Manitoba Committee Hansard — 29 October 1996 (Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 2, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-ir2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Industrial Relations Chairperson Mr. Mike Radcliffe Constituency of River Heights Vol. XLVI No.2- 6:30p.m., Tuesday, October 29, 1996

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members1 Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name Constltnrnc)' .�!.art)' ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Arthur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood P.C.

EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. - EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P. FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HELWER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norbert P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWA Y, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon.

Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. - MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David Riel P.C. PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Portage Ia Prairie P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park P.C.

STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Rossmere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fort Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosano Swan River N.D.P.

85 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUS TRIAL RELATIONS Tuesday, October 29, 1996 TIME- 6:30 p.m. LOCATION- Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Mike Radcliffe (River Heights) VICE-CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert) ATTENDANCE- 11 -QUORUM- 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Downey, Toews Messrs. Helwer, Jennissen, Lathlin, Laurendeau, Penner, Radcliffe, Reid, Struthers, Sveinson APPEARING: Ms. Jean Friesen, MLA for Wolseley WITNESSES: Mr. Bryan Walton, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors -Canada Safeway Mr. Eduard Hiebert, Private Citizen Mr.

Patrick Martin, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local343 Mr. Thomas Henderson, Canadian Auto Workers Mr. Brian Hunt, United Steelworkers of America Mrs. Theresa Ducharme, Private Citizen Mr. Peter Olfert, Manitoba Government Employees' Union Mr. Mario Javier, Private Citizen Mr. Cy Gonick, Private Citizen Mr. Kenneth Emberley, Private Citizen Mr. Darrell Rankin, Communist Party of Canada Manitoba Mr. Reg Cumm ing, Canadian Auto Workers, Local 2224 Mr. Heinrich Huber, Private Citizen Ms. Caroline Stecher, Private Citizen Ms. Iris Taylor, Private Citizen Mr.

Robert Ziegler, Private Citizen Ms. Carolyn Ryan, Private Citizen Mr. Mark Saban, Private Citizen Mr. Victor Vrsnik, Manitoba Taxpayers Association Ms. Claudette Chudy, Private Citizen Mr. Ken Nickel, Private Citizen Ms. Cindy Garofalo, Private Citizen Mr. Jack Samyn, Private Citizen Ms. BufiY Burrell, Private Citizen Mr. George Anderson, Public Service Alliance of Canada, Union of Taxation Employees, Local 50021 Mr. Philippe Trottier, Private Citizen Ms. Heather Grant, Winnipeg Labour Council Mr. Jorge Maldonado, Private Citizen Mr. George Harris, Private Citizen Mr. Gill Gagne, Private Citizen Mr.

Bob Desjarlais, United Steelworkers of America, Local6166 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Mr. John Triplett, Teachers for Excellence in Education Ms.Yvonne Campbell, Public Service Alliance of Canada,Local5 0021 Mr. Jim Silver, Choices MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 26-The Labour Relations Amendment Act * * * Mr. Chairperson: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. The Standing Committee on Industrial Relations will now come to order. This evening the committee will be resuming considering Bill 26 , The Labour Relations Amendment Act. Before the committee can proceed with business before it, it must elect a new Vice-Chair.

Are there any nominations?

86 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA October 29, 1996 Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): I nominate Mr. Laurendeau. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further nominations? Hearing none, Mr. Laurendeau is elected as the Vice Chair. I will now read aloud the names of the persons who preregist ered to speak to Bill 26. Number 1, Brian Walton, 2. Robert Lindey, 3. Dan Lemieux, 4. Eduard Hiebert, 5. Patrick Martin, 6. Thomas Henderson, 7. Jim Silver, 8. Brian Hunt, 9. Peter Olf ert, 10. Albert Cerilli, 11. Deb Stewart, 12. Mario Javier, 13. Cy Gonick, 14. Yvonne Campbell, 15. Kenneth Emberley, 16. Darr ell Rankin, 17.

Kelly Logan, 18. Barny Haines, 19. Reg Cumm ing, 20. Peter Magda, 21. Heinrich Huber, 22. Caroline Stecher, 23. Iris Taylor, 24. Robert Ziegler, 25. Carolyn ·Ryan, 26 . Mark Saban, 27. Victor Vrsnik, 28 . Claudette Chudy, 29. Alex Puerto, 30. Ken Nickel, 31 . Cindy Garof alo, 32. Jack Samyn, 33. Buffy Burrel l, 34. Brian Burchat, 35 . GeQrge Anderson, 36 . Bernie Perr eault, 37. Philippe Trottier, 38 . Leagh Blackwel l, 39. Emile Clune, 40. Anthony Joyce, 41. Heather Grant, 42. Bernie LeBlanc, 43. Jorge Maldonado, 44. George Harris, 45 . Gill Gagne, 46. Miche lle Deneka, 47. Maureen Jordan, 48 . Joanne Daly, 49.

Bob Des jarlais, 50. Brenda Portree. * (1835 ) If there are any other persons who wish to speak to the biD and whose names do not appear on the list and have not been read out, please register with the Chamber Branch personnel at the fa r end of the room. Just as a reminder to those presenters wishing to hand out a written copy of their brief s to committee members, 1 5 copies are required. If assistance in making photocopies is required, please see the Chamber Branch personnel at the rear of the room or the Clerk Assistant.

I would also like to remind all present that the time limits of 1 0 minutes fo r presentations and five minutes fo r questions and answers will be used. In addition, the first time that a name is called and the person is not in attenda nce, the name is dropped to the bottom of the list. The second time that a name is called and the presenter is not in attendance, the name is dropped off the list. There is a designation on the list of presenters which indicates those names that have already been called once in committee . Does the committee wish to hear from the out-of province and out-of-town presenters first?

What is the will of committee? Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Yes. Mr. Chairperson: All right. Any discussion? All agreed? So ordered . Did the committee wish to indicate how late it is willing to sit this evening? I heard some prelimin ary discussion and perhaps it would be valuable to have a consens us on the record . An Honourable Member: Hear them all. Mr. Chairperson: The proposal is to hear them all. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr.

Chairperson, I think the other nig ht when· this issue was talked about, this committee had agreed that fo r the sake of the presenters that we have here before us once again this evening that we would, fo r the sake of those presenters, reassess at midnight and that after midnight we would have those so wishing to remain behind as part of the voluntary presentations take place and that any other presenters after that point their names would not be struck from the list and we would have committee hearings fo llow up the next day, if necessary, for any presenters that may be remaining.

I believe that was the will of the committee at that time, and I think that should be the will of the committee here today as well. Mr. Otairperson: I believe this is the only day that the committee has been called fo r to date, just as a point of clarification. Are there any further comments? Mr. Penner: I concur that there are times when we should pay a lot of attention to ensuring that people are able to present, first of all; secondly, that they are acco mmodated in a mann er that is suitable.

However, we all know that the time element is going to be a constraint because of agr eemen ts that have occurred previously, and I would theref ore suggest that we give due consideration to ensuring that everybody that has registered has the ability to be heard, and it is my contention that we should as a committee give due consideration to that and theref ore accommodate all of those that have indicated that they wish to presen t Because this committee has not -

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 87 been scheduled for another day, I would request of you, Mr. Chairman, that you consider and that this committee consider that we allocate adequate time tonight or earlier tomorrow morning that we hear all of those who have indicated that would wish to present. So I would ask committee members to give due consideration to those that want to be heard and that we allot enough time and if it need be till tomorrow morning that this committee be asked to sit till the time that we have heard them all. Hon.

Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I essentially agree with the point raised by Mr. Penner. I would also point out, just in respect of the people who have been added to the list since the last time we sat here, there have been people who were not able to make presentations the last day. They were put off the list. Now I understand that the commi ttee wants to hear people from out of town before the people who were registered here first. Now I think that is just not acceptable. *

(1840) I think we should be going in order of the list here and we go in the order that they are whether they are from out of town or not, because that is the fair way to do things. There have been people who ha¥e sat here one entire evening already, and now to put them onto the back of the list-and with all due deference to people who have come from out of town, they did not sign up the first time; they have signed up subsequently. I agree with Mr. Penner's motion. I think we should also read in order of the appearance here. Mr.

Chairperson: Just as a matter of clarification, I did not record-1 have you recorded, sir, thank you-1 did not know, Mr. Penner, that you were making a motion. I thought this was just discussion. Mr. Penner: I would, Mr. Chairman, if it be the will of the committee, move a motion that we hear all of those that have indicated today that they wish to present. Mr. Chairperson: We have a number of other speakers who wish to speak at this point. Perhaps we will continue canvassing them then in light of the fact you have made a motion, or are you making a written-will you be presenting a written motion to this effect?

Mr. Penner: Just a verbal one. Mr. Chairperson: I see. All right. Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr. Chairman, many of the things that the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) says I agree with. I think what my colleague here from Transco na has proposed fits the bill for the concerns that the member for Emerson has put forth. I think it makes perfect sense to canvass the House at twelve midnight. I do not want to see people dropped off after that. If they are voluntarily willing to make presentations after twelve midnight, I think that is fine.

It covers all the complaints, I think, that the member for Emerson has put forth. I just want to speak in favour of what has been proposed. It was a deal that seemed to be okay last time, and I do not see the difference now. Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): The point I was going to make is a problem that we in variably run into whenever we have these hearings.

When legislation is proposed in Manitoba in the Legislature here, it affects all of Manitoba, and it has always been our position that for every piece of major legislation that is being proposed by the government that we put our money where our mouths are when we say we want to accommodate people, but so far in this session here we had Bill 49 and other major pieces of legislation and we have yet to go out into the other parts of Manitoba in order for us to hear other citizens of Manitoba, other than those who reside here in Winnipeg and close by.

Therefore, I take exception to the notion that we are not going to recognize out -of-town presenters. I do not know if we have that many anyway. A lot more people from out of town would have been here, would have been able to appear before the committee had we gone out to places like Thompson, Flin Flon and The Pas, so I really do not endorse that notion. I think that because we are not able to go out into other parts of Manitoba, even though the legislation affects all of Manitobans, we should perhaps accommodate the people who come from out of town. Mr. Reid: Mr.

Chairperson, I need some guidance from the Chair here because I have a motion here that is in writing that I think, if I understand correctly, will be the rules of this comm ittee and this House in that we need to

88 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 and require a written motion to be spoken to or debated and also voted on by members of this committee . So I would move, Mr. Chairperson, that this committee sit until midnight and reassess at that point to allow fo r volunteer presentations and that no names be struck from the list after midnight . Mr. Chairpenon: Members of the committee, the first motion that we have to consider-we have two motions before the Chair at this point, before the committee. The first motion that reached the Chair was a motion from Mr.

Pen ner, which rea ds as fo llows: I move that the committee hear from all those present at the meeti ng who wish to present as presented on the list of presente rs. An Honourable Member: Ques tion. *

(1845) Mr. Chai rpenon: The question has been called. All those in fa vour of calling the questi on. Some Honourable Memben: Yea. Mr. Chair penon: The motion is that the committee hear fr om all those present at the meeting who wish to present as presented on the list of presenters . Voice Vote Mr. Chairpenon: All those in fa vour of the motion. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chai rperson: All those against. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair penon: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. The next motion that is bef ore the committee is that received from Mr.

