opportunit y to address comments with regard to proposed amendments to Bill 88.

I am particula rly app reciative of the degree of attention which members of this comm ittee are paying to the sub missions made and in particular, I think, the attention bro ught to this ma tter by the Mini ster sponsoring the proposed amendments. lt gives me some confidence, I think, to expand a little on our written submi ssion by commenting perhaps on a nu mber of things that were said during the debate, said by the Minister sponsoring the amendments at the time that he closed the debate on Thursd ay, July 14 th. Perha ps I would lik e to begin by qu oting one paragraph from Hansard.

The Minister indicated, "I have not received any large number of complaints on the assessment increases. As a matter of fact, it has probably been brought to my attention more in this House by the Member for St. Norbert and his colleagues than it has outside of this House. That is not to say that there is not concern about it because most likely there is, but it is not the type of concern which has been man ifested by calls of a significant nature or correspondence of a significant nature to my office. That raises a couple of concerns, Mr. Chairman.

First, the concern that perhaps the Minister sponsoring the amendments believes that there are no concerns in Manitoba's indus tr y regarding the in cr eases in assess ments of late. Secon d, we are some what concerned I think, that the Minister bel ieves it is appropr iate in matters of concern between industries and the Workers Compensation Board to bring those concerns directly to his attention either by way of a telephone call or by letter.

I think the Minister is probably aware that it is in the nature of professional business people to take their concerns directly to the agencies and the individuals who create those concerns or are perceived to have created those concerns. Certainly it is in the nature of the Canadian Manuf acturers' Association to go directly to the Workers Compensation Board with any concerns that it may have. Ind eed just recently, the CMA has written to and has received a positive response to a letter asking for regular meetings between a comm ittee of the CMA and the Workers Compensation Baord.

I trust that any concerns expressed by the Canadian Man ufacturers' Association in any meetings that occur will be brought to the Min ister's attention through the board, through whatever regular com munications that

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 do exist between the board and the Minister. If however, he wishes to be kept directly informed of concerns either by telephone or by letter, that too I imagine, can be arranged. I would like, if I may, to read this subm ission and of course if there are any que stions thereafter, I am perfectly prepared to respond to them. By way of forward, the Canadian Manuf acturers' Asso ciation, Manitoba Branch, is pleased to make this submi ssion in response to a letter from Mr. C.R. Cormack, Liaison Officer. In response to a similar request from Mr.

Cormack, The Winn ipeg Chamber of Commerce has asked that it be recorded that their organization supports and is in accord with the recommendations of the CMA. IN TRODUCTION: The CMA has revie wed the proposed amendments to the Workers Compensation Act contained in Bill 88 in detaiL General ly, where Bill 88 provides for incr eases in Workers Compensation benefits to reflect increases in the cost of services and the costs of living, that is, where the amendments are of a housekeeping nature, the CMA makes no comment. We accept the board's judgment in the handling of rec om mendations made by senior staff people.

However, where Bill 88 proposes changes which are not merely of a housekeep ing nature but provide for admins trative changes as well, we make the comments which foll ow. 1. With respect to Amendment 6(1 4)(1) . The CMA find !audible the gover nm ent's stated intention to require injured emp loyees or their dependants to report accidents as soon as possible to their emp loyers.

The requirement for immediate reporting of an accident was, until relatively recent ly, one of the basic criteria for the accep tabil ity of compensa tion clai ms, and emp loyers in the Province of Manitoba have felt that the loosening of this requirement has resulted in some loss of control in cases in which there was questionable delay in reporting. The CMA suggests that the objective of a reasonable degree of control can best be achieved by changing the words "but in any case not later than 30 days" to "b ut in any case not later than 3 days" rather than by deleting a reference to a time limit altogether.

This would provide the Workers Compensation Board with positive direction when reviewing any case with regard to a delay in reporting, and, in the event of a dispute, provide a concrete standard against which to judge any delay in reporting. 2. Amendment 14 (33). The CMA notes that, in addition to increasing levels of compensation, this amendment provides for a substantial change in the basis of payment by deleting the words: "but this

section does not apply in respect of a person who was receiving compensation for a partial disability where the impairment of the worker is less than 10 percent." The position of the CMA is that, in view of the fact that most impairments compensated by the Workers Compensation Board are less than 10 percent, the deletion of these words could lead to cost increases heretofore not experienced by industry when increases in compensation levels are determined. The CMA feels this proposal would provide increases to those who are only minimal ly, if at all, disabled from working as a result of the impairment.

