MG-8048 Second Session - Thirty-Third Legislature of the legislative Assembly of Manitoba STA NDING COMMITTEE on INDUSTRI AL RELATIONS 36 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. H. Smith Constituency of El/ice VOL. XXXV No. 1- 8:00p.m., TUESDAY, 23 JUNE, 19 87. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 071 3-9608

MA NITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Third Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ASHTON, Steve BAKER, Clarence BIRT, Charles T. SLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARSTAIRS, Sharon CONNERY, Edward J. COWAN, Hon. Jay CUMMINGS, J. Glen DERKACH, Len DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent L. DOER, Hon. Gary DOLIN, Marty DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert DUCHARME, Gerry ENNS, Harry J. ERNST, Jim EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. FILMON, Gary FINDLAY, Glen M. HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Hon. Harry M. HARAPIAK, Hon. Leonard E. HARPER, Hon. Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Hon. Gerard MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton McCRAE, James C. MERCIER, Q.C., G.M.J. (Gerry) MITCHELSON, Bonnie NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte L. ORCHARD, Donald W. PANKRATZ, Helmut PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Hon. Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John ROCAN, C. Denis ROCH, Gilles (Gil) SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Q.C., Hon. Victor SCOTT, Don SMITH, Harvey SMITH, Hon. Muriel STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill WALDING, D. James WASYLYCIA-LEIS, Hon.

Judy CONST ITUENCY Thompson Lac du Bonnet Fort Garry Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli River Heights Portage la Prairie Churchill Ste. Rose Roblin-Russell St. Boniface Concordia Kildonan Arthur Emerson Aiel Lakeside Charleswood Brandon East Tuxedo Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Swan River Rupertsland Logan Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson St. James Elm wood Morris Brandon West St. Norbert River East Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina La Verendrye Transcona Selkirk Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Springfield Burrows Rossmere lnkster Ellice Os borne Flin Flon lnterlake St. Vital St.

Johns PARTY NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP LIBERAL PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 TIME -8:00 p.m. LOCATION -Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN -Mr. H. Smith (EIIice) ATTENDANCE - QUORUM - 6 Members of the committee present: Hon. Messrs. Cowan, Doer, Harapiak (The Pas), lecuyer and Mackling Messrs. Ashton, Connery , Kovnats, McCrae, Mrs. Oleson, Mr. Smith (EIIice) APPEARING: Messrs. Orchard and Mercier WITNESSES: Bill 32: Mr. Bruce Hall, Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers Rev. Don James, East Kildonan Pastors' Fellowship Bill 61: Mr. Sidney Green, Manitoba Progressive Party Mr.

Marvin Samphir, City of Winnipeg, Law Department Mr. Jeff Roo;e, Canadian Union of Public Employees Mr. Paul Moist, Canadian Union of Public Employees Mr. Ed. Blackman, Canadian Union of Public Employees Mr. Douglas Machan, Manitoba Health Organizations Inc. Professor Neil Tudiver, University of Manitoba Faculty Association Mr. Wilfred Hudson, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mrs. Vera Chernecki, President, Manitoba Organization of Nurses Association Mr. John lang, Confederation of Canadian Unions Ms. Leslie Spillett, International ladies' Garment Workers Union Mr. Len Stevens, United Steel Workers Union Mr.

Bruno Zimmer, Union of Food and Commercial Workers MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 32 - Th e Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Act;

loi sur les jours feries dans le commerce de detail. Bill 61 -

An Act to amend The labour Relations Act; loi modifiant la

loi sur les relations du travail. 1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee is now called to order. lt's about time I've heard from someone, but we had a few minutes for people who could come late. I would like to read out the names of people making presentations. If you are not on this list and would like to make a presentation, please see the Clerk. First of all, I have a written submission from the Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties. Then we have Reverend Don James, East Kildonan Pastors' Fellowship; then we have Bruce Hall, Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers.

We have also the following list for the other bill: Sidney Green, Manitoba Progressive Party; Marvin Samphir, City of Winnipeg, Law Department; Jeff Rose, Paul Moist, Ed Blackman, Canadian Union of Public Employees; Douglas Machan, Manitoba Health Organizations Inc.; Professor Neil Tudiver, University of Manitoba Faculty Association; Mr. Ron Wally, Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals; Mr. Wilfred Hudson, Manitoba Federation of Labour; Vera Chernecki, Manitoba Organization of Nurses Association; Mr. John Lang and Pat Mclvoy, Confederation of Canadian Unions; Mr.

Robert Ages, Machinists Local 484; Leslie Spillett, International Ladies Garment Workers Union; Daniel Ouesnel, Private Citizen; Mr. lorne Robson, The Communist Party; len Stevens, United Steel Workers Union; Wayne Hurlbert, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce; Howard Raper , Communication Electrical Workers of Canada; and Bruno Zimmer, Union of Food and Commercial Workers. If anyone is not on the list who wishes to speak, please see the Clerk. Calling, first of all - can you hear back there? I'd like to have the representatives of the Manitoba Association for Rights and liberties to make their presentation.