Reid: I move that this committee sit until 12 midnight and reassess to allow volunteer presentation and that no names be struck from the list after midnight. Any further discussion? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Chairpenon: The question has been called. All those in fa vour of calling the question. An Honourable Member: We are all in fa vour of calling the ques tion. Voice Vote Mr. Chairpenon: All those in fa vour of the motion. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairpenon: All those against the motion. Some Honourable Memben: Nay. Mr. Chairpenon: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

Formal Vote An Honourable Member: Recorded vote . Mr. Chairpenon: Recorded vote. A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 4, Nays 6. Mr. Chairpenon: The motion is accordingly def eated . Just to let committee members know, we have received a written submission from John Triplett on behalf of the <rganization called Teachers fo r Excellence in Education . This brief has been placed on the committee table fo r committee membe rs. We have also received one from Yvonne Campbell, who is listed as No. 14 on the presenters' list.

Is there agreement fo r these submissions to appear in Hansard? [agreed] We will now pr oceed with hearing presentat ions. The first presenter on the list is Mr. Bryan Walton. Mr. Walton, would you come fo rward, sir. Do you have written submissions? Mr. Bryan Walton (Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors - Canada Safeway): I am afraid I do not have enough fo r the committee, Mr. Chairman. Some of the points I will make, I am SW'C you are all fa miliar with,

October 29 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 89 at least the sections I am referring to. If you so desire, I can make a copy available subsequent to the submission. Mr. Chairperson: All right. Thank you, sir. I invite you to proceed. Mr. Walton: As you indicated, my name is Bryan Walton. I am joined here today by Toby Oswald and Lou Hogan, both of Canadian Safeway. The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors is a national trade association of wholesale and retail grocery companies. I am about to provide to you our commentary on Bill 26 , The Labour Relations Amendment Act. In regard to The Labour Relations Amendment Act,

Section 12 (2) entitled Defence, we urge the government to adopt this change. Large and small employers experience misconduct in the form of unlawful activity and violence during a strike or lockout. Violence and unlawful acts must not be permitted. Legal strikes and lockouts should not provide immunity for strike, lockout related misconduct. *

(1850) In a related section, 14.1, Strike-related misconduct, the unions and employees engaged in misconduct and unlawful acts must also be subject to unfair labour practices, not just employers and employers' organi zations, as stated in the current legislation. Furthermore, misconduct must not be allowed during the collective bargaining process such as a lead-up to the possible strike or lockout. We believe that we owe it to society to conduct labour- Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me. Mr. Reid, on a point of order. Mr. Reid: Yes, I wanted to be recognized for a question.

If it was a point of order, I would so indicate. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Excuse me for interrupting. Mr. Reid had just indicated that he wished to speak at the termination of your presentation. Mr. Walton: Pardon me, it was my understanding I have 10 minutes and there is five minutes for questions. In the interests of the business you have just conducted, I will try and adhere to my time limit. I will just conclude under

Section 14.1, we owe it to society to conduct labour relations in a nonviolent manner. Union and employees must be accountable for their actions during a labour dispute. On

Section 40 (1 }, Representation vote or dismissal, on 40 (1.1) , Board may determine voting constituency, we support the true wishes of employees being expressed by means of a board-conducted vote. We also believe that a board determination of the voting constituency is very important in a democratic society. The occurrence of seasonal employees causing a buildup of the bargaining unit has to be a fundamental consideration to the question of the true wishes of the employees affected by the outcome of the certification vote.

We urge the government to consider the need to equip the Labour Relations Board with the resources to admin ister these changes. Required votes within seven days of an application being filed is good if the Department of Labour can meet these critical deadlines. On

Section 72 .1(1), the minister may require ratification vote after strike, lockout, and 72 . 1 (2), the employer may before or after the commencement of a strike or lockout require a vote ·to be taken, we respect the lea dership of the union and the true wishes of the membership, and they ought to be recognized as appropriate in determining the acceptance or rejection of the employer's final offer. Where a dispute has continued for 30 days, for example, the true wishes of the employees may have changed either to be more determined in the rejection of the offer or more amenable to accept the offer.

There ought to be a means for the employees to express these views, and so we support the proposed legislation after a period of time that a dispute has continued. In regard to

Section 111(4 ), Costs of mediator, where labour-management relationship at the bargaining table has deteriorated and a mediator is a last resort, then we believe the parties ought to bear the costs of the mediator. Therefore, we support and encourage a charge-back system for mediation costs. Under

Section 18 (1) entitled dealing with an amend ment of subsection 130(1), Referral of grievance to board, we offer a suggestion that either party, the employer or the union, irrespective of who brings the

90 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 grievance forward, may ref er to the expedited process, and on grievances not covered by limitations of dismissals and suspension of 30 days or more, the government may consider an administration fee to be paid by either the union or the employer seeking mediation assist ance of the department.

We support the ref erral, ref erence 130 (3), be made in a prompt mann er and suggest that the 14 -day limit in the proposed legislation, i.e., from the day on which the grievance was fr rst brought to the attention of either party, be amended to "14 days aftec the unioo and the employer have discussed the grievanc e." The objective of the prompt filing for expedited mediation and arbitration ought not to remove the parties' obligation to make an eff ort to resolve the difference.

Confirmation of a discussion by letter from either the union or the employer advising that the grievance was reviewed should be the point from which the 14 -day time limit should be counted. It is very important that the period of 1 4 days does not result or preclude the parties' involvemen t to attempt to resolve the grievance expeditiously. Now, in regard to the existing Labour Relations Act, I suggest that there is an additional area in the legislation that we believe required review. One examp le, we suggest, is the deletion of

Section 15 , Effect ofrefusal to facilit ate a struck employer. This

section of the act encourages the spread of disruption to other employers and other segments of the economy . There is no similar provision, to my knowledge, similar to this in any other labour legislation in Canada. *

(1855) Finally, we have some general comme nts. CCGD agrees with the proposal which would direct unions to consult with members on political donations . Unions should give members the choice on the use of their union dues. Such choice of donations to a char itable organization, we suggest, ought to be limited to the charitable initiatives already sponsored by the union. That may ease the administration of the donations on the behalf of the union and their membe rs.

CCGD appreciates that the internal financial affairs of the union requires the confidentiality necessary and appropriate to the union's proper administration. We also believe in a democratic society that it is the individ ual members who ought to be satisfied with the union's total administration, and, if they are dissatisfied, our suggestion is the members or the membership ought to be better informed of their right to choose a bargaining agent to represent them .

By way of conclusion, we would like to stress that unions and members who exercise their democratic rights to strike must accept accountability for their actions, the union's actions and the actions of their members . Violence and misconduct must not be condoned in the interest of enhancing peace and civility in the wor kplace. Mr. Chairman, that is my presentation. Mr. Hogan and Ms. Oswald will join me for questio ns. Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you, Mr. Walton. Mr. Reid: Thank you very much for your presentation this eveni ng.

I have a couple of questions because you have raised these issues in your presentation here this eve ning.

The first question is that, when you say that you support the legislation where the employer will have the ability to terminate employment for an employee that is, in the employer's view at least, found to be guilty, in your view, of some misconduct oo the strike line or the lockout line, do you think that it is fair for a company to be able to bring in replacement workers during the course of a strike a lockout that would have the opportunity to incite those employees that are on the lockout or picket line, knowing full wel l that the employer would be immune fr om any action under The Labour Relations Act and would not in any way be sub ject to any of the penalties where the employee in that case would lose their livelihood?

Do you think that it is fair that employees would be treated in that fashion? Mr. Walton: Mr. Chairman, because we were not talking about replacement workers in the amendment act, we did not ref er to it. The point of view on replacement workers is that is one option that an employer has, counter to the suggestion that you have made that the employees have no options . I believe that it is important that in a labour dispute where you have misconduct and it is proven to the Labour Relations Board, that in such cases that, after the dispute is settled, to have those individuals back in the

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 91 workplace when there has been misconduct and it has been proven that it is an unfair labour practice, we do not fe el that it is conducive to harmony in the wor kplace, and that is one of the reasons we made this point. Mr. Toews: I am certain that Mr.

Reid inadvertently failed to draw your attention to the proposal at 14.1 of the legi slation, which indicates: "Every employer, emplo yers' organization, union or employee and every person acting on behalf of an employer, employers' organization, union or employee and every other person or organization who or which engages in a strike-related misc onduct commits an unfair labour practice ." You would agree that any party to a labour dispute that engages in strike-related misconduct should be accountable for their action whether they are a union, whether they are an emplo yer, or whether they are an employee.

An Honourable Member: Okay, $2,000 versus $35,000. Mr. Toews: I think the question was directed at the witness. Mr. Walton: Thank you for the point, Mr .Chairman. I believe this is one of the eff ects that this amendment act has done, that it basically has made it fair for all. Mr. Reid: To the presenter, because the minister has failed to represent all of the facts by his comments here, do you think that it is fair that an employer would pay a fine of $2,000 for an unfair labour practice where an employee would lose their livelihood? Mr.

Walton: The aspect of financial versus the actual livelih ood issue, I think, is mixing two issues, frankly. What we are talking about here is the ability to deal with a labour dispute in a fair and reasonab le manner, and I think these , on balance, what this amendment act speaks to, is openness and transparency and basically allowing the democratic process to operate. Mr.

Reid: You have also referenced in your presentation here this evening with respect to the issue of dues, union members' dues being used for purposes, political purposes in this case, for which the Supreme Court of Canada has already said that union members and union organizations have a right to do.

Do you think that it is fair that under this piece of legisla tion that the minister has tabled here that those dues-that a member of a union can request that their dues be diverted to a charity of their choice instead of back into the internal operations of a union to assist them to pay for the costs that may be involved under this legislation dealing with mediation services for which the parties are now going to have to pay a one-third share? *

(1900) Mr. Walton: A fair comment and a fair point. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Walton. Mr. Walton: Pardon me for moving in ahead of you there. With regards to the comments on the ability of the individual to make a decision as to where his dues go, we kept that in the general

section of the commentary because it is a little bit further removed from our day-to day operation Fundamentally, I do not think anyone can disa gree with the ability of an individual to be consulted on how their dues are being spent. In regard to the charitable donation, I believe that what the act says is that the individual can make a choice of having those funds diverted to a charity of his choice and that donation would go each year thereafter.

The point we made here is the union may already be involved in charitab le or ganizations, whether it is the United Way or a handful of these organizations, and those donations from the charitable side from the individual could be directed to one of those six, as opposed to what could be a multitude of charities . Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Walton. That concludes the time allotted for the questions, and I thank you very much, sir, for your presentation tonight and thank your colleagues for appearing bef ore us. The next presenter tonight is Robert Lindey. Is Robert Lindey present this evening?