Further, cost increases resulting from a change in a principle of payment should 23 not be handled as a simple housekeeping chore, but a substantial opportunity for interested parties to offer input and debate should be provided. 3. Amendments 17 and 18, Sections 37, 37. 1.

The CMA feels that this amendment, which deletes the statement of the amount of maximum annual earnings from the legislation and provides that increases to the maximum annual earnings should be made annually and routinely by the Workers Compensation Board without reference to the Legislature for guidances, would serve to remove an extremely important decision making function from the scrutiny of the legislators and the Manitoba public.

The CMA feels that increases in the maximum annual earnings, the basis for the majority of the board's day-to-day decision making, should properly be the subje ct of public debate. 4. Amendment 19(50( 1). The CMA feels that the deletion of the words "subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Gov ernor-in-Council" will serve to remove an important decision-making function from the scrutiny of the Cabinet. lt is the view of the CMA that the Workers Com pensation Board, in particu lar, should not be allowed to operate too far beyond the control and the scrutiny of the elected representatives of the Manitoba public.

I would, Mr. Chairman, like to at this point digress just slightly and again refer to comments made by the Minister sponsoring these amendments in the debate. He referred to a simi larity between the Workers Compensation Board and in particular, the MP IC. He stated , they don't have to go to the Lieutenant Governor -in-Council in order to seek approval to effect a classification; they don't have to do that nor does any other agency of that sort, so we are attempting to bring Workers Compens ation in line with that particular provision in other organizations of a similar nature. Mr.

Chairman, there is very little that is similar between the Workers Compensation Board and M PlC. MPIC receives its funds directly from the people that it serves to provide benefits to. As you are well aware, the Workers Compensation Board receives its funds from industry and disseminates them to others;

whereas MP IC has a kind of built-in policing mechanism in if that the Manitoba public feels that the assessments are too high, they can choose to accept a lower level of benefit. In the case of The Workers Compensation Act, an increase in benefits automatically leads to an increase in assessments without any of that similar policing mechanism.

The CMA feels that the Workers Compensation Board should be accountable to the Legislature for achieving the objective of providing reasonable and adequate compensation for work-related injuries and conditions of health as an entitlement to emp loyees at reasonable cost to the emp loyer. The CMA bel ieves that this ob jectiv e will be jeopardized if the Workers Compensation Board is allowed to make its own decisions, without requiring the approval of the Government of Manitoba, about the limits of money it can spend.

The best interests of the people of Manitoba will not be served if control over the Workers Compensation Board is relinquished by the Government. 5. Amendment 21

Section 52.3 The CMA agrees that the procedures of the Workers Compensation Board should become more open to

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 those it serves. Since the Workers Compensation Board also has a responsib ility to emplo yers, the CMA suggests that this

section be further amended by providing access to employers, in addition to claimants, to medical records in any case in which the emplo yer sponsors an appeal of the board's decision to provide compensation. Such access to medical information would allow the emp loyer to make good judgment about continuing or discontinuing an appeal. Further, such an amendment would serve the basic principl es of justice by making all relevant information available to the parties involved in the appeal procedure. Final ly, 6. Amendment 21

Section 52.3(3) The CMA suggests that the committee designa ted by the Min ister to hear appl ications for the disclusure of medical information without the written consent of the persons who provided the information be a reliable and impersonal medical body, such as the Complaints Commit tee of the College of Physicians and Su rgeons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are our subm issions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Do any members of the comm ittee have questions? Mr. Mercier. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr .

Rybiak, in your opening comments you talked about the concern about the inc rease in asse ssments without really in dicating whether or not you had any concern. I would like to settle it once and for all. it could perhaps end the debate that has gone on for some time between me and the Min ister.

Are you, or are you not concerned, as the representa tives of your group, and in this case representing the Chamber of Commer ce, with a Workers Compensation Board which the Minister appointed, which took over a large surplus, and which increased in 1982 administrative expenses by some 30 percent, and at a time when the numb er of accidents decreased by over 4,000, have increased the assess ments against emplo yers by some 9 percent to 27 percent. Is that or is that not a concern for your association? MR. R. RVBIAK: Do we have a concern? I guess the short answer is yes. Let me expand if I may, Mr. Chairman.