They have a written submission. Would the members like it? -(Interjection)- Oh, they are not appearing? Okay, we'll distribute the written submission. Reverend Don James, East Kildonan Pastors' Fellowship, is he here? Is the Reverend Don James here? BILL NO. 32 - THE RETAIL BUSINESSES HOLIDAY CLOSING ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Bruce Hull, Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers. Will you come forward, please, and make a presentation? MR. B. HULL: I am representing the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, the small grocers of Manitoba.

The Chairman of the provincial committee, Jim Gaynor, was unable to make it tonight so I am filling in for him, and I am a grocer not a speaker, so you will have to bear with me.

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 We feel the proposed legislation for Sundays, as a whole, is good. lt offers a balance of choice for people, the people who want to do some shopping can do some and the people who want to keep the day free can do that as well. The only

section in the act that we feel you should take a look at again would be the

section dealing with four employees, specifically specifying contract employees should be excluded there. We think that the act should read four employees only including contract employees. The larger stores now are using contract employees, security people. In one store that I was in on Sunday, there were as many as three of them. These are people who are not used on a regular basis on regular days, and we don't see what the necessity is to use them on the additional seventh day. That's really the only comment we have on the legislation. As a whole, we support it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mackling. HON. A.

MACKLING: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want to let you all know that we've received representations in respect to that, and there will be an amendment coming forward to deal with that concern. MR. B. HULL: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cannery. MR. E. CONNERY: If we didn't have this legislation and the large stores were open on Sunday and it eliminated a lot of the smaller stores, would this have a detrimental effect on those people in some areas, that the small stores had to close, so the seniors and others would have to travel a long distance to shop? MR. B. HULL: Oh, there's no question.

The small grocers of Manitoba mostly service small pockets and small communities, and we service a lot of the elderly and senior citizens. MR. E. CONNERY: Has your group done a study or have any idea what would happen, I guess maybe looking back at Saskatchewan and when they had Sunday opening, the Town of Moose Jaw really dried up because everybody went to Regina. If this happened in Winnipeg, if we had Sunday opening for the large stores in towns like Selkirk, Steinbach, Portage, the ones that are close to Winnipeg, would there be an effect on those small towns? MR. B.

HULL: Well, we definitely feel that the comparison is possibly even greater in Manitoba. The small communities as a whole aren't doing all that well now. The larger units no longer simply sell food. They become like the West Edmonton Mall; they become a little bit of a place to go or a vacation spot. Having something like that available on Sundays, it's just like a magnet that draws people completely out of areas as great as 100 miles from the radius of the city. I would say the effect would be devastating. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Thank you very much, Mr.

Hull. 2 BILL NO. 61 - THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Sidney Green, Manitoba Progressive Party. MR. S. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, my name is Sidney Green. I'm appearing here for the Manitoba Progressive Party. I'd like to indicate that the Manitoba Progressive Party was formed in 19 80 and one of the principles upon which it was formed and one of the principles on which it has continued to exist is its belief and commitment to the free collective bargaining process.

The Manitoba Progressive Party, in 198 1, was the only political group that came out with a direct commitment to try to preserve the free collective bargaining process and, in 19 86, in the last election. we were the only party that again dealt with free collective bargaining as one of our principles.

In particular, we were opposed to the government legislation and were the only group that was opposed to the government legislation, which said that rather than wages being determined by the collective bargaining processes between the representatives of the employer and the representatives of the employees. that certain wages, based on sex, would be determined by academics - who likely have never done any other work in their lives- sitting behind computers, trying to calculate what other people should get paid. We were the only party that opposed that legislation.

Now. some may say, well, what the hell have you got to brag about, you didn't do very well? I think that's true. I think that the position that we were taking was one which did not obtain the approval of a large number of Manitobans, but we think that it is a sound principle and we think that somebody has to speak up for this process. Eventually we are of the opinion that "right makes might" as distinct from the opposite of that phrase, and eventually, whether it be the Manitoba Progressives or any other group, what we are saying will commend itself to the people of this province and the people of this country.

In saying this, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I'm not doing something new in my life. I was once a member of a political party that nobody said would succeed, that did very badly -(inaudible)­ a number of people elected, but that it was standing for something that eventually would commend itself to a large number of people, fought on that basis and achieved a certain amount of success. So the fact of temporary political failure is not something which is unique to myself.

Indeed, I would think that the Premier of the Province of Manitoba fought and lost as many elections as I did, and certainly the Attorney-General fought and lost as many elections as I did. So one must not measure the ultimate success of a particular position by an election defeat. What makes me more than certain about the validity of the position that I am taking is that it is the same position that commended itself to most of the people who I was associated with in the New Democratic Party from the years 19 62 to 19 66.

In 19 61, the present Minister of Labour and the Premier of the province were quite outspoken about the danger that they saw in the formation of the New Democratic Party, in that

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 they said it would link itself too closely to the organized labour movement, and they took a position against it. I didn't happen to agree with them at that time and I didn't take that position. But between 19 62 and 19 69, just so that there is no mistake about where I am coming from, I represented most of the major trade unions in the Province of Manitoba. I represented that union which is here in great num bers today. I represented the Manitoba Steel Workers; I represented the Garment Workers Union; I represented the packing house workers; I represented the Federation itself.