Calling Robert Lindey for the second time. Robert Lindey has already been called once and was not present. We are calling Robert Lindey for the second time, and his name will be struck off the list. I am hearing no response. Robert Lindey's name is struck off the list. The next presenter is Dan Lemieux. Is Mr. Lemieux in the audience tonight? Mr. Lemieux has also been called

92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 once. This is the second call for Mr. Lemieux. On hearing no response, his name is struck off the list. The next presenter is Eduard Hiebert. Is Mr. Hiebert in the audience. I heard a response. Ah, Mr. Hiebert. Thank you, Mr. Hiebert, I see your presentation is being circulated, and I would invite you to commence your presentation. Mr. Eduard Hiebert (Private Citizen): I recognize a few people, or I think perhaps a few would recognize me.

For those who do not, I am part of a third-generation family farm, and I want to make it clear that I am in opposition to this bill. I would also like to have you understand as to how I have come to that, because, by and large farmers, are notorious-! think Mr. Penner over here can support that quite handsomely-that farmers at least during my lifetime are notoriously against unions, believing that each one of us should simply work it as a free enterprise and our own behalf, so to say.

At the same time I can certainly vouch that I have never been part of a union, nor have I ever been a member of the National Farmers Union. However, I would like to in a sense related to this- Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Laurendeau, on a point of order? Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): It is okay. I have it. It is just- Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, Mr. Hiebert, for interrupting. Mr. Laurendeau: I did not mean to interrupt. Mr . Chai rperson: As a point of clarification, Mr. Hiebert, you have circulated to us- Mr. Hiebert: I will be making reference only to them. That is not my brief.

It is simply added material for my presentation Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Thank you, sir. All right, I would invite you to proceed and sorry for the interruption. Mr. Hiebert: Thank you. As I was saying, I would like to give a little bit of a history as to what my own view has been. Certainly, when I was younger, I took on the view of the people around me, and I certainly believed that each one of us could make do on our own. There was no need for unions. It was kind of an unnecessary evil, so to say.

By the time I was in high school or universi ty, I do not remember exactly where, I had already come to recognize that unions to some extent, especially in companies, they had them if they deserved them. In other words, there was a relationship. If companies were a particular style and they were dracooian, et cetera, I saw the arise of the need for unions was something in a sense as a response to that, so, very easily and quickly and to the point, it was just simply one that companies deserved them. Since then, I have I think wandered further on this path in recognizing where we are.

I believe fundamentally as I have grown older that democracy and the right to assemble with people is fundamentally important. It is one of the major tenets in our society. I also recognize, for the work that I have done as far as lobbying on a number of things-and Mr.

Toews certainly knows the kind of lobbying of or presentation I gave before him as far as what has happened in the inappropriateness in another sector with The Municipal Act and how the board there is really a bit of a kangaroo court and I have not had any response-but I certainly recognize that it takes a significant amount of effort, for example, for union people to organize. There is some reason why people would go ahead and do all kinds of organizational work instead of just fooling around and enjoying their life, et cetera, to go against the grain.

I think that is part of the essence as to why we need to recognize further what is going on because clearly they have to do much mae w<Ik in order to organize than the company because the individuals that are within the union are exactly that, they are a bunch of individuals who happen to only work for one company,

whereas the company already has a lot of resour ces and organizational strength directed in that particular direction. So the odds for the workers to really want to spend all that time organizing each other, I think, suggests that there must be deeper problems within that relationship between company and workers for them to go to that added grief, and I think that needs to be recognized. It is for that reason that I have come to believe that unions-perhaps in line still with my earlier position that in an ideal world we should not have unions; however, in

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 93 the practi cality of our day's age, it is absolutely fundamental that people have to get together in a larger group in order to have their rights, et cetera, known. This is really not an issue that is really that foreign to this government because that is exactly the kind of thinking that this government thinks about, for example, when they encourage the relationship with the U.S. through the NAFT A and other trading blocs.

It is the aspect that we are better if we work together in larger groups so that, for example, working together in NAFT A, we are stronger as a nation in order not to get wiped out by the competition from, say, any of the other larger global centre s. So it is really not an argument that is all that foreign. It is just a question as to who is doing the organizational work and who is pooling together and for what purpose.

I would, however, also want to bring forward a reservation as to what I believe to some extent and I fear what may be going on here, and that is-and I make reference to the first two pages that you were handed out-it is a letter to Mr. Newman. It is in response to an earlier committee hearing that I was on and Mr. Penner was there as well. Very quickly to just simply bring it to a point, I had made my presentation in response to what I heard in the medi a. I came; I left. Someone who liked my presentation walked out with me. We had a chat.

Someone from that particular committee then came out, made an offensive remark to that person, and then attacked me basically and said, now I know basically where you are coming from, that is all I need to know, and wrote off my entire presenta tion, was not willing to entertain any disc ussion whatsoever, and then went on to say that I was part of some kind of a big gang plan to come here-and that was on Bill 49-and I had come on my own volition. I bring this forward.

It is apropos to this particular proceedin g, because I think-and having been before court proceedin gs-it is absolutely fundamental that the people such as yourselves making decisions must make decisions in a balanced way. Mr. Chairman, the person to your left having been someone in the Justice department, he clearly knows what I am talking about here .

It is not just simply that you can go ahead and march through your process and act as if you are doing the things that ought to be done and then making a decision that you made up your mind beforehand. * (1910 ) The reason I say that, just now at the same time today for the very first time, Bill 67 is being heard in a commit tee stage. It has not been passed, and yet a broker called another person tonight saying that within I 0 days after it is passed that is the absolute length of time in which Manitobans have the priority of chance of buying it and after that it will be opened up.

That letter and this letter say one and the same thing. To a certain extent, you are simply walking through the motions. I would much appreciate that you take it at hand because fundamentally at the end of the day if all you are doing is walking through the motions, I believe a court action could strike down what is happening here today. I would like to maybe just close off on one little other part where I can give you a bit of word of advice, and I say this gen tly.

For example, when it happened-and you know where I am coming from, at least some of you know where I am coming from politicall y-however, I certainly think it was a very bad day for us when we had that rout a few years ago at the federal level where there are only two Conservatives left. I think that was an absolute travesty what happened. I also believe, to some extent, two points related to this; Felix Holtmann, for example, during that election the first time around, no one could have been able to challenge him amongst the Conservative s.

However, now that he tried to run again-he was out one term-he now lost his nomination to some one . Although I live in that riding, I had never heard of that person before. The point I am making, maybe many of you really have to toe the line in order not to get thrown out of cabinet or have to toe the line in a certain sense to have Mr. Filmon give you whatever you think is nec essary. However, remember at the end of the day you need to focus on at least two things: one is the things that you are supposed to do here, but many of you-and I believe, Mr.

Penner, the way you got turfed out before for saying some of the things that you felt perhaps you ought to be, but the Premier did not-I think that is an example of the kind of intimidation that is spoken about in the next letter. In the bottom right-hand paragraph, it certainly says -and this is the nice way of putting it: "Premier Gary Filmon plans to conduct a major Cabinet shuffle soon after the session ends in early November. Any Minister who underperfor ms" -that is a beautiful way of putting it-"underperforms during the current session will likely

94 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 be warming a Government back-bench seat." I suggest that is a type of a threat. However, despite the threat, I want to point out-[interjection]-one minute, okay, thank you. Despite the threat that is implicit there, I really enco urage those of you who, through the goodness of your heart, believe that you have something to contribute, that you also need to recognize that perhaps it may be better for you to, in the short term, take a little bit of pain and look at the long term because Felix's history personally is gone, I think .

I certainly would not want you people who have and believe in the good fundamentals of democracy to exercise it in that way. I encourage you to take that longer term view-is also very much part of what is present here today, and I encourage you to look at that. Thank you for my opportunity to make this presentation. I am certainly more than willing to answer questions. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Hiebert, for your presentation. The first member of the committee is Mr. Reid. The Chair recognizes Mr. Reid. Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Hiebert, for your interesting presentation.

I want to ask you one question because you referenced the fact that there is a potential or some likelihood of a court challenge as a result of this legislation, which in your view would do serious political damage to the party which I take it that you support, which is the gove rnmen t members here.

Do you or would you support the government referring this piece of legislation to the United Nations International Labour Organization to let that body, which is an independent body, review this legislation to find out whether it does or does not conform to the code to which Canada is a signatory, and whether or not this legislation contravenes that particular code? Mr. Hiebert: Perhaps two things. First of all, the assumption-Mr. Penner could certainly correct it. I myself have run as a New Democrat.

However, as to the legal question that you are asking, I do not want to get-I mean, I really do think that we need to deal responsibly in terms of international law, but I am really not up to speed on that partirular one except to say this process, as the letter indicates-to which I have not received a response from Mr. Newman , not even acknowledgment means that, if the process does not run through properly from A to Z here in Manitoba itself, the laws can challenge, or I believe it is possible to indicate that this law will not have been passed properly.

Therefore, I think the legal term is that it would be not passed properly and thereby struck down. Mr. Penner: I want to first of all indicate, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Hiebert and I have known each other many years and in a previous lifetime had some very significant debates and discussions on many of the agri cultural issues that confr onted us during the day. I think it is some 16 , 17 years ago that we started into the discussion on agricultural issues. I want to indicate to Mr. Hiebert that this committee process is not just going through the motions.

We made some 60-sone amendments to The Municipal Act not too many days ago based on what we heard, based on presentations that were made before this committee, and based on many of the things that were brought to our atte ntion as members of the Legislature during the summer months when all of the bills were before the public. This is the first time, I think, in the history of this province, ifi remember correctiy, that all bills have been prepared for public consmnption early in the spring of the year and left all summer for public consideration. So this is not just an exercise in futility or consideration.

However, I want to indicate clearly that in the five years that I was the head of the farm organization in this province, we as an organization made many, many pro posals and presentations to committees such as this during that term of that government of the day, and Mr. Hiebert has probably run for that party that was in power at that time. Not ooce can I remember that an amendment was made to the bill based on a presentation that we made before a committee of this Legislature. So I think we have set some very significant precedent, Mr.

Hiebert, in reflecting the true concerns that Manitobans have expressed on various pieces of legislation, and that is the will of this government: to ensure, No.

I, that pieces of legisl ation will be before the public for due public consideration; and that they will be able to appear before this committee, or will be able to appear before their elect ed representatives and make their views known to those elected representatives so that those elected rep resentatives can bring those views back to the ministers and the ministers can then consider that advice in the preparation of the fmal bills, either through amendments or other adjustments.

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 95 So I want to ask Mr. Hiebert, during the course of time that he has spent in agriculture and on agricultural issues, in his presentations before committee in the previous government and in this government, has there been a difference, in your view, in how we have respected the views of the public in regard to the presentation on legislation? Point of Order Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I think it is important that, while Mr. Penner does have the right to ask questions as a member of this committee, Mr.

Penner should confine the questioning that he asks specifically to Bill 26 or in some way how it would be related to Bill 26 and how this is going to impact on the people. It is my understanding, listening to the comments and questions that were made by Mr. Penner, that they are more applicable to the field of agriculture and that, in this sense, have little to do with Bill 26 or the provisions in the clauses that are contained within that bill. So I would ask you to call Mr.