When I first entered the industry in this province, looked over the particular books of my compa ny, and for the record that's the Manitoba Rolling Mills, we noted that our experience in terms of assessments paid as compared to the amount of mone y paid out by the Workers Compensation Board for our claims, indicated that the Workers Compensation Board was collecting at that time. And I should point out that was about three years ago, it was certainly und er the previous government. We approached the Workers Comp ensation Board at that time with a concern.

Our concern was primarily with regard to our own experience and we were looking to see how it would be possible, if it were possible, to reduce the assessment at that time. I should point out that at that time eco nomic conditions were not what they are today. Then we were doing reasonably well. In terms of business today, of cou rse thi ngs are considerably different and our concern about assessments has changed according ly. At that time, Mr.

Chairman, it was indicated to us by the previous board that indeed our assess ments 24 were among the lowest in the countr y, and that was because the administrative practices of the Workers Compensation Board were particularly efficient, they did their busi ness in a very efficient, and cost-saving kind of way. More recently, indeed just prior to the start of this year we received an indication that, in our particular case our assessments would go up, in real dollar terms, actual dollar terms some 20 percent.

This was couched in a document which indicated that, in fact, the assessment rate was only going up by 9 percent, but there was also an increase in the ce iling and therefore we would be paying an additional 20 percent, I belie ve it was, in terms of our assessment, 18 percent to 20 percent. We again spoke to the board, particular individuals within the board, received pretty much the same answer. At that time business conditions had changed. We were looking wherever we could, as most businesses in this province were, and are, to affect whatever reasonable cost savings we could.

I think there's a frus tr ation exp ressed in your question, Mr. Mercier, how can the accident frequency in this province go down and the case load go up? We have another concern with respect to that. Clearly, the Workers Compensation Board is of the view that virtually every claim made ought to be paid. They have changed the criteria, or added criteria for decision making with regard to conditions of health that had not previously been compensable within this province. I think that over the years to come, we are going to experience tremendous increases in assess ment.

We feel that we've only begun to see the increases. We are as equally concerned, I would think, about the increases to the extent that they have occurred already and we are concerned about the extent to which increases are likely to go, given the current practices of the Workers Compensation Board. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? Mr. Cowan. HON. J. COWAN: First I have a clarification , and then a question.

When I indicated, in the House, that I have not been made aware of any sign ificant compla in ts about increases in assessments by emp loyers, I was also speaking from the perspective of one who is in contact with the Workers Compensation Board. I'm informed that they've received less than 10 letters, one of which was from the CMA, and for that reason represents a large numb er of emp loyers, but certainly less than 10 letters about the increase in assessments, and not that many more calls.

So there wasn't a sign ificant numb er of letters or calls coming to the Workers Compensation Board itself about the increases in assess ments. So when I indicated that I was not aware of them, that is not only speaking from the personal perspective, and the perspective of my office, but also from the information which I had been provided by the Workers Compensation Board itself. You indicate that you have some concerns about your assessment having gone up. What you suggest is about 20 percent. Have you had an increase in your accident rate in that industry as of these?

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 MR. R. RYBIAK: As a matter of fact the notification of the increase in the assessment came to us as we were completing a relatively good year as compared to previous years. HON. J. COWAN: As an industry? MR. R. RYBIAK: As an industry or as a company? Well, as an industry, I can't comment. As a compa ny, certainly the news came to us at a time when we felt that our experience had been improving. I recognize that there is a shared liability in terms of the way the assessments are developed.

Nevertheless as a company we had felt, and our appr oaches to the Workers Comp ens ation Boar d had been on the basis of particularly good experience over a long period of time, being the basis, being a rationale for reduced assessments, where those reduced assessments would be indicated. HON. J. COWAN: Would you not agre e that the assessment in Manitoba should be fairly similar to assessment in the other western provinces, B.C., Alberta , Sask atchewan , if one is to maintain a competitive edge? MR. R.