I represented them, expounding with their approval and with their support, the same principles of free collective bargaining that I expound tod ay. Indeed I can say that I was an honourable member of the Opposition; I was an honourable member of the government. I then became an honourable member of the Opposition agai n, and finally I became an "honourable nobody." But what is true of myself, in all of the positions in which I was alleged to be honourable, is that I said the same thing, particularly about free collective bargai ning and the rights of organized labour and the rights, in particu lar, of emplo yees.

Just for your informa tion, I've put on your desks a pamphlet which contains a speech which I made in 1976, I believe, to a seminar of the NDP. lt's a seminar which was visited by the then President of the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Dennis McDermot, who said at the time that we have to clean out the NDP and those people who make its labour policy. ln particular, he said we have to get rid of the eggheads who make labour policy for the NDP. and they did do that and they replaced them with dunderheads and blockheads. And I can prove that, Mr. Chairman. What I say, I do not say light ly. I believe that Mr.

Vander Zalm of the Province of B.C. should be very int erested in this legislation. In looking at this legisla tion, he should realize that he has made a very big mistake with the NDP-Iabelled fascist legislation, which he has introduced in the Province of British Columbia because, after all, what is this great fascist legislation that Mr. Vander Zalm has introduced?

Accord ing to the NDP, that's their word, "fascist." lt says that it will prohibit the right to strike. lt says that it will im pose a collective agreement by a third party state-appointed agenc y, and it says that it will abroga te the rights of empl oyees to free collective bargaining. Those are the principles that are being fought by the trade union movement in the Province of British Columbia.

Those are the principles that were fought by the trade union movement against wage and price controls during the late 19 70's, and those are the principles which were enacted and enshrined by the New Democratic Party in the first contract legislation which they passed in this province, all of which principles and the departure from those principles, they have labelled "fascist" legislation. Now Mr.

Vander Zalm can take a leaf out of the legislation that is being passed by the Province of Manitoba, or which is sought to be passed by the Province of Manitoba through this bill. lt inhibits the free collective bargaining pr ocess by saying that it doesn't work properly and that, unless there is a gun behind -and I'll be generous for the moment but only 3 for the moment -unl ess there is a gun behind the head of the emp loyer and behind the head of the union, they won' t negotiate and therefore we'll put a gun behind the head of the emp loyer. That's what they are saying. Now, I said that Mr.

Vander Zalm can pick up this legislation and adopt it almost word for word and get rid of the legislation that he is proposing to enact which the NDP is so much against. Why couldn't he adopt it word for word? Because it says, Mr. Chairman, that when there's a collective agreement and when we're running up to collective bargaining, either side can. ask for a selected arbit rator, selected arbitration, call it what you like; either side can ask for it. But there is a hooker in the deck - I see my friend, Mr. Stevens -although either side can ask for it - I acted for Mr.

Stevens as well -there is a hooker in the deck, although either side can ask for it and Mr. Stevens is from B.C., so he can carry the bill to it and give it to Mr. Vander Zalm and then he'll fight like hell against it. If it is asked for, the empl oyees have the right to say whether they'll do it or they won't do it, not the empl oyer. If the empl oyees say they'll do it, they do it and, if the employees say they won't do it, they won't do it. This is in tended to show the employees, look we've left you with a stacked deck. If you're winning the strike, you don't ask for it.

If you're losing the strike, you ask for it and therefore, you can't lose. There is no way in which you can, in any way, be hurt. The last time I was here, but I think it's worth repeating, I compared this situation to Big Julie rolling dice against Nathan Detroit in Guys and Dolls. He wants to roll dice with Nathan Detroit but he says: "We use my dice and we roll them in my hat," and then Nathan notices that there are no spots on the dice and Big Julie says: "They're rub bed off but I remember where they are." So he bets Nathan Detroit $1 ,000.00.

He rolls the dice into the hat and he says, seven, and Nathan Detroit pays him $1 ,000. Then he rolls another 1,000 and he's looking into the hat and Detroit says: "Can I please look at them"? He says, "Go ahead," and he looks and there's no spots on them, but he says: "There's eleven, I can see it -six and five as clear as day." And he keeps on betting $1 ,000.00. Then he says: "Now we're going to bet a dollar." Julie says: "We're going to bet a dollar." He puts a dollar in, Detroit puts a dollar in. He throws the dice in the hat. Craps! "You win! lt's your dollar." This is the kind of set-up that is being made.

But even then, Mr. Vander Zalm has got something to desire in this bill because he says, during the existence of a collective agreement, I can ask the employees whether they will take selected arbitration and go on strike. Surely, if I can ask them that, I can propagandize. This is the first opportunity that any government has given me the right to deal directly with the employees over the head of the collective bargaining agent. So I will go to my emplo yees and I will say to them, here is what your union is asking, we think it's wrong, here is what we think should exist.

We think it's right and we're going to ask you to vote for selected arbitration. I don't know whether he will succeed. I'm inclined to think he won't. I'm inclined to think that the legislation is so unfairly drawn that he would have to put in -and I don't see how anybody could avoid it - that either side has a right to ask for selected arbitration because that's the way the thesis originally came about.