Penner to order and confine his questioning of the questioner, if that is his option to do so, to BiD 26 and not to the field of agriculture, for which is not a topic that we are talking about here today. Mr. Toews: On the same point of order, Mr. Chair, I listened very carefully to Mr. Hiebert's presentation, and there was clearly an indication that he felt some concern about the specific process that was occurring here in respect of Bill 26. So I think Mr. Penner very, very clearly stated his position and the concerns that were expressed by Mr.

Hiebert, and it is essentially asking him, and I believe it has a direct bearing on the hearings that are going on with respect to Bill 26. So the point of order, I think, is not a valid point of order, given that the question relates exactly to the validity of this process that Mr. Hiebert, for the reasons he has outlined, feels is in question. I think, he having raised the issues of the validity of the process, Mr. Penner, in asking for certain clarifications on that process, is quite within the scope of the presentation that Mr. Hiebert gave. Mr. Chairperson: Mr.

Reid, thank you very much for your point of order. The Chair finds that this is a dispute on the fact, and that it is not a point of order. * * * *

(1920) Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Hiebert, you are over the time limit, but I will exercise the prerogative of the Chair at this point You may be responsive to Mr. Penner, if you so choose, but you are not obliged to respond and I leave the initiative in your hands, sir. Mr. ffiebert: I do not have the official word of how you have people in cabinet-you cannot buck the party line, so to say. I am not really restricted in that way. I would be happy to answer the question from a number of perspectives. On the aspect that you have tabled the information in the springtime, I think that is an excellent improvement.

That is something you mentioned the last time around, and I think that is an excellent improvement. However, as I already mentioned in relationship to that, for example, with the MTS one, even though the bill has not passed, to go ahead and have all these things put in place as if you are doing it already, that, I think, is inappropriate.

To answ er the other part of the question, as far as what happened in the earlier sessions, I only availed myself once of the opportunity to appear before that, and that happened to be for the infamous legislation whereby you ended up becoming president of KAP for remuneration afterwards, and I must agree with you. I think it was inappro priate at that time as to the kind of process that was going on, but I am also willing to say that whether they did it wrong and that you are now doing the same thing does not justifY it. I brought it forward at that time internally to the party that it was wrong.

I say to it now again that it was wrong, and, in a sense, to add to the credibility of what I am talking about-and here, Mr. Penner, you can certainly vouch for this-during the early '80s, before KAP, I came forward and brought to many farmers' attention that there was a tremendous amount of abuse in the purple fuel, the pricing of it. You are affirming that. I tried to bring that forward publicly.

I did it appropriately, and after much time of stalling, in a certain sense, I fmally at some point in time, not because it was my wish but simply because the government of the day was not listening, I ended up then publicly embarrassing Mr. Schroeder into acting on what he should have been acting a long time ago.

96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA October 29, 19 96 It is also that same sense that, because the governm ent has changed afterwards, I have not taken as loud a profile because I think it is more appropriate that our own people speak to ourselves as far as the difficult lines, and that is also the same reason why I mentioned before that I think many of you people are at risk for not being able to continue as a good elected MLA because you are taking too strong a step . I am encouraging you to listen to your own people more clearly because I think there is a tremendous risk that you are going too far.

For example, a simple way of putting it as far as this particular bill that is before us, unions are a democratic process. Large corporations are not part of a democratic process, yet you are suggesting throu gh this bill that unions do not have the ri ght to go ahead and [interj ection] Yes, I will finish the point.

I am rambling on, but I will just finish the point, and that is under this bill unions, though they have a democratic position held, they may not or shall not continue to express their views, and yet corporati ons, which are not a democratic process, but are just simply a function of who has the most money making a decision, will continue to be able to. It is this kind of stuff that I think is so blatant that needs to be recognized, but, again, thank you very much. I hope that I have answered your question , and I would be more than happy to move on as you so wish me at this point in time.

Thank you very much for the cordiality of this evening. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir. The next presenter is Patrick Martin. Is Mr. Martin in the assembly? Good evening, Mr. Martin. Your presentation is being circulated. I would ask that you commence with your presentation. Mr. Patrick Martin (United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 343): I am making the presentation on behalf of Local 343 of the carpenters' union, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, and it seems to me that a great deal of Bi ll 26 is based either on naivete about what unions are and what they do or some overt malice.

If you are knowledgeable about unions, some ofthe aspects ofBi ll 26 are so damaging to unions that you cannot help but question the motives . By way of introduction, I want to tell you something about our union and the way that it operat es. Local 343 was chartered in Manitoba in 18 87. Since that time, our local has set the industry standard for wages and working conditions for people working in the craft trade of carpentry.

Whether they ever choose to become members of our union or not, our union has always been of the belief that what we want for ourselves we wish for all workers, and to that end we work to represent the interests of carpenters and related trades everywhere. We are proud of the achievements we have made over a 109 years in this province. We have made our industry a better place to work and a good career choice for the young people who choose a career in the craft trad es. In this, we have dooe an excellent job.

It is no small task to represent a transient workforce with no fixed workplace, and it took many years to negotiate standard collective agreements and portable benefit plans for carpenters that may work for many different companies within the course of one year. The building trades unions provide a necessary service to the industry as a whole, as well as to the members that we represent. As a result, the organized sector of our industry is more productive, it is more efficient, it is more highly skilled, and it provides a better value for the construction dollar invested than the nonunion secto r does.

In our industry, a high degree of unionization is a desirable thin g. In our opinion, the many aspects of Bill 26 are designed to hamper the ability of unions to function effectively and will almost certainly reduce the degree of unionization for our sector . Union carpenters in the commercial, institutional and industrial sectors of this province are the most productive carpenters in North America. Local 343 , in partnership with our unionized contractors, has played an important role in this fact by keeping the standards high in terms of skill development, training, safety, wages and working condi tions .

We could set these standards only because we represented a significant amount of the industry, of the market. Bill 26 will undoubtedly change that. Our ability to keep the standards high is linked to the degree of unionization . Bill 26, by its very design, will reduce the percentage of the unionized constructi on market. In terms of organizing, the mandatory vote provisions ofBill 26 have the effect of making employees vote twi ce on whether they wish to have a union represen t them or not. It gives the employer an advantage by let ting them

October 29, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 97 have one more crack at convincing them to vote against the union, even though they have already indicated their support for the union by signing a union card. This is unfair and it gives yet another advantage to the employer who has an interest in keeping the union out. First of all, there is a historical imbalance in the power relationship between the employee and the employer, and this should be recognized and steps should be taken to preclude the abuse of this power. Bill 26 only compounds the room for abuse.

The mandatory vote, and the time in between the application and the vote, provides a further opportunity to the employer to coerce and to intimidate employees. The union has nothing to use to coerce the employees. The employer holds the ultimate threat, the ultimate power, the economic hamm er of losing your job. Employees have already indicated their support for the union by signing a union card. They usually will only do this in anonymity for fear of reprisals from the employer, and it takes courage to sign a union card.

I personally have sat at the kitchen table of many employees and listened to their fears of being fired or punished for signing a card, even though they wanted a union and the benefits that it could bring to them and their family. Making them go through it all again in a supervised vote, often on the employer's premises and in front of Labour Board officials and scrutineers from the company, is very, very difficult for an employee. Some will inevitably lose their courage and change their vote. It puts them in a double-jeopardy situation.

The automatic certification at 65 percent at least recognized some of these concerns. Even at that, we argue that a simple majority of union cards signed should result in certification. If the intention is to determine the actual wishes of the employees, then the only amendment that should be made would be to recognize the union if over 50 percent of the employees indicate a support by signing cards. The proposed amendments are, therefore, unfair. Are you worried about losing a quorum here as people leave, Mr. Chairman? No. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your concern, sir.

No, I do not believe so, but it is very solicitous of you to inquire. * (19 30) Mr. Martin: Financial statements of the union. The requirement to file financial audited statements with the Labour Board is one ofthe most offensive aspects of Bill 26. This provision is obviously designed to harass and to inconvenience a local union, to tie them up with administrative nonsense and additional costs so that they will have less resources available to serve the interests of their membership. At best, it is cheap and petty. At worst, it is malicious and an abuse of power.

The declaration of our assets does not bother me personally at all, and I would like to tell you a bit about how our local union runs so that you will be aware that is certainly nothing untoward here. I think we are typical of the 14 building trades unions when I say that our local is bound by our constitution to read the complete financial statements out loud and in full at a general union meeting every quarter, four times a year. This includes all assets in all funds and accounts, all investments, all expenses, all salaries, benefits, et cetera, as audited by our trustees.

Each month all bills are read and a motion must be made to pay the bills if found correct, and often a member will question why the phone bill was so high or why the business manager may have ·submitted a lunch bill for Rae and Jerry's. We are accountable to the whole membership every month, and we would never get away with stunts like the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources and his recent hospitality budget. In our local union, every expense over a hundred dollars must be made by a notice of motion. The notice is served at one monthly general meeting.

A written notice is sent out to all members to inform them of the proposal to spend money, and the motion is then seconded and debated and either passed or defeated at the next monthly general meeting. This gives members a full month to lobby for or against and to get people out to the meeting to either pass or defeat the motion, and most local unions that I know of operate the same way. So natural justice is a major tenet of the labour movement, and in that way we are probably the most democratic organizations in the world.

An annual audit is completed for our local by the chartered accountant fmn of Hemenway, Silver each year, and it is read to the membership in the first quarter of each new fiscal year. Our members already know the

98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 19 96 sala ries of their staff and officers because we make the same wage and benefit that they do. Whatever wage we negotiate on behalf of the carpenters in the field is exactly the same pay that the staff officers of the union make. The only difference is that our members outside get paid at overtime rates for anything over eight hours a day, and we do not get paid fo r that time at all. Having to file this info with the Labour Board is an infringement on our rights to privacy, but is no big change in the way that we conduct our affairs.

What is off ensive to me and to most Manitobans is the consequence fo r failing to comply properly with the new rules. The suspension of the comp ulsory checkoff is in no way a fitting penalty fo r some administrative overs ight.

Now most of us already have the checkoff in our collective bargaining agreemen t, so, again, it is not going to change the way that we do business, but if it were, it would be the employers in our industry who would be most disa dvantaged in that the business agent fo r the carpenters' union, which would be me, would have to go to every job site all ·throughout the province and collect union dues from each member and make sure that each carpenter work ing was in good standing on the job.

It would be a disruption in product ivity, and if, in fact, we fo und a member was not in good standing, they would be removed from the job just like the old days. It goes back 40 years to the way our industry used to run, and I do not think that the contractors would appreciate it any more now than they did then. We would know who to blame fo r the interruption . We would give them the Mini ster of Labour's phone number . The use of union dues fo r political purposes. The courts have consistently upheld the rights of unions to use dues revenue as they see fit in the best interests of the union as a whole.