RYBIAK: Well, you ask your question without regard to the level of services that the assessments are to pay for. I don't believe that the level of services need necessarily be the same from province to province. There certainly wouldn't be a necessity to provide a level of services in Manitoba, which exceeds the level of services provided elsewhere; therefore, certainly there should not be a level of assessments greater than elsewhere.

In terms of the level of assessments providing us with a competitive edge, as you put it, Manitoba as a place to conduct a busine ss, requires the greatest degree, I think, of competitive edge possible. Certainly assess ments equal to or greater than other provinc es would reduce a competitive edge in the busine ss, certain ly. HON. J. COWAN: And assess ments, therefore, less than other provinc es would increase the competitive edge experienced by Manitoba industries? MR. R. RYBIAK: Well, certain ly, in terms of that question, you're absolutely right. HON. J.

COWAN: Are you aware of what the average assessment in interest revenue per $ 100 of payroll is in the other provinces? MR. R. RYBIAK: I can recall looking at the figures, Sir, and I'm sorry I can't relate them back to you. My memory isn't quite good enough. I do know that Manitoba's assessment levels had been very good, as compared to other provinces. HON. J. COWAN: For the record then, I think it should be made clear that Manitoba's average assessment and interest revenue per $ 100 payroll, I'm informed, is $ 1.08. Now that's including the interest, so it's not full assessment.

In Saskatchewan it's $ 1.66, so there 25 is a signif icant difference between her e and Saskatchewan where conditions are similar in a lot of ways. In Alberta it's $2.0 3 and in British Columbia it's $2.28. So if your argument is correct, then Manitoba industry does enjoy a very significant competitive edge, by way of this one particular criterion. Would that not be the case? MR. R. RYBIAK: As one criterion among many , certainly. HON. J.

COWAN: So, then one has to say to themselves, how much has that assessable payroll increased, how much has the increase in assessment interest revenue increased over a numb er of years, and try to make the comparisons to see if Manitoba has, in fact, been holding its own or if there was a real need for an increase in assessm ents.

I'm certain you would agree that if it was determined that there was a need for an increase in assess ments to ensur e that Man itoba workers were receiving their full due as a result of the Workers Compensation system, then there would be no real concern on the part of industry in regard to that increase because you, as well as others, would like to see them get that which is due to them under the Workers Compensation system. Would that be the case? MR. R.

RYBIAK: If your question is whether we, as an industry, would want to see injured emp loyees receive what is due to them in any Workers Compensation case, I can't disagree. But again, if you talk about ass essments, I think we're all aware that the assessments are the result of the level of services that are provided, and one of the concerns that Manitoba industry has - certainly the CMA has - is that we have seen a signif icant change in the basis upon which expenditures will be made. We can see that assessments will rise as a result.

I don't think the jury is on either of two counts - the extent to which the basis upon which expenditur es will be made has changed; and we haven't seen the extent to which, in this province, the degree of participation in Workers Compensation will achieve. I think that increases which have occurred to date which still leave, as you indicate, that Manitoba assessment levels at a favourable level as compared to other provinces, may be a very tempor ary, tr an sitory thing, if these amendments and amendments which we suspect will eventually follow, come into place. HON. J.

COWAN: As an industry, have you experienced an increase in assessment levels over - the past three years you indicated was the first time that you had experienced an increase in your three years' experience - but previous to that, when was the last time you experienced, as an industry, a general increase in assessments from the Workers Compensation Board? MR. R. RYBIAK: Well, again, without having notes in front of me, I can't recall. I believe that increases came with some regular ity. I'm not sure whether it was annual ly, every year, but there were certainly increases. HON. J.

COWAN: They were increases based on experience rating and based on . . . I

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 MR. R. RYBIAK: That's right. HON. J. COWAN: . . . increased costs. But the general percentage of payroll, as an assessment, had not increased for a numb er of years. I think the Member for St. Norbert indicated it was 1977, in his comments. MR. R. RYBIAK: As a percentage of payroll, I'm not sure that anyone has ever determined that a level of assess ment should be based on the size of the payrolL I'm not sure where that leads us. HON. J.