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 lt's only this Mini ster of Labour who has dared to blatantly say that we're going to put it to the emplo yer and we're going to say, heads you win to the employ ees and tails the emplo yer loses. He's the only one who has said that he is going to do that. You may be able to get away with it, although I am very appreciative of seeing what John Diefenbaker said, that it's a long lane that has no ashcans.

Suddenly people in the trade union movement are starting to see that these infringements by the NDP on the collective bargaining process being whittled away, whittled away, whittled away, ultimately is the destruction of the trade union movement; or in the alternative, it's a creation of busin ess unions with trade union bosses who will exploit the emp loyees worse than emp loyer bosses will, becaus e they will be beholden to the busi ness agents rather than to their em ployers because the business agents will have the ear and control of the gove rnment. it's no accident that this legislation is so worded and is being enacted now in order to deal with a strike that the Min ister, apparent ly, feels that the emp loyees have no heart with and have no support for, because the legislation as it's worded, I would think, would apply to the Westfair strike.

By the way, I think that the busine ss agents and the rep resentatives of the emplo yees, that's all they've got left to deal with their empl oyees. They continue to say to them, don't worry, we've got the government in our pocket, they're going to pass legislation. Westfair won't be able to beat you. We'll have selective arbitration, and we know who the selector will be, because that's the key to this legislation. When Vander Zalm passes the legislation, even if he passes it as it now reads, he says, yes, the Labour Board will choose a selector. The Labour Board is chosen by the govern ment.

The Labour Board, as a matter of fact, half of them are contributors to the government party and our selector will be - let me think, who would be a good selector to de al with the strike that's taking place in Mr. Stevens' constituency in the Province of British Columbia? Young Bill Bennett, he's a good selector. He'll say whether he's going to take the em ployers' proposition or the employees' proposition.

And if it's not Bill Bennett, it's Gaglardi and, if it's not Gaglardi, it's Smith , Jones or anybody else who the government has the confidence will do the right thing by the employer and the wrong thing by the workers. Who will the selector be, Mr. Chairman, when the emp loyees at Westfair vote that they, having no public support -and I'm not really saying they haven 't but I feel that they are saying it by asking for this type of legislation - who will the selector be? The Minis ter doesn't say that the selector will be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench.

He says that the selector will be appointe d by the Labour Board, and I appoint the Labour Board. And if we look at who they select we'll see -and I heard it on television or radio the other day - that Laurie Cherniack has been appointed to 40 arbitration boards for expedited arbitration. And if it's not Laurie Cherniack, it's some other friend of the NDP, whoever, and I don't blame them. Who would they appoint and why wouldn't they? They are doing this for the purpose, they say, of trying to help the worker who is unable to make his way through free collective bargaining.

They're not going to appoint somebody who will not be 4 sympathetic and oversympathetic to the empl oyees' position. Now let's judge this government by what itself will do. I challenge the Mini ster of Labour to say that the medical profession in the Province of Manitoba will have the last proposal, selected arbitration, but with an appointee of a selector by the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal of the Province of Manitoba. Now we know that Larry Desjardins -the Honourable Larry Desjardins, excuse me -won't agree to arbitr ate if he could appoint the arbitr ator.

Will he agree to last offer selection by a selector for the doctors of the Province of Manitoba, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Province of Manitoba? Will the Mini ster change his bill -and it won't make it any more favourable to me because I still belie ve in free collective bargaining -but will he change his bill so that the selector is going to decide on terms and conditions of empl oyees for an emp loyer? And he won't have to put up the money, that's the worst irony of all. A selector can say, these people are entitled to a 10 percent raise.

If you don't have to pay it, you could say 20 percent, it doesn't matter. The selector doesn't have a penny out of his pocket to do it or, as Bill Bennett would say, the selector could order a 10 percent reduction in wages. He doesn't have to work for it. So he can say you can live on less and that's the only dif ference. The Min ister says he'll appoint someone who says you'll pay more and Bill Bennett with Mr. Vander Zalm, with the same legislation would say, he'll take a selector who'll tell the empl oyees they should work for less. That's the only difference. But irony of ironies, Mr.

Chairman, not only does the selector not have to pay the wages, he gets paid for imposing the wages, because there's a

section in the act which says each side will pay their own fees for the presentation of argument, etc., but both sides will pay the selector. The government has got so little faith in this proposition as a means of establishing industrial peace which should be done by society that they say the employer will pay for his own undoing to the selector. That's in the act, Mr. Chairman, that's in the act. The Mini ster had an opportunity to show how he believes that people should arbitrate their dif ferences on last offer selection.

He can still do it because, if you appoint the arbitrator, the selection is not a problem for you. But when he had an opportunity of appointing an arbitrator to deal with the professional engi neers of the Province of Manitoba, who wanted arbitration and who were on strike -and the Minister is so anxious to avoid people going out on strike and losing money -he's so anxious that he's found a solution. Nobody in the world has ever found it, but he's found it. Australia has had compuls ory arbitration for years.