Because unions are democr atic organizations, union members who disagree with the use of union funds have ample internal remedies to make their concerns known and to argue fo r a change in policy. It is not practical to consult with each member of the bargaining unit on every decision around this type of cost, nor is it practical to allow any individual to opt out of the decisions of the union. It is basic democracy that the wishes of the majority should prev ail.

Unions have a right and a oblig ation to do what they can to represent the interests of their members and others in the bargaining unit, and this may mean political lobbying or campaigning. If any indivi dual does not li ke it, they can get active in their union, and they can gamer support from the other workers, and they can have the practice stopped. Unions should take

part in political lobbying on behalf of their members . Given the neoconservative political agenda being fo isted on work ing people, it would be negligent fo r unions to take workers' money in the fo rm of dues and not try and stop this or any other assault on trade union rights and freedoms . Our thought is that perhaps some sort of penalty should be applied to unions which fail to criticize and condemn this Tory governm ent. That would be more to the point.

A free and democratic trade union movement is one of the basic el emen ts of a just society, and one of the things to be curtailed first in a corrupt and fascist regime. It is our oblig ation to work ing people to fight those who would deny free trade unions and who would limit their abilit y to move society fo rward. If that means spending dues money to raise public awareness fo r our concerns, then that is what we will do. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Martin. That concludes the time that we have allotted fo r the presentation. Mr. Reid, do you have a question of the presenter? Mr. Reid: I do, Mr.

Chairperson. I have a coup le of questions. I would like to thank Mr. Martin fo r his presentation, and I will read the remainder of your comm ents and take them into consideration . But I want to ask Mr. Martin-because I believe he ref erenced the fact that he has quite an extensive way of communicating with his members in his organization and that through this Bill 26, once again, as we saw with Bill 70 a fe w years back where this government interf ered with contracts that were freely negotiated between employers and the various union organizations throughout the provinc e-what are your thoughts , Mr.

Martin, with respect to this governmen t's once again interf ering with those freely negotiated contracts whereby you may have, through your negotiations with your employers, negotiated the Rand Formula into your contracts and that this government is now intent on int erf ering with those contracts that had been negotiated? Mr. Martin: My fee ling is gov ernm ent should butt out of the colle ctive bargaining process and only put their

October 29, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 99 noses in when asked to come in for a conci liation or a mediation sort of role to play. They certainly have no role to play in interfering with the contractual agreements made between employers and employees through the free collective bargaining process. It opens the door. It is a thin edge of the wedge to all kinds of int erference and limiting the rights of the free trade union movement to do exactly what they were cut out to do, which is move the role of working people forward in our society.

So I see it as a major intrusion, and certainly we would speak against it. Mr. Reid: Since the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) has indicated in questioning in the House last week that he has consulted with a dozen or so people, organizations around the province about Bill 26 prior to bringing it forward, I want to ask you, Mr. Martin, had you or any members of your union, to the best of your knowledge, ever been consulted by this Minister of Labour prior to his introduction ofBill 26? Mr.

Martin: To the best of my knowledge, no member of mine, no member ofbuilding trades unions has been consulted by the Minister of Labour. • (19 40) Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Martin, for your presentation tonight, sir .. The next presenter tonight is Thomas Henderson. Good evening, Mr. Henderson, you have some copies of your brief to circulate? Mr. Thomas Henderson (Canadian Auto Workers): I do. Mr.

Chairperson: While the brief is being circulated, ladies and gentlemen, I would remind the members of the audience that the custom in the Legisla ture is to make no acknowledgment of the presenters' briefs, either pro or con, and in fact we have found that, when there has been response or clapping from the audience, it in fact interferes with the running time of the presenter and only serves to detract from their present ations. So I would ask for everybody's co-operation and consideration in this matter. Mr. Henderson, I would ask you to proceed with your presentation. Good evening, sir. Mr.

Henderson: We present this briefhere tonight on behalf ofnot only the 10 ,000 members of the Canadian Auto Workers union in Manitoba but also the 200,000- plus members across this country, because benchmark legislation like Bill 26 can spread through the provinces like an epidemic. These proposed changes to The Labour Relations Act are unprecedented in Canada. Not even the ri ght-wing governments of Harris and Klein have introduced these types of changes to the face of labour relations in this country, although it is clear that Bi11 26 shows a star tling resemblance to Onta rio's Bill 7.

Manitoba changes are intended to do more than just bal ance a piece of legislation. They are another step towards making Manitoba a ri ght-to-work province . Right-wing groups have pursued some of these issues as far as the Supreme Court of Canada with no success. Now, the Conservative Party of Manitoba, urged on by antilabour organizations, are proposing legislative changes which are tantamount to union busting. A small group of promana gement union members has stoked the fires and given to the Tory government and the community of business the public excuse to propose and promote Bill 26.

The Manitoba government should be saying to these disgruntled persons, whoever they are, that they should be expressing their views within their unions because most of Bill 26 deals with the internal operations ofunio ns. The changes contemplated in Bill 26 are not reflective of good labour relations in the province of Manitoba and are contrary to the style and mood of government, which we in Manitoba are accustomed to.

It is both unfortunate and unhealthy for the labour relations in this province that the Filmon government chose not to accept the recommendations of the Manitoba Labour Management Review Committee, a body truly representative of both labour and management in Manitoba. With the exception of a few changes to a vote-based system in regard to the certification of a union, all other proposals were rejected· on the grounds they were not needed and would do nothing to enhance labour-mana gement relations in Manitoba. It is a sad commentary on our government that the minority view of the committee was adopted. The

preamble to The Manitoba Labour Relations Act stat es: It is in interests of the province of Manitoba "to further harmonious relations between employers and

100 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 employees by encour aging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between emp loyers and unions as the freely desi gnated rep resentatives of employ ees." Harmonious relations between the parties nec essarily requires both labour and management to be on an equal footing. If passed in its present form, this labour legis lation will serio usly weaken the union's ability to organize, weaken the union's ability to take political action and weaken the union's ability to survive a strike. Progressive labour legislation makes for good labour rela tions.

When the rights of both parties are respected, the workplace is a better place. The amendment substitutions for subsections 12(2) and 14(3) concerning strike-related employee misc onduct at first glance appears to be a step towards the maintenance of a peac eful, democratic society. However, real ism is that picket lines are naturally confrontational places. Strikes, lockouts and picket lines are not, will never be and have never been -and will never be business as usual.

The striking employees can be confronted with any number ofvolatile instances : riot police, as we saw at Boeing this s umm er, employee-paid security enfor cers, surveil lance equipment, replacement workers, company ve hicles, just to name a fe w, all initiated by the employer. The existing subsection entitled De fe nce is actually the calming breeze in a stormy gale. Its design was to prevent the extreme possibilit y of picket line cruelty initi ated with extreme pre judice.

If the Manitoba government is sincere in furtheri ng the intent of the sub section, it would serve itself far better to drop the proposed amendment or add measure to the amendment such as replacement worker legislation, which would reduce the chances of picket line brutality. Neither union nor employer wants to go back to a labour relations climate when fe ar and frustration drove individual s to acts of violence and lawlessnes s.

The proposed amendment s to the bargaining unit certification process are in the CAW's opinion indicative of the true fe e lings of the present government's total disr egard for the human dignity of its working constituen ts. Previous legislation had been adopted to prevent the animosity routinely experienced during the certification process.

The present language was designed to avoid the immediate and, in most circumstance s, outright humiliation of procert ification employees by the employer, as well as the intimidation and coercion of the workers in the workplace and the ever-present dismissals that characte ristically re sult during a cert ification campaign. The present legis lation was an obvious declaration of The Manitoba Labour Relations Act's intent to recognize and protect the human rights and social di gnity in the workplace.

It accomplished this by providing the opportunity to minimize animosity in the expeditious mann er of a certification. The amendments proposed relative to the representation-certification vote will only serve to prolong and ultimately magnify the animosity between workers and employe rs. Removing the automatic certifi cation of over 65 in favour will delay the process and unnecessarily tax the already limited resource of the board. Although the government will undoubtedly allege these amendments are an expansion of democracy, it is in fact an expansion of an employer's opportunity to harass workers .

The CAW has grave concerns regarding the proposed add itions to subsection 12. 1 which give the minister the right to decide when an employer' s offer is good enough for the bargaining unit to vote on. This decision can be made before or after a strike or lockout begins but will certainly be after the employer has threatened all manner of retribution if the employer's terms are not met. This is nothing less than alarming for the labour movement considering our present Labour minister defines the proposed amendments to the act as making The Labour Relations Act consistent with Conservative Party values .

The amendment will greatly restrict the union bargaining committee's ability to achieve the best possible agreemen t This is not in the best interests of the member ship. It undermines the collective bargaining process and removes from the union the ability to exercise its collective wisd om regarding tactics and timing. We all know, unions , government and employers, that the union bargaining committee is less likely to blink than the membersh ip. We can only surmise that ultimately every employer will design a bargaining strategy to ensure a strike or lockout, expecting the

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 101 Labour minister to call a vote at the most opportune time. We all must consider this chilling proposal to be in direct contravention of The Manitoba Labour Relations Act

preamble that I referred to previously concerning harmonious relations between employees and employers and encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and unions. The CAW strongly opposes the additions to subsection 76. 1 that democratic principle of majority does not appear to apply in the political conscience of the author of this obviously prejudiced proposal. We fully anticipated Gary Filmon's portrayal of this amendment as his crusade for the rights of individual union members to a measure of accountability.

It is nothing less than spite over the blistering criticism Filmon and his bottom-feeding Tory hacks took over the union-sponsored media campaign raising questions about the wisdom of Tory government policy on health care. There is absolutely no relationship to the labour relations of Manitoba within this amendment. The sole motivation of this atrocity was Gary Filmon's spite against trade unions for questioning his policies resulting in this attempt to keep the labour movement out of the political arena and to shut up all the unions.

Neither The Manitoba Labour Relations Act nor our society can tolerate dubious minds that lend themselves to spiteful acts. I urge the government to see this amendment for what it really is. Portrayed as a measure of accountability, it is really a measure of hate. Similar measures have been tested up to the Supreme Court and appropriately judged for what they really were. The CAW research concluded the process presently in place in subsection 1.11 was a procedure that was equally accessible to parties of employer/employee regardless of the demographics of the party.

Reviewing the proposed changes can lead only to the conclusion that the implementation of the additions to subsection 1.11 would result in prohibitive accessibility to groups involved in labour disputes. Based on the cost of mediation, the opportunity for smaller unions to utilize the mediation process would be nonexistent. The concerns of the perceived possibility of abuse by a hostile government could also be forecast by the inherent costs on smaller unions. Restrictions imposed, financially or otherwise, would only serve to deteriorate labour relations in the province. *

(1950) The CAW not only opposes the addition of

Part VII.1, Disclosure of information by Unions, but is shocked by the government's blatant arrogance in presenting such a proposal. The proposal was not even endorsed by their own Manitoba Labour Management Review Committee. The CAW is an ardent subscriber of financial disclosure to its membership with semiannual audits being a requirement in accordance with our constitution. Some local unions go even further and provide the membership with quarterly or monthly reports at membership meetings. Wages and salaries of officers are specified within the constitution and readily available for the membership. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Henderson. That concludes the time available for the presentation. Mr. Reid, with a question. Mr. Reid: Thank you very 'much, Mr. Henderson, for your presentation this evening. I will read the remainder of your comments. But I want to ask you a question with respect to Bill 26, and there are many questions that I could ask, but, of course, we are limited by this government's intent to limit questioning to just five minutes, even though you may have noticed that there seems to be a lack of interest on the side of government members here.