COWAN: What it provides us, though , is with a standard against which we can judge, in common terms, across the board what the incr ease in assess ments may be, because the payroll increases as well as wages get higher and as benefits get better. Would that not be the case? We can have an increase in payroll without an increase in the size of the numb er of empl oyees. MR. R. RYBIAK: Sure, but as you yourself indicated, there are many reasons why that figure wouldn't change in cludin g more efficient indu stry and including improvements in accident frequenc y. HON. J.

COWAN: You indicated in your subm ission that most impairments compens ated by the Workers Compensation Board are less than 10 percent and for that reason you were concerned about the impact of the inclusion of 10 percent disability in the cost-of living increases. Is that not the case? MR. R. RYBIAK: Yes. HON. J. COWAN: I'd ask you if you are indicating that mos t pensions are un der 10 percent or mo st impairments are under 10 percent? MR. R. RYBIAK: I bel ieve the amendment indicated an inclusion of individuals whose impairment was less than 1 0 percent. HON. J. COWAN: Who are on pension? MR. R. RYBIAK: Yes.

HON. J. COWAN: lt would apply to the pensions. would ask you if you can agree with my figures, because I want to make certain that they're correct. I'll only ask you to do so in a subjective way because you don't have the direct figures in front of you, but it's my understanding that we - when I say we, the Workers Compensation Board - has 590 pensions under 10 percent at present out of a total of 4,556. So, in fact, it is a small numb er by comparison. Would that not be the case? MR. R.

RYBIAK: Well, if those figures are accurate and I have no reason to believe otherwise, it's surprising to me and it would be surprising to the CMA, in view of the fact that most industrial accidents are relatively minor. I wonder whether the reason that the numb er of pensions for impairments at under 10 percent are such a low numb er, is becaus e there are cash 26 settlements made in the vast majority of injuries. Is that the case? HON. J. COWAN: I would suggest that is partly the case although it would not make up for the difference, but there are a large numb er of lump sum payments made out certain ly. MR. R.

RYBIAK: Certain ly. So that's not · reflective of the numb er of impairments that have occurred in industry, rated at less than 10 percent. Those are those which are left with a pension. HON. J. COWAN: But it is reflective of the cost of that particular amendment. MR. R. RYBIAK: Yes, it is. HON. J. COWAN: The point I am trying to make is that it is not a costly amendment by comparison. As a matter of fact, it is about 1. 8 percent of the total increase according to the figures which I have before me. So it's not a significant amount by comparison.

I would, therefore, ask you, given that information which seems to correct the impression that was carried forward in the brief, could you not support making certain that those individuals under 10 percent were provided with the same sorts of increases that all other individuals are provided with? MR. R. RYBIAK: Our concern included, of course, a consideration of the degree to which individuals who have not been particularly, if at all, disabled from work ing would also receive pension in cr eases throughout.

You indicate that the numb er is smalL I'm not sure that the numb er of pensions for impairments at less than 10 percent would remain small if, clearly, the financial benefits of accepting a cash settlement would be less than the eventual benefit of a pension which would be increasing from time to time. I don't kno w how to respond to that. I have a suspicion again that the inclusion of pensions for an impairment at less than 10 percent would lead to costs that at this point can't be measured. Certainly, if the ratio of cash settlements to pensions would remain relatively the same, then you're right.

Then the impact of that would be pretty small. HON. J. COWAN: You indicated that you've read the Hansards and the comments which we have made. You are aware also that we have made comments respecting an entire review of the act over the next numb er of months. Are you in support of that sort of a review? Hopefully, you will be participating in it, and making that sort of representation known at that time. We have said very specifically that we want the matter of pension increases to be a major part of that particular review. MR. R. RYBIAK: Yes, I think we're certainly supportive of that review.

In part, I suppose, that was why we were surp rised to see changes in the manner in which maximums, for example, were to be changed; the form in which the maximum earnings level was reported within the act were to be changed if there was a review coming up anyway. lt seemed rather an awkward time to be making that kind of an admin istrative change.

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 HON. J. COWAN: The reason we changed it, in fact, was admin istrative. Every year, we had to come back and change that ceiling while it was being done by regulation anyway. So, in fact, it doesn't make for a major change in respect to the amendments which are brought forward on a yearly basis. You'll see it included in the inside cover of the act, so they don't have to reprint the whole act. lt was a matter of trying to clean it up to make it more admin stratively acceptable.