I had occasion to be in Australia for the month of February of this year when I was convalesci ng, and there were more strikes in Australia than there were in Manitoba. They ceased to even prosecute them anymore because there's no point in it . They have to get the parties together and they have to agree to work. Because there's one thing that the selector cannot do and th ey are the two side s of the col lective bargaining equation. He cannot keep the business going and paying the wages. If he im poses something that the emplo yer cannot accept, it won't result in an agreement.

Do you not have that experience with

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 Eaton's in Brandon? There was a first contract. lt was imposed. The company said they're going to close and they negotiated an agreement with the emp loyees and now there's no first contract there, that's right. So the selector cannot run the business, unless -as was done interes tingly enough -the first request for a first contract didn't come from the union, it came from the Seven Oaks Hospital. The emp loyees in the Seven Oaks Hospital went on strike. The emplo yer said we want a first contract. Did the Department of Labour have the guts to impose a First Contract?

No, they went to Seven Oaks and said, we'll give you the mon ey, pay them. So why was this first contract not used? Will the em ployer pay the increase in wages which is chosen by the selector, who sits there and doesn't have to pay anything and gets paid or, worse still, because that's where it's going and that's why I'm here. Ulti mately, Mr. Chairman, as sure as night follows day, if this becomes the reg ime, then it's going to be the em ployer who will get the benefit of it and the selector will impose terms and conditions on emp loyees which they don't want and which they will be prevented from striking on.

Mr. Chairman, it is my respectful submi ssion that there are only two things that preserve the integrity of the workingman, of the employee, in any socie ty. One is the right to get together with his fellow worker and say, we won't work. That is taken away by this legislation because, if the majority decide that they want a final arbitrator selector, then the others cannot strike. They cannot say that we will not work until we get what we want. The only other thing they've got is the right to go to the public and say, support us, don't support the employers, which is what the Westfair people are doing.

They are saying, don't support this em ployer, don't buy from this emplo yer until he pays us a fair wage or until he gives us reasonable working conditions. Both of these things are taken away by this legislation. I just want to deal with some of the interesting features that you have to get to when you start having the state being the arbitrator and the imp oser of terms and conditions of employment. Are the members aware - I suppose it's been discussed in the House - that the Labour Board can say who votes? They can reduce the constituency or expand the constitu ency.

If we took an example, if we "supposed" that out of 1, 600 people on strike, 1, 000 went back; the Labour Board could say only 600 will vote -the 600 who are still on strike, the 1, 000 can't vote. That's right in the act that the Labour Board can in crease or reduce the constitue ncy. Well, I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, that it is there. The Labour Board can decide who is to vote and who, in its opinion, has a continuing inte rest in the outcome of the strike or lockout.

"Where, in the opinion of the Board, there are compelling reasons to expand or reduce the voting constituency referred to in subsection 9, the Board ma y expand or red uce the voting constituency accordingly." So not only do we have the dice being loaded and you cannot see them but, if you don't like the num bers that you can't see, you can change them to numb ers that you do like and that is right in the legislation. Mr.

Chairman, the key to this legislation is the fact that empl oyees - and I put it both, it's not the one or the other -that this legislation is an interference with 5 the right of employees and employers to negotiate their agreement. lt is a throwback to what we had before 19 66 and there was a problem. In 19 66, the dice were loaded for the emplo yer, and I blamed the Chamber of Commerce and I blamed the Employers' Organization for fighting and asking for that kind of legislation, the kind of legislation that had perpetual conciliation, that prohibited strikes, that permitted injunctions agains t strikes.

All of those things were removed by 19 77. Although the changes were fought against when they were enacted, they were fought against by the Tory legislation. The proof of the legislation and the validity of setting a framework fair to both sides of free collective bargaining was tha t from 19 77 to 19 81, despite numerous requests by the Chamber and others, the Con servatives saw the validity of the legislation and did not materially change it. Now, Mr.

Chairman, I am here saying the same things that I said when I was supported,-when the things that I said were the principles of the party to which I then belonged. When that party abandoned those princi ples, I continued to fight for them. They said they were going to abandon them in peculiar ways. You know one of the things that the NDP, the bureaucracy and the staff, many of whom are now or some of whom are now Cabinet Minis ters, they raised hell about the Griffin Steel strike.

At that time, the Min ister of custodial care, the Honourable Muriel Smith, the Honourable Wilson Parasiuk, they marched outside this building picketing to the tune of one, two, three; one, two, three; we've been screwed by the NDP. That's how they became Cabinet Ministers. That's what they did and they said that we should pass a law that prohibited an employer and emp loyees from having an agreement respecting overtime. They came into government, they've been there for eight years, seven years, and they've never passed such a law. They picketed outside this Legislature for such a law. They never passed it.

They said that there is going to have to be a law that said that, when the hospitals go on strike or anybody else, the police, the fire or anybody, because it doesn't matter, the emp loyer shall be prohibited from hiring an emp loyee during that strike. They promised the MFL such a law. They never passed it; it's in teres ting. I op posed it. They elected 31 membe rs; we elected nobody. We got more power electing nobody than they got electing 31 members. They never passed the law.

But in order to avoid passing the law they did crazy things, and I can tell you that it is only insan ity in the field of indus trial relations that can lead to the passing of such laws, and this one is the worst yet. Mr. Chairman, all of those years I spoke for the working people of the Province of Manitoba, I said what I am saying now. I am still speaking for the working people of the Province of Manitoba. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions of Mr. Green? Mr. McCrae. MR. J. McCRAE: Yes.