I want to ask you, sir, have you or any member of your organization- Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. Toews: On a point of order. I just do want to indicate clearly for the record that I paid the appropriate attention that the presentation was worth. Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I know we are not allowed to reference that the minister was out of the room for 20

102 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 minutes and I will not put that on the record, but I wanted to ask the presenter here this evening that since there are governm ent members who like to move in and out of this committee at will and putting, I think , some underv aluing of the presentations that are made here, I want to ask you, sir, have you or any member of your organization- Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, I think then Mr.

Reid, if you will not be addressing the point of order, I will make a finding on the point of order and then I will start the clock again and allow you to address the question to the presenter. I find that there was not a point of order; there was a dispute on the facts. * * * Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Reid, I would invite you to proceed with your question, sir. Mr.

Reid: I may be interrupted again on this, and I apologize for it because the minister has been sens itive when other presenters have come bef ore committee, but in the House last week the minister ref erenced the fact that he consulted with a dozen or so people or organizations with respect to- Mr. Chair person: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. Toews: On a point of order, I think it is clear that the member is again misleading the witnesses , and, in fact, those were not my statement s. We have made this very clear. It is not so much, Mr.

Chair, the statements or the inabilit y of the member to follow appropriate parliamentary rules but, in fact, is his insi stence that the process be subverted for his own ends . Now, that may well be good, but as long as the record provided-that in fact indicates the errors of Mr. Reid's very faulty memory. If your Chai rmanship rules that there is no point of order, I will abide by that. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Reid: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman.

That is why I ref erenced my comments to the presenter because I know the minister is sensitive to the comments he made in respect to questioning from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) last week, but I will let the record of Hansard speak very clearly for itself. Mr. Chairperson: Fine, then I would find then that there is not a point of order. * * * Mr. Chairperson: I would invite you then if you are about to put another question to the presenter, to proceed with your question, Mr. Reid.

I would let the record know that while we were discussing the point of ader, I had stopped the clock, and so I am letting the clock rerun . Mr. Reid: Through you, Mr. Chai rperson, to the presenter, Mr. Henderson. Since the minister said quite clearly in response to questioning in the House last week that he had consulted a dozen or so people in the province of Manitoba with respect to Bill 26, I would like to ask you, sir, were you or any members of the CAW consulted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) with respect to Bill 26 prior to its being tabled in the Legis lature? Mr. Henderson: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me, Mr.

Henderson, because this government plans through its legislation to allow in dividual members of a union to divert any monies that a particular organization may be choos ing to use for political action, which you ref erenced in your presentation here, perhaps you can share with me your thoughts on whether or not it is fair for the government to take the steps to fmancially penalize a union by saying that a union member, or a member of a company for which there is a union, would be allowed to divert their dues to charity opposed to that money being used for political activities, adverti sing, et cetera , for the benefit of all your members instead of having that money turned back into the internal operations of the union to be utiliz ed for mediation or conciliation processes in the future which would be to the benefit of your members?

Mr. Henderson: The government should keep their nose out of the business of our unions . Our unions are

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 103 dealt-the business is run at membership meet ings monthly and the decisions are made whether we give money to charities, political parties, at those meetings. The discussion is done there at the meet ings. The vote is taken. Some cases, we send money to political parties. In many other cases, we choose not to. Mr. Reid: Can you tell me, sir- An Honourable Member: It is $108,000 to the NDP. Mr. Reid: Mr. Penner ref erences a certain figure .

I am not certain if he was ref erring to the fact that Westf air Foods donated $40,000 to his party's political campaign si nce 1988. I am not sure if that was the figure he was ref erencing for the record or not, and that is why his Min ister of Labour (Mr. Toews) will not appoint a mediator to deal with that strike current ly.

I want to go back to the presenter here and ask him if it is fair, in your mind, for this government to bring forward legislation that would allow a company to dismiss an employee for strike-related misconduct in the employer's mind when there are no sanctions available other than a $2,000 fine that would be applied for an unfair labour practice. What are your thoughts that the employee would lose his job and that the employer found in contravention of the act would only pay a $2,000 fine? Mr.

Henderson: Clearly, our union does not condone violence on the picket line, but the way the legislation is word ed, if you were caught spitting on the sidewalk, the employer could fire you. If you were caught throwing away a paper cup, the employer could fire you. So it is clearly not fair. The alternative to that is replacement worker legislation. If you do not want violence on picket lines, then do not let scabs go in there and steal our jobs. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Henderson. That concludes the time allotted for presentation and questions.

I thank you, sir, very much for appea ring bef ore the committee tonight. The next presenter is a Mr. Jim Silver. Mr. Jim Silver has indicated that he is unable to attend in person tonight and has submitted a written proposal. This is now being photocopied as we speak. Is it the will of the committee to receive the proposal and receive it as if read into the record of Hansard? [agreed) The next proposer is Mr. Brian Hunt. Is Mr. Hunt in the audience? *

(2000) Mr. Brian Hunt (United Steelworkers of America): lam . Mr. Chairperson: Good eveni ng, Mr. Hunt. As your presentation is being circulated, I would ask you to commence with your remar ks. Mr. Hunt: Mr. Chairperson, I am the area supervisor for the United Steelworkers of America, and in that capacity I am also a member of the Manitoba Labour Board. I sit as a member as well of the Labour Management Review Committee of this province.

The United Steelw orkers of America rep resents members in every geographical area of the province, in offices, in schools, hospitals, mines, steel mills, foundries and manufacturing oper ations. The government has said that it wishes to democrat ize unions and that with the very changes contained in Bill 26 will do just that. Nothing could be further from the truth. Firstly, they would set the tone by having workers vote twice bef ore becoming entitled to be represented by the union of their choice. This scenario presents some inter esting and puzzling circumstanc es.

We have been told that management wishes this change to occur. If, as the law now stands, 65 percent is the threshold for an automatic certification, what is really being said here? I believe that manage ments want time to coerce and intimidate their employees to such an extent that the employee will vote not to be unionized or, at the very least, have had the opportunity to weaken the initial support the union had, all to the benefit of whom? Management.

I have encountered abuses in the past whereby lawyers would seek time to respond to applications for certification and be granted such additional time, only to then find out, as the new date to file approached, that the very same lawyer now had a conflict and needed more time to locate another lawyer who had no conflict. Another incident occurred at a plant and serves to hei ghten my concerns as it relates to the unionizing of minoriti es. A young aboriginal woman was fired during an application for certification period. The reason? She had asked for her chair back from a supervisor who did

104 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 not li ke her tone . She was subsequently reinstated with compensation, but although she had been a keen organizer at the onset, soon stepped aside from the union and ultimately left her job. The message had got acros s. The government inspector of the day told me that he expected she would quit as she had told him she had never expected such a blatant attack on her rights, especially after that same supervisor had told her what a good worker she was and how pleased he was that she had decided to stay with the company only two weeks prior.

Only on Tuesday of last week , we read about the need for more immigr ant workers in the province . With this type of change to The Labour Relations Act, we can only expect that newly arrived citizens will ponder if in fact they have bettered themselves by a move to this province. The government says that their proposed changes will give workers more say in how their unions spend their dues dollars. In my capacity, I cannot move a motion to spend money; I cannot second a motion to spend money. The members of a local at their local union meeting make these determ inations.

Often I am asked if they are correct in doing certain things, and I answer. An exa mple of this occurred Wednesd ay evening last, where the local wished to update their local union by-laws as it relates to per diems paid to members who do work on behalf of the local. I pointed out that our constitution requires such changes to be in the fo rm of a notice of motion and that after being moved and seconded, debated and passed, must be read out at the next three mee tings and posted in the plant that the changes had been proposed and are to be finally voted on at a third meeting.

This certa inly gives the membership ample opportunity to make an informed decision on the subject. Our membership has no prob lems with the system they have chosen . If they did, they could change it. They tell me the government does not have any fo undation fo r concern in this area as it relates to the democratic process used by the Steelworkers . You should also know that in the area of collective bargaining, you are prop osing changes that mean the company can have the upper hand in the negot iating process by requiring votes to be held on any and every off er management puts fo rward.

I can show you management positions number ed one, two, final and final-fin al, and you should also be aware that the final final position was not the last position that was recommended to and acce pted by the member ship. Under your proposed legis lation an agenda set by the membership fo r goals it wishes to gain in negotiation can be manip ulated by mana gement such that the best possible settlement will seldom if ever be achieved. Whose purpose will be served by limiting access to expedited arbitratioo? I think neither party to a collective agreement benefits .

Expedited arbitration has a fe ature that allow the parties to use the Conciliation department of the Labour department prior to the actual arbitration case going fo rward. This often resulted in settlements that both sides could live with and meant that neither side could claim victory , thus avoiding an 1-told-you-so mentality which does little to keep the harmon ious rel ationship present at a workplace that The Labour Relations Act presently contem plates it will create. There are other proposals contained in this bill which our si lence on at this time should not be taken as in agreement with.

In fact, we do not agree with them . You have heard and will hear more from other labour organizations on these sections and, through our associations with these organizations and our affiliation with the Federation of Labour, know that you have heard what labour and the Steelworkers fe el about these proposed changes . I want to speak now with respect to a book that I have read, and the editcn of the book. which is entitled Unions and Economic Competitiveness, Lawrence Mit chell, research director of the Economic Policy Institute, and Paula B.

Voos, an associate prof essor of economics and industrial relations at the University of Wisconsin in Madison, have drawn upon a number of highly respected contributing authcn to address the issu e which is the very title of the book. I want to now read to you the con clusion they drew : We increasingly see evidence that a system based on collective bargaining and a strong independent voice fo r workers is not only important to our democrat ic institutions but also may make a positive contribution to our economic future.

We have a choice , we can continue to by to compete based on mass production at ever lower wages, but that is not the industrial or the industrial relations system that is most appealing to us or to most

October 29, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA lO S Americans. Apparently, we can try to enhance productivity through more investment in highly skilled and motiv ated labour, people who are willing to be utiliz ed flexibly by their employers because they are economically secure and have an independent voice in their future. However, this more appealing scenario requires that American employers stop fighting collective bargaining and instead work with unions to make productive choices that will enable this country to compete in a world market without lowering living standar ds.

Unions and other mechanisms, to empower and involve workers, need to be enhanced rather than hindered. As the MIT commission in 19 89 recommended, business leaders should support the fusion of co-operative industrial relations by accepting labour representatives as legitimate and valued partners in the innovation process. American managers must recognize that unions are a valued institution in any democrati c society. Resources traditionally devoted to avoiding unionization need to be reallocated towards promoting and sustaining union mana gement co-operation.