I don't see how it has any major impact on the way by which those changes have been made, nor does it in any way reduce the ability of that matter to be brought forward to the attention of the Legislature. MR. R. RYBIAK: Well, it is our concern, of course, that those changes would be made without necessarily referring the matter to a deba te within the House. There are few enough, we feel, mechanisms by which the decision-making of the Workers Comp ensation Board can be brought to the attention of the general public. This removes one more of them . HON. J.

COWAN: Are you aware that the minutes of the Workers Compensation Board are now available to any individual who requests them? MR. R. RYBIAK: Yes, we received them. When we found out about it, we asked for them and received them. HON. J. COWAN: Do you receive them on a regular basis? MR. R. RYBIAK: Yes, no w rea sonably regularly , certainly. HON. J. COWAN: Had that been done in the past? MR. R. RYBIAK: Well, I can answer as a compan y, as opposed to the CMA. I believe that our director was receiving minutes from time to time.

Certainly, as a company , we ne eded to ask for it be for e it was sub mitted to us and we have begun receiving it now with some regular ity. HON. J. COWAN: I can indicate to you that if your company was receiving it, they were not receiving it through official channels because it was certainly not the practice of the previous board of commis sioners to circulate those minutes at all. So if, in fact, that did happen, it was unus ual and an anom aly. Do you find that the minutes are helping you in understanding why decisions are being made by the board? MR. R.

RYBIAK: Yes, they help us in determining how decisions are made and why decisions are made by the board. There are times when there is a certain amount of frustration that results from that as well. HON. J. COWAN: On everyone's part, including mine and the board's most likely, so I can understand that. Are you aware that the Workers Compensation Board, for the first time, during the Estimates review of the department had staff available so that we could provide more detailed answers to questions from the members of the opposition? 27 MR. R. RYBIAK: I was not. HON. J.

COWAN: Then I am pleased to be able to inform you that is the case. The reason I make those points is because I think we have become much more open over the past year and a half as to how the board is operating. I am concerned that you believe that it may be becoming exactly the opposite, much more closed in the provision of information.

So I would hope that by your receipt of the minutes, by the fact that you indicate that you will be striking a small committee to work with the Workers Compensation Board on matters - I believe I interpr eted you correctly when you said that - and that that's been made available to you, and by the changes we have made in making certain that members of the opposition have access to staff during the Estimates, and we're reviewing now having the Workers Comp en sat ion Board sit before a comm ittee such as the other Crown corporations, Manitoba Hydro in the Legislature, that we are, in fact, becoming quite open.

We are quite proud of that. I know we have your support in that regard, and look forward to your participation in those deliberations. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Johnston. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Rybiak, at the beginning of your presenta tion, you indicated that you had had communi cations or discussions with the Workers Com pensation Board , and that the Canadian Manuf acturers' Association were available at all times for discussion on any changes in legislation that the Canadian Manuf act urers' Associ ation would be interested in.

Was there any discussion between the Canadian Manuf acturers' Association, yourself or the directors of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association in Manitoba, regarding this legislation? MR. R. RYBIAK: Bill 88, amendments to Bill 88? MR. F. JOHNSTON: Yes. MR. R. RYBIAK: I'm not aware of any between our or ganization and anyone with regard to th ese amendments, prior to today. Indeed, I was talking to our director, and I can ask him now whether that's essentially accurate.

In the conversation that I had with our director some time ago, he had called around to other emp loyer organizations and he, too, had some difficulty finding others who might have been consulted prior to these amendments having been introduced into the House. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Rybiak, I ask that question because the Minister was asking a lot of questions tonight of the MCA.

When he made the presentation on this bill. he indicated very clearly, and it's in Hansard, that there were discussions with industry, between his department and industry, before this bill was presented or before this bill was made up and presented to the House. MR. R. RYBIAK: I read those comments, and that was the reason that I had spoken to John Ross, our director, to find out when we were involved in that process. I

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 MR. F. JOHNSTON: To your knowledge that you weren't involved in that process that the Minister said that he made the statement in the House that the business was approached. To your kno wledge the CMA was not approached? MR. R. RVBIAK: As far as I know, no. I have that on the basis of consul tation with our director. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? There being no further questions, thank you, Mr. Rybiak. MR. R. RVBIAK: Thank you. MR.