In your comments, you didn't deal with the fact that this legislation has a five-year sunset clause to it.

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 Could you let us have the benefit of your wisdom with respect to that? MR. S. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, it do esn 't mean anything. What is the meaning of a five-year sunset clause? lt means that, if it is not re-enacted, not put before the Legislature again and passed, that it will automatically fade out of existence. If the legislation is the godsend that the Mini ster of Labour says it is, why is he permitting it to pass out of existence? Surely that's a palliative, surely that's a sweetener, an attempt to say, well, we know it's no good but it's going to go away in five years.

If you know it's no good, why pass it? Why have it for five years? My problem is not that this legislation won't work. My great .fear is that this legislation will work, that we will bring about industrial slavery in the Province of Manitoba and in this country through this kind of statism, that this is -and I'm only going to use their language now. Now it's not as if I don't know the language, but people will say, well Sid Green was vituperative, so I'm going to use nice language; I'm going to use NDP language. The NDP says it's fascist legislation.

That's what they said about the same legislation embodying the same principles. I stopped thinking long ago -(lnterjection)­ that freedom . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. S. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, that's one of the blockheads who is now making his comment, who are now responsible for this idi ocy, which is what they call it when it is done by other people, but which they want for themselves because, and I'l l repeat it. If it makes somebody laugh, then I'l l have had the pleasure of making somebody feel happy today.

I stopped thinking long ago that we are on the way to greater and greater freed om. lt was said by people who understood the subject much better than I that freedom never lasts, that it has to be fought for in each generation. Each generation has to win it again. What we are seeing is the path to serfdom, the path to -and I repeat what the NDP calls it -this is fascist legislation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mr. McCrae, another question? MR. J. McCRAE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Green, it has been sugge sted this legislation is brought in at this time for a particular reason.

In your experience with labour relations, what is the effect of a change in the rules of the game in the middle of a dispute? I'm thinking, in this particular case, of the Westfair dispute where this legislation may well indeed come into play. MR. S. GREEN: The legislation cannot be tolerated by people who wish to inv est money and do business in the Province of Manitoba. If a person is seeking to make that kind of decision now, he will not make it. A person who has already made that decision will leave.­ (ln terjection)-I'm not doing badly, Mr. Chairman; I'm doing much better than I used to do. That's right.

I'm suggesting that this kind of legislation will result in untold and uncalculable problems for the investment 6 climate in the Province of Manitoba. The Manitoba Government will not invest in the Province of Manitoba on this basis. If you had a government that says that we are against free trade, we are against foreign investment, and then says we're going to complain to the Un ited States State Department that they are preventing a United States company coming in and bailing out Versatile, you know why they won't operate Versatile? Because they can't live with this labour legislation. Nobody can.

And that's why they are unable and will be unable to do anything on a public basis. So all they can do and all they have done in the past years, Mr. Chairman, it' s interesting the change that has taken place with respect to the NDP. In 19 70, we were going to enact legislation that lowered the Medicare premiums and inc reased the income tax -and I can tell this story now, and the people who were there know it. That Christmas, we received a call from the Investors Group.

They said we want to know -and we were in Cabinet -they said we want to know if you are going to do this because. if you do, we're going to Prince Edward Island. We sat there, and I remember it as if it were today. I said we' re not de ciding now whethe r we 'r e increasing the income tax or reducing the premiums. There are two meetings taking place in the Province of Manitoba, two board meetings: one at Investors Syndicate, one here. What we're deciding is where is the government in the Province of Manitoba, in that meeting or in this meeting? Contrast that with what Mr.

Eugene Kostyra said when Richardson Greenshields said that they're going to leave the province. He said, I approached them. I asked them: Are there any laws you would like me to change to make you stay here? Because the NDP government is powerless to do anything on their own. They cannot operate anything. They cannot operate Flyer. Why? They can't live with these labour laws. MR. CHAIRMAN: Our next presentation is Mr. Jeff Rose. Oh, sorry. Ma rvin Samph ir, the City of Winn ipeg Law Department. MR. M. SAMPHIR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of this commi ttee, Mr. Green.

I find it strange -I'll just make this comment before I start to add some levity for tonight -it's strange that I find myself saying some of the same things Mr. Green says. it's not very often. An yway, I'm here on behalf of the City of Winnipeg, that is the Council of the City of Winnipeg, that has definite concerns with respect to this government passing this legislation.

The Council of the City of Winnipeg makes the request that the government not proceed with this legislation because of some very strong concerns it has both with respect to the effect that this legislation will have on collective bargaining, in particular, collective bargaining in the public sector as it affects the City of Winnipeg, and collective bargaining as a whole both in the City of Winnipeg and in the province. As well, it must add that it has some concern with respect to the effect that this legislation can have on

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 the busin ess clima te of Manitoba. That is the adverse effect it could have on investment both within the province itself and, in particu lar, the City of Winnipeg, that investment being new busi nesses locating within Winnipeg and busine sses here seeking reasons to leave Winnipeg. Mo re impor tantly, and specifically to the labour relations climate within the City of Winnip eg itself, as it deals with its emplo yee groups, we don't have a problem. The City of Winnipeg empl oys approxima tely 11 ,372 employees who are represented by nine different bargaining groups.