The challenge is to construct an economic future that ensures both a high and rising standard of living and a high quality of working lif e through workplace participation and simultaneous economic representation through collective bargaining. This is possible through an economic strategy that stresses high quality, high value-added production, by a flexibly skilled workforce. The future can be high waged and it can be union. Indeed, the two go together.

It is those changes to The Manitoba Labour Relations Act that would serve to stifle the organization of nonunion workers, weaken the collective-bar gaining process and ultimately make for weaker unions that I ask the government to rescind the proposed legislation, and the stand firm that the current system really is more of a level playing field than they first envisioned. In closing, let me say, there is a saying that an injury to one is an injury to all, and the Conservative government proposal of Bill 26 is viewed by our members as an in jury to their rights. Thank you. Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr.

Hunt, for your presentation this evening.

One of the things that struck me by the various labour organizations that have come before this committee last Thursday and again this evening is the almost extreme democratic nature in which the organizations function where the body itself , the union body itself, bends over backwards to make sure that their members have every opportunity to see the finances of their organization and to participate, through the democratic process, by voting on the issues that are affecting the various labour organizations, and it causes me to wonder why the minister has brought forward such a regressive piece of legislation.

But I want to ask you, sir, with respect to the LMRC, Labour Management Review Committee, which you indi cated in your opening comments that you are a part of, do you see that, with the knowledge that is available to you, the LMRC, or the Labour Board, I should say, has the resources necessary to conduct the vot es, the secret ballot votes that this government is going to demand within the seven-day period that this minister is saying. Are the resources avai lable at the Labour Relations Board to deal with a vote within seven days, and has the board itself in any way indicated to the Mi nister of Labour (Mr.

Toews) that there may or may not be resources available? *

(2010) Mr. Hunt: Yes, as a matter of fact, the minister in a meeting that I attended at the request of the chairperson of the Labour Board, where there were three members representing the employees and three members representing employers, the minister, his assistant, the chairperson, some vice-chairs-I do not think all-and believe it was in late April, probably April 26, because it got moved from its original date.

At that onset, he had indicated that the chairperson of the board had in fact been doing a good job in lobbying him to ensure that there were funds in place, and I gathered from his words that in fact there may not be funds in place to have the speedy vote done. He had indicated that that had been conveyed to him by the chairperson and that the members present should know that he was looking into that. Mr. Reid: Can you tell me, Mr.

Hunt, that as a member and a representative of one of the major unions in Manitoba, the Steelworkers, how is it that-and can you convey to this committee the thoughts of your members that after the hard work that labour put into the Labour Management Review Committee to review their recommendations for Bill 26 that were sent to that

106 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 committee and that the committee held the hear ings and made recommend ations back to the minist er which this minister has not accep ted, what are the thoughts of labour now that those recommendations have been rej ected by this Minister of Labour? Mr. Hunt: We are saddened by the fa ct that a process that has been around fo r a number of years before my time , that has been used by all parti es, I believe, and has shown a lot of flexibility and a lot of innovative approach, is just not list ened to.

It saddened me to be here at the previous committee meetings when a representative of the chamber rose and said that his side had not supported the amendments that the Labour Management Review Committee had been able to come fo rward with because his group , the Chamber of Commerce was not a dissenter to that. They supported it. I questioned him after about it, so it does sadden our members to think that-I have used my time where it could be spent assisting them to be involved in this process to fm d out that they are not listened to. Mr. Toews: I assume that, Mr.

Hunt, you were around when the NDP was drafting the massive amendments to The Labour Relalioos Act in 1985 when I was counsel to the Department of Labour, when all of the amendments in fa ct were kept under wraps even though they were in many hands of the government people, were kept under wraps, not presen ted to anyone in busine ss, and two da �s before these massive changes in 1985 were presented m the House, it was given to LMRC, and that was the extent of the public involvement on those massive, massive changes that changed The Labour Relations Act.

I think you will recall the numerous court cases that had to be brought to try to release that inf ormation, and the gov ernm ent steadf astly said no. I recall I was the lawyer who def ended the government's right to say no at that time, but you will recall that the government chose not to consult with the employers , with employee s, and you will recall that I had been con sulting in respect �f every single one of my amendments over the past year m respect of any organization who have said that they have wanted to listen. Mr.

Hunt: I was lliOlUld in 1985 and I was a member of a committee that sat down with business and labour lead ers. I would be erroneous if I said it was that same fo rum that you talked about, but I can tell you at that point in time, and I believe it to be prior to the legislation being tabled, and we sat on a Saturday afternoon and listened to management complain and whine with respect to the changes that went fo rward. They seemed to have some knowledge of it, Mr. Minister. Now, I stand to be corrected, that is a long time ago, but I can check diaries and see just when that was . I think they had some knowledge.

It may not have been done in the same public f orum that you are suggesting that you have done, but I believe they had it. I can tell you that I sat today with the member from the Fashion Inst itute who was on that committee and we were reminiscing about the fac t that I was going to be here tonight and that he was not because he is now retired, but he indica ted at that time that he recalled that 1985 meeti ng. So perhaps our memories are not exactly the same. Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you very much, Mr. Hunt, that would now conclude the time fo r presen tations and questions on your presentation.

Thank you very much, sir, for coming before us tonight. Mr. Hunt: Thank you. Mr. Chairpenon: Colleagues of the committee, we have a presenter who has come in at the last minute, � individual by the name of Theresa Ducharme who as requesting to be added to the foo t of the list. What is the will of the committee as to whether this presen ter should be allowed to presen t? May I have the will of the committee on this issue? (a greed) I would instruct the Clerk to put Mrs . Ducharme's name on the list. Mr. Reid, do you have a recommendation to make on this issue? Mr. Reid: No, I do not. Mr. Chairperson.

I do not want to inco nvenience any other members of the public but knowing somewhat of Mrs . Ducharme 's plight, perhaps it would be in the best interests if we could afford the opportunity to Mrs. Ducharme to present, and I <:f<> n � mean to inconvenience other presenters but I think m fa irness to her and the conditions that it would be in the best interests of this committee to hear her at this time.

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 107 Mr. Chairperson: I think, colleagues, that Mrs. Ducharme may have some impediments with regard to transp ortation and so theref ore, if it is the will of the committee, Mrs. Ducharme, I would welcome you tonight before the committee. Mrs. Theresa Ducharme (Private Citizen): Thank you, Mr. Chair, minister and all those present. My name is Theresa Ducharme . I am here as a private citizen as well as a representative and president of People in Equal Participation, Inc.

We are very pleased to see that amendments are being made, but we are very displeased to see that they are being made without much public input and also private citizen input and the fact that Bill 26 does not include those such as myself, severely disabled, who wish to be employed, who wish to be part of the employment category and the labour force in the fashion that all institutionalized and people who wish to be taken care of under the Home Care program cannot be taken care of or cannot offer their services such as myself in being employed under The Labour Act because we cannot have employment for nurses that must offer us a little bit of assis tance in the place of employment, so that the medical services do come in.

I am not sure if this is where it is going, but everybody said it is not the Minister of Health, it is the Minister of Labour. So you go to the Minister of Health, he tells you one thing; you come to the Minister of Labour's office, the labour relations, and they say, go back to the Health departme nt. Now I hope I am under Bill 26 where they have not included home care to expand their services under The Labour Act to community care servic es.

If you need a nurse or if you need an attendant, if you need an orderly, if you need anything under the union act or under The Labour Relations Act, they should be taking care of all of us because we have a right to be here and we are citizens of Manitoba.

Now, I would like to know where I go and what we have to do because at the same time, ever ything is becoming privatized, ever ything is being washed away from us and removed from us without asking or even offering us a chance of reality, that we are here for the purpose of employment and to be taken care of and also so that we can offer our ability to the best of our mobility. Now I would like to ask under Bill 26 that the short notice of everybody coming out-even at the utilities board they said if we do not hear them tonight, we will move them, we will bump them to the last, we will do this, we will do that.

Thank God I found this public hearing for Bill 26, because the Conservatives have done everything behind closed doors and with less than 24 hours notice, they are going to pass and push every thing through because they are in a majority. My problem with that is constipation because I cannot be everywhere at the same time, and at least if you do not give any notice to anybody to be any place at any time, you can make the decision yourself and carry on.

That is exactly the pain that I have right now, because I have to pay $60 just to come to the utilities and I said, well, I will kill two birds with one stone even if I am not there for the right purpose. *

(2020) So they said, take it to the labour, they are changing the bill. I said, well, we cannot wait to hear the answer and the response because everything is being taken away from us and I hold shares in Manitoba. Under the MTS act, I hold shares, and I have every bill and every purpose and if that is privatized or even this labour relationship or all these-right now consumers such as my self do not have a union. We are not smart enough to have a union, I guess, or we do not have the finances to have a union .

So we all have to take what is given to us on a daily basis and if nothing is given to us, that is exactly what we receive. But a union is the strong voice that makes the foundation for a purposeful, profitable, productive workforce so that people can have a good place to serve their family and also offer to the community. So Mrs. Ducharme is here for you to concentrate openly and with your hearts, not only your heads, and remember, I carne here with a very contagious illness called love. I love to live and I live to love and I want to continue to do that to the best of my ability.

So remember there is no cure for me, honey, and you are stuck with me now. So you vote the wrong way, my wheelchair is not covered with Autopac so I can run it over anybody and use it as a weapon . So watch out for me. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mrs. Ducharme. Mrs. Ducharme: I am here to sell each one of you a-

108 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 An Honourable Member: I knew that was happe ning. Mn. Ducharme: Yes, I am here to sell a ballpoint pen to everybody for $3, no tax, and if not, you have to take me home. I will be your roo mmate, and your wife will ask questions . An Honourable Member: How about chocolates? Mn. Ducharme: No, chocolates are fattening, sir. You are right on with the pen. Are there any questio ns, dear? You can have my vital statistics . Come on, gen tlemen. Mr. Chairperson: No, thank you, Mrs. Ducharme. Thank you very much for coming out. Mrs.

Ducharme: Are you going to change the name of home care to comm unity care so we can have care within the community and have the labour relations move from instit utions out to the community? We have to change home care to community care. Mr. Toews: Thank you very much for your comments , Mrs. Ducharme. I know that you are a very active, very concerned Manitoban. We are proud to have you as a Manitoban, and I appreciate every time you come by and give us advice, because I truly believe that every time you come by, you give us advice and you give it with a genuineness that we in government appreciate.

Thank you very much. Mn. Ducharme: Mr. Minister, I have one last question. We held a private meeting with the noble honourable Minister James McCrae, and there was a private meeting. He said no media, please, and I said, okay, no me dia. The first question was fiom my loving husband who said, Mr. Minister, could you tell me if home care is like all other contracts from banks, mortgages or anyone that if they want to come in and close up shop, take your account or anything, they have the right to do that.