CHAIRMAN: In calling for the presentation of Bill No. 88, I neglected to call John Walsh who was listed earlier for both 87 and 88; perhaps Mr. Walsh would make his presentation at this point in time. MR. J. WALSH: I would like to introduce Bruno Zimmer who is the Chairperson of our Compens ation Committee to make a brief on behalf of the Manitoba Federation of Labour . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Zimmer. MR. B. ZIMMER: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my name is Bruno Zimmer, I'm President of Local 111 Uni ted Food Commer cial Workers.

We repr esent 3,5 00 members in our organization, and I'm also the Chairman of the Federation of Labour Standing Committee on Comp ensation. I would like to make some general comments on Bill 88. I would like to open up with the increase in the pensions. We are naturally welcoming the incr eases in the various pensions, and I'm talking about the permanent disability pensions. We think they're long overdue and especially we also welcome the incr eases in the pensions for those disability pensions which are rated below the 1 0 percent. We felt that this

section of the act was discriminatory against the people who, in fact, had suffered injuries and had a disability pension which was rated below; it was either at 10 percent or below 10 percent, so we are welcoming tho se changes. However, we are somehow disappointed that the Minister didn't see fit to bring in further amendments to the act which would automatically give increases to the disability pension under some sort of a formula which is similar to

Section 37. 1. We feel that by gr anting incr eases in the disability pension every two or three years - I know last time we had to wait three years, this time it was two years - these people who are in receipt of a pension are in a catch-up situati on. Th ey are at the whim of the Legislature, whenever the Legislature feels like it they're going to get an incr ease. They feel that's mostly unfair because in the interim these people suffer, and they will suffer loss of income.

So we are somewhat disappointed that this wasn't introduced at this sessio n; that the Minister did not see fit to come up with some kind of formula which would give automatic incr eases, annual incr eases, for these disability pensions, either attached to the cost 28 of living or the indus trial wage. We have, for instance, a long-standing amendment which we have sub mitted to the Minister at various times on updating of pensions. We recommend that the pension would be upg raded on a basis of wage rates.

Disability pensions are based on earnings at the time of the accident and are only adjusted periodically by the Legislature. We would recommend that a fair and equitable scheme for all permanent, partial or total disability would be for the pension to be upgraded on a basis of wage rates presently being paid for the classification in which the individual was working at the time of the accident or disability, and that would be adjudicated, it would be looked at by the board annually, and then the pension would be automatically upgraded. As I said, it would be a similar system than under

Section 37 .1 where temporary total disabil ity, the ceiling is upgr aded every year providing that 10 percent of claims are over the ceiling. So we are looking forward to further changes; that these disability pensions will be upgraded annually, and that includes the pensions 10 percent or under. We're welcoming the change in Sections 14(1) where you delete, "but in any case not later than 30 days." We have a policy in our organization that we urge all workers to report the accident as soon as possible and as soon as practical. We don't encou rage anybody to wait even 30 days.

We know from experience that if a worker doesn't report his accident imm ediately, or as soon as possi ble, he has great difficulties in even establishing a claim, so we feel that there was really no need to have that 30 day provision in the act. The incr eases in the comp en sation for fune ral expen ses are long ove rdue and we welcome the changes in that

Section 25.2( 1) . We are somewhat disappointed in the amendments on

Section 25.4, where you increased the one-time payment from $1, 050 to $1, 305.00. This is a $255 incr ease; I don't know how that was arrived at, but we feel that is rather a cheap way of getting away from somebody getting killed and having no spouse, and only paying $ 1, 305 to the estate. We feel a sum of $5,000 would be more adequate than $1, 305.00. We welcome

Section 37. 1, a continua tion of the past act, and also any reference under the permanent disability scheme where we had a fixed sum of either $21 ,0 00 or $ 17 ,0 00, whatever the ceiling was, you had that fixed sum quoted in the act, and you're now making reference that the maxim um average earnings established under

Section 3 7. 1. That is really house cleaning, but it certainly clears up any misunderstanding that when the ceiling goes up that everyone else goes up with it. So we're making reference to 37. 1 which is only the right way to go. In