Over the years, the city has had good rela tions, good labour relations, with those bargaining groups. Since the formation of Unicity in 19 72, there's been but one strike. That strike, I am told, is as a result of really factors outside of the control of the City of Winnipeg and the bargaining group in question. lt really had to do with federal legisla tion, the anti-inflation legislation of the time. In all situations since 1919 but that one, the City of Winnip eg has been able to enter into a collective arrangement with its emp loyees without the need of a strike.

As well, I might add that, where it's been appropriate, the city has been able to enter into arrangements with certain of its bargaining groups to resolve differences that have arisen through colle ctive bar gaining by compulsory arbitration. Let's turn to the bill itself, Mr. Chairman. lt's the city's position that the bill itself will not promote better collective bargaining between bargaining groups and em ployers. Bill 61 is not fair legislation and, in fact, it has the potential for promoting an atmosphere where meaningful negotiations will not occur at times during the collective bargaining process.

The reasons for these are many. I'll just summarize a few of them for you: meeting the full negotiations prior to the termination or expiry of the collective agreement could be jeopardized by the very process provided for Bill 61, that is, that 60-to 30-day window provided for prior to the termination of the collective agreement. Secondly , Bill 61 will not in fact encourage the early resolution of strikes. Thirdly, the legislation itself is unfair . Why is it unfair? The provisions which provide for the final decision for imp lementin g the first offer selection process lies entirely in the hands of one group.

In the end, that in itself cannot promote good labour relations between ba rgai ning gr oups and their emplo yers. So the very solution that the legislation is trying to impose for very, very un usual circumstances will defeat what I suppose is the ultima te purpose of the legislation. Lastly, as a public service emp loyer, the city finds that Bill 61 is una cceptable.

The bill gives to a third party the right to impose contract settlements upon the citizens, upon the City of Winnip eg, settlements which incr ease and no doubt will have a substantial effect on our economy and taxes, but that third party is un accou ntable to anyone. Un like the elected representatives, the third party doesn't have to answer to an electorate; he answers to no one. In conclusion, our message is a very short one.

We would like to see that the government not find it necessary and would encoura ge the Pr ovince of Manitoba to reconsider its position and not proceed with the passage of the bill. 7 As an alternative, if the government is not inclined to abandon the process, then it should be fair and consistent with promoting good labour relations. We suggest that the provisions allow for both employees and emp loyers to make the final decision as to whether the final offer selection process is to be implemented. That amendment should be put into place by the government if it chooses to proceed with this type of legislation.

Those are the comments respectfully submitted to this commit tee on behalf of the City of Winnipeg. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions? Thank you, Mr. Samph ir. MR. M. SAMPHIR: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: We had a Mr. James down, a Rev. Don James of the East Kildonan Pastors' Fellowship, to speak on Bill 32, but he was dir ected to the wrong commi ttee room. So I'm going to call on Rev. James now, unl ess there are any objections to make a presentation. BILL NO. 32 - THE RETAIL BUSINESSES HOLIDAY CLOSING ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Rev. Don James. REV. D. JAMES: Thank you.

I have a written brief here that I'll pass around. lt's a fairly brief brief. Is that appropriate? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, that's fine. REV. D. JAMES: I feel a bit under the gun, interrupting the proceedings, but in a sense my concern is one that is related to labour concerns as well. That's the direction from which our East Kildonan Pastors' Fellowship would like to approach the Sunday retailing question. I represent a group of a dozen pastors in East Kildonan, and brought along a petition of about 2,000 names from about 20 of the churches in East Kildonan.

I don't know whether there's someone here who wants to receive that. Is there? Okay, thank you. Let me begin by asking you to consider my colleagues and I as a public int erest group in this matter, rather than as a private interest group. lt would be very natural for you to think that we are here to defend the privileges of the Christian churches where Sunda y is relatively closed. Christians certainly do enjoy great convenience for worship and other activities, where Sundays are free of retailing and other indu stry.

However, we are not here to defend our privileges as Sunda y worshippers, nor to impose our faith on others. We are here to speak of a basic human need for a day of rest, and of a basic community need for a common day of rest. These needs are common to Christian and Jew, agnostic and atheist, Hindu and Moslem. So the first point I'd like to make is considering the importance of a day of rest. There is no controversy on this point. Regular rest is a basic human need. All relig ions make provision for regular rest, and non­ religious people acknowledge this need as well.

A weekly Sabbath, which is Hebr ew for rest, is im portant for

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 physical, mental and spiritual renewal. We believe, as Christians, that weekly rest is part of the Creator's design for his creat ion. The second point is the crucial one, the impor tance of a common day of rest. What is fundamentally at issue in the retail closing cont roversy is the imp ortance of a common day of rest. We would ensure the right, certain ly, of every citizen to at least one day off a week, but do we see the value of all citizens, or as many as possible, having their day off in common?