James McCrae, the honourable minister, in the company of all the private citizens that were there and political people as well, he said yes, home care is like any other contract. It is not worth the paper it is written on. I was shocked out of heck. That is why the NDP are moving close to me. At the same time, Sunshine, we will have to conserve our energy, because no hair will grow on top. So I am asking you, is the labour relati onship act the same as that, that it is not worth the paper it is written on? Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mrs. Ducharme. Mn. Ducharme: I am asking you that question. Mr. Toews: Mrs.

Ducharme, it certainly is the product of the thought of many people, many eff orts here, including members from the opposition. Legislation is certainly more than a piece of paper; it is the rules by which we govern our society. I know that you rea lize that, and I appreciate your concern. Mrs.

Ducharme: We helped in the strikes at the nursing home, and it was wonderful to be there co-operatively working with everybody, but strikes are very hurting and damaging, so before they hurt the health care of all our people, and you will be in that position one day, Sunshine, because you cannot be without me, because I will outlive every one of you, so you better be ready for no more strikes and negotiations and compromise with common sense. See? That is where it goes. Mr. Toews: Thank you. Mn. Ducharme: Ballpoint pens, $3 each. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mrs. Ducharm e. Mn . Ducharme: Mr.

Minister, have you got any ballpoint pens? Mr. Toews: I have one in my office with the red maple leaf that you sold me a fe w weeks ago, yes. Mn. Ducharme: Well, this is a new day, a new start. Mr. Chair person: Our next presenter tonight will be Mr. Peter Olfert. Is Mr. Peter Olfert in the- yes, I see Mr. Olfert. Good evening, Mr. Olfert. I see your presentation is being circulated . I would ask you to pr oceed with your remark s. Mr. Peter Olfert (Manitoba Government Employees' Union): Mr. Chainnan, committee members, thank you again for the opportunity to be here tonight.

The labour relations being considered by this governm ent represents a significant and dangerous break with tradition in Manitoba's labour relatio ns. Instead of

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 109 attempting to establish a level playing field on which labour and management can engage in mea ningful collective bargaining, this government is tilting the field in favour of management. The objective of this legis lation aims to create fe wer unions, weaker unions, quieter unions. There is no balance in the governme nt's approa ch. Secondly, these amendments repre sent a si gnificant and completely unwarranted extension of government's intervention into internal union activities .

To a si gnificant degree, it will no longer be the delegates to union conventions or the union members who attend union meetings who give direction to Manitoba unions . The Manitoba government apparently believes it knows how unions should be run. It will determine when unions are to vote on contract proposal s, it will determ ine what information unions will provide to nonmembers, and it will allow nonmembers to dictate how union officials spend much of their time. This is big government invading the territory of democratic institutio ns.

It is interesting to note that this same government would never contemplate placing similar restrictions on private enter prise. I will now turn to some of the major changes in the act and make some comments on thos e. Firstly, increase emp loyer's power to fire.

Section 12(2) increases the employer's ability to fire workers if they are convicted for strike-related activities. What is the point of this change? Is there a widespread problem with picket line violence in Manitoba? We just went through a near record year for strike activity, yet there was only one major outbreak of picket line conflict, and it was when the police attacked workers with pepper spray. So what is the problem that the government is trying to solve? The answer, it is simple. It is trying to frighten workers who are thinking of taking strike action.

The government believes that workers are going to think twice before voting for a strike if they know they are at risk ofbeing pepper sprayed, charged with resisting arrest after they have been sprayed and then fired. This is an attempt to undennine union bargaining power and place workers in double jeopardy. Workers who break the law should be punished by the courts, not by their employ ers. 2. Increase employers' ability to intimidate unorganized workers .

Section 40 of the act is being amended to require that there be a vote held every time a union applies for certification. This is the second time the government has amended this section. Originally, unions were granted certification if they had sign ed up over 55 percent of the members. This government changed that to 65 percent . But unions were still winning too many certifications, so the government is moving the goal line again.

There will be no certification without a vote, which means there will be a lengthier period of time in which employers will have the ability to intimidate and even fire union support ers. While such workers may get their jobs back, the damage will have been done . It should be noted that while the government is providing employers with more opportunities to commit unfair labour practices, it is not increasing the fmes for committing such practic es. 3. Increase employers' ability to control negotiating pr ocess.

Section 72(1) will allow the employer to request contract mtification votes and allow the minister to order such votes. This cuts at the basic principle of collective bargaining. The employer is supposed to negotiate with the bargaining agent selected by the workers , the union. The workers elect the union bargaining team, and that team determines the union's bargaining strategy, including when a ratification vote is to be held . Employers, particularly government employers , have been through some tough negotiations in the past year. They want to by-pass the union bargaining team and place their offer before the members on a table on a take it or leave it basis. *

(2030) The present system allows for plenty of membership input and plenty of opportunities for members to give direction to their bargaining team. This measure will create unneces sary votes. It will encourage employers to mount expensive campaigns to attempt to alienate workers from their unions, and in the end it will prove to be an expensive waste of time because the government will discove r that union bargaining teams are doing what their members want. 4. Reduce workers ' ability to be heard on important public issues.

Section 76(1) requires unions to consult in advance with every union member prior to using union dues for political purpos es. It should be noted that the amendments do not provide a definition of political

11 0 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 purposes , although it would include nonpartisan adve rtising during an election cam paign. This open ended definition would appear to include much of the ongoing activities of a union such as ours . Taking out advertisements opposing the coo tracting out of home care is a political activity. Even appearing at a legislative committee heari ng such as this one is a political activity. This law would mean we are com mitting an unf air labour practice every time we engaged in such activities without first consulting all of our membe rs.

This would make it impossible fo r us to act on political issues in a timely fa shion. Members have the ability to determine the political policies of this union through convention. This measure strips the union officers of the ability to act on those policies in an eff ective manner. There is no fairness in this bill. It does not require emp loyers to consult with wor kers, customers or shareholders prior to their under taking political action. 5. Reduce workers' acces s to speedy arbitration. The amendments to

Section 130(1) strip workers of their right to expedited arbitration unless they have been dismissed or suspended fo r a period of more than 30 days . This is elimi nating a worker's right to a speedy resolution of a grievan ce. It means that hundreds of Manitoba workers will now see their grievances dragged out fo r months or years. Justice delayed is justice denied. With this amendment, justice is being denied. This amendment also strengthens the employer's position since under our system of workplace law a worker is considered guilty until proven innocent and must live with the discipline imposed by the employer until the grievance is settled . 6. Disclosure . There is a new

section to the act.

Section 13 2 deals with the disclosure of union inf orm ation . First of all, I want to make it clear that my union provides all delegates to our annual convention with annual financial statement s. We provided such inf ormation this past weekend . Copies of these statements are available to any member who wants them; however, we do obj ect to the way this amendment opens the door to allow nonunion members to conduct unrestricted fishing expeditions . Under the amendment, unions will lose the right to automatic dues checkoff if they do not provide sati sf actory answers to requests for further inf orm ation.

In the United States these provisions have allowed nonunion members to bombard unions with an endl ess series of frivolous and vexatious requests fo r detailed breakdowns on fmancial matters . Instead of serv icing membership needs , union staff are required to spend their time responding to these request s. Nor is there any fa irness in this amendme nt. Emplo yers are not required to file financial in formati on with the Labour Board. They are not being required to answer an endless series of unlimited financial inqu iries.

Many Manitoba companies receive subsidies, loans and other benefits from the Manitoba governm ent. Why does the government not require them to submit audited financial reports and allow taxpayers to request any fmancial inf ormation they want to from these firms? Labour is being singled out. Workers are the only ones who are having these restrictions placed on their orga nizations . In cmclusion, I would urge the gov ernm ent to abandon these amendments . They are unf air and ill conceived. They will simply serve to drive down wages, reduce workplace democracy and increase anxiety throughout our society.

The gov ernm ent should recommit itself to the principles outlined in the fm t sentence of The Labour Relations Act, namely that it is in the public interest of the Province of Manitoba to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encoura ging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and unions as freely designated representatives of those employ ees. The amendments under cons ideration today have turned those fine words into a hollow joke. Thank you for your time. Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you, Mr. Olf ert. Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Olf ert, fo r your presentat ion.

It has dawned on me here , and I admit to being somewhat slow in grasping some of these issues, but this Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) and this gov ernm ent have been very reluctant, as members of the public and perhaps members of the audience here this even ing know, the minister has been reluctant in appointing mediators to deal with disputes, whether they be strike or lockout in the province. How, in your mind, Mr. Olf ert, do you see this go vernm ent rea cting as both an emplo yer and a Minister of Labour who is res pons ible fo r the appoinbnent of mediation under this legislation Bill 26, wherein the

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 111 Minister of Labour will detennine when the employer's last offer will be placed to the employee s, knowing full well that the Minister of Labour has the final dete nnination of deciding when that vote will take place and also acting as the negotiator on behalf of the governm ent since the minister is responsible for the Civil Service Commission? Mr. Olfert: It is going to be a problem, and that is why we made mention of it in our report.

The fact that at any point in time-1 mean, the membership puts proposals forward for collective bargaining at local meetin gs. Those propos als are put together, and there is also an elected bargaining committee shuck from the appropriate bargaining unit. Those people are charged and those members are charged with and entrusted by the rest of the membership to go to the bargaining table and get the best deal possible.

We see the ability of the minister to call votes on offers during the collective bargaining process as a real interf erence in the collective bargaining process, because it is really up to the bargaining committee and the bargaining team who have been elected to go out and achieve what they are able to achieve at the bargaining table on behalf of the members, not to be frustrated and time spent on voting on offers that indeed may not be final offers at all. When is an offer a fmal offer? I think that is the concern that we would have in tenns of that voting proc ess. Mr.

Reid: Then you see there is a possibility of the minister being both the person who will decide when the employer's offer will be sent to the employees for a vote over top of the heads of the union negotiators so that the minister, in this situation, as both the employer or the officer representative of the employer for the public sector, can be in a conflict of interest situation in detennining when that offer would go to the employer, since he is ultimately the employer in cases of negotiations involving the gov ernm ent. Mr.

Olfert: WeD, that presents certainly a perception of a conflict of interest for our membership in a number of bargaining units . Some of our bargaining units are not directly tied to government but those that are, certainly that does present a concern when the minister is also able to ask for a vote to be conducted and, at the same time, a member of government, a cabinet minister, who is at the same time negotiating on behalf of the governm ent. Mr. Reid: Can you tell me, Mr.

Olfert, have you or any members of your union, to the best of your knowledge, been consulted about the pro visions ofBill 26 prior to its being tabled, given that the minister said that he has consulted with a dozen or so people or organizations in the province of Manitoba prior to it being tabled? To the best of your knowledge, have any of your members, or have you, sir, yourself been consulted with about this legislation prior to its tabling? Mr. Olf ert: To the best of my knowledge, the Manitoba Government Employees' Union, nor any of our members, have been consulted in the process. *

(2040) Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Olf ert. I do not think the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-ir2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf ir2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1fd6021dd3ce3db78003b31ed6e848a2b29650c7

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