Section 52 where the act will allow full access by the claimant or his or her representative, full access to the medical file, we welcome that change in the act. We feel this is long overdue; we would have liked to have it go a little further and make it retroactive, but we understand the difficulties you would have with the Manitoba Medical Association, and so I guess we have to be satisfied for what is put in the act and giving full access of the medical information to the claimant. We would certainly be violently opposed that medical files should be open to the emplo yers. We feel that when the medical files are open, if the claimant wants to see them, or a person who is authorized by the

Thursday, 21 July, 1983 claimant, then the files should be open. But we certainly oppose any move in that direction that the emp loyer should have an arbitrary access to the medical files. I have one question in 52.3(3) where it reads: "Where the consent of a person required under subs ection (2) to obtain access to a report made and sub mitted to the board by the person or to a part thereof, cannot, for any reason be obtained, the person making the request for access under subs ection (1) may apply to a com mittee designa ted by the Min ister, etc." I just have one question to the Min ister.

Does that include refusal by the particular person? If a claimant requests access to the file and he or she is refused by the respective doctor, is that taken care of in this act or not? You're saying in your 52.3, "where it cannot be obtained." Does that include refusal? If a doctor refuses, can the claimant go to the comm ittee and appeal that doctor's refusal? With that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks and I'd welcome any questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercier. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Zimm er. I have one question.

As a former member of the board, you would be aware that an emp loyer can become a party to a hearing, can he not? MR. B. ZIMMER: He can become part of what? MR. G. MERCIER: He can become a party or argue at a hearing with respect to compensation? MR. B. ZIMMER: Yes, yes. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Zimmer , I took the position during the Minister's Estimates, not knowing what bill he was going to bring in, that I thought it was only fair and equ itable to workers that they have a right to receive a copy of the medical information.

That's part of a normal, for example, action for civil damages and as a party, they should be entitled to see that and the Min ister, to his credit, has brought that amendment forward. But at the same time, I suggest to you that an emp loyer can also be a party to that hearing and is directly involved because he becomes very involved in the assessment payments.

Does it not seem to you, that at the same time that the worker's entitl ed to see that information, that the party who's required to pay the assessment and become involved in the hearing should also have the right, at least for the purposes of that he ari ng, to review and see the medical information? What is your objection? MR. B. ZIMMER: My objection is medical information is certainly privileged; it's my own private information. If the claimant authorized the emp loyer to see the file, by all means.

But I feel that my medical file is my own private affair and I feel I have a right to see it and any person I authorize has to see the file. If I feel that the emp loyer should see my file, I will authorize the emplo yer to see my file, but under no circums tances - a medical file is a privileged document between myself and my doctor - under no circumstances would I give a free hand to the emp loyer to see my medical file. 29 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Cowan. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, I'll ask the same question to Mr.

Zimmer that I asked to the previous individual making representation and that's in regard to the ongoing or the annou nced review which will be taking place of the entire act. Is the Manitoba Federation of Labour in support of a review of the entire Workers Compensation Act? MR. B. ZIMMER: Mr. Minister, I am sure you are aware, and I repeat myself, in every brief that we subm itted to you, in our opening remarks, we urged you to undertake such a review, and we will be more than willing to take

part in it and give you our submis sion to such a review. HON. J. COWAN: To how many Ministers have you made that same recommendation? MR. B. ZIMMER: Well, we've made it to numerous Min isters. I think we go back to the Sch reyer Administration, right through to the Min ister of Labour at that time and the Minister of Labour under the previous government, and then of course, to the Minister responsi ble under this administration. So we've gone on record for many many years asking for a review of the act, an entire review of the act. HON. J.

COWAN: Did you make similar representations in regard to access to medical files? MR. B. ZIMMER: Yes, we did. HON. J. COWAN: To previous administrations? MR. B. ZIMMER: Yes, we did. We made a presentation to the Honourable Mr. MacM aster, I believe. HON. J. COWAN: In regard to automatic increases on an annual basis, I will again indicate that that will be a function, and a very specific function, of that review committee. lt is a very costly change, significant change, and one which I think has to be given very careful consideration.

I hope, as you've indicated, you'll take an opportunity to make your presentation at that time. You had two questions, one regarding 25(2), which is th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-ir2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf ir2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1f5601f369ff961d09937e5cb591c9650c6d901f

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).