The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops put it this way in their September, 19 86 paper, "While it is necessary in the first place to be able to enjoy a day of rest, it is equally important to hold this day in common. As social beings, we need the community of others to grow and develop in our lives. A common day of rest helps us to maintain these relationships and to strengthen interpersonal commun ication. "This opportunity to experienc e and build community is especially important for families.

Sunda y has come to be the only day of the week on which family members and friends can be certain of being together . If days off are scattered throughout the week, working mothers and fathers, especially in the retail business, will not be able to be together with children on the weekend." My third point and second last is, why Sunday as a common day of rest? As Christian leaders, we are not int erested in imposing our holy day on the community at large. At its best, the Christian faith is only inter ested in free and voluntary allegiance.

But practically speaking, in Western culture, Sunday is a common pause day by virtue of past tradition. To choose another day would not solve the problem of fairness to all faith groups and would entail considerable disruption to firmly entrenched habits. To quote the Catholic bishops again, "Sunda ys off are a part of our culture, a culture that Christians have shaped in the past. We should be able to devise laws that will not penalize people with different beliefs as long as these laws protect the shared experience of leisure and rest for the majority." My last point conc erns freed om. Wh at about free dom?

Why should the government restrict the freedom of business people to do as they please on Sunday and the freedom of citizens to shop if they so desire? No doubt, many people find it recreat ional, even restf ul, to go shopping. I'm struck by the number of licence plate frames that say, "Born to Shop," these days, and I'm not trying to cramp the style of such people. Some entrepreneurs can enhance their profits on Sund ay. But freedom for these two categories of people means bondage to a third catego ry, workers, including management.

Our overri ding concern is that one person's freedom to shop or to do business is another person's bondage to work. No doubt, there will be some workers who are willing to work on Sunda ys. To quote a Lutheran paper on this subject, "The majority of those working on Sunda ys will be women, young people and those most desperate for employment." Sunda y emplo yees will often be part­ timers receiving substandard wages and fewer benefits.

We would argue, as a group of pa stors, tha t to encou rage the breakdown of personal, family, and community health in a very vulnerable group of citizens is not a progressive step for our society and so we applaud the legislation that has been put before the House. 8 Let us not sacrifice the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of vulnerable people and of citizens in general, if Sunday work becomes more widespread, on the altar of profit and busi ness growth for a few or even on the altar of freedom for a fairly substantial group of potential shoppers.

And finally, let us not limit our attention to the retail shopping arena alone. We urge the government to explore creative ways of regaining lost ground in other industries as well. Every encou ragement you give to a common pa use day for our commu nity will pay significant dividends in personal, family, and societal health and well-being. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions for Reverend James? Thank you Reverend James. BILL NO. 61 (Cont'

d) MR. CHAIRMAN: Reverting back now to Bill No. 61, I'd like to call Mr. Jeff Rose of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Could we hold the applause? lt's getting a bit much. Let's just hold it a little bit. Mr. Conner y, are you objecting in some fashion or other? Mr. Rose. MR. J. ROSE: Mr. Smith, Mr. Mackling, members of the comm ittee, ladies and gentlemen, sisters and brothers, my name is Jeff Rose. I am the national president of CUPE. I'm here with a written submission for your consideration that we'll distribute in a few minutes.

I'm joined by Ed Blackman, president of CUPE Local 500, the Winnipeg Civic Employees, who is also a vice-president of our Manitoba division, and by Paul Moist, who is a national repr esentative of CU PE. Both of them will be joining me at this podium to make our three-part presentation to you. We are here because Bill 61 and the suggestions that it contains about labour relations and about the way labour relations should evolve in this province have national im plications that give us serious concerns. Not only that, in the Manitoba context, we feel that Bill 61 is detrimental.

Ladies and gentlemen, any change in legislation touching the freedom of people to manage their own arrangements, to effect a contract, to have an influence over their own desti ny, any such change in legislation should be approached with caution. In any event, any such change in legislation should be consistent with sound democratic principles, should be workable and sensible and should be necessar y, not gratuitous. The written subm ission that we'll be giving you analyzes Bill 61 according to these precepts. I would like to summarize the arguments that it contains. We will argue that Bill 61 is not necessary.

Manitoba is blessed with an excellent labour relations record and climate. Work stoppages are rare. We refer to Manitoba privately as a quiet jurisdiction where there's a great deal of labour relations maturity. Labour relations are generally working well in this province. What needed to be solved? What justification was there to introduce instability into an otherwise stable context. We say, none.

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 Bill 61 is gratuitous. lt says that its aim is to assist management and unions to reach agreement at the barg aining table. At first blush, this is somewhat puzzling. Implying on the one hand, an effort to help people reach agreement but doing so through the mechanism of an imposition. Binding arbitration is what Bill 61 is. On analysis, one realizes what FOS is really all about. With its total winner and total loser approach -and that's whether you're talking about a total package FOS or a clause-by-clause FOS -it is so bad that the theory is that people will strive to avoid it.

In other words, it's attractive, sup posed ly, because it's so hideous that there's an incentive to settle at any cost.

This is a very unsound approach to civil law. lt is dumb for government, ever, to pass a law that does something worse th an the parties ought to do the mselves if they do not do of their own volition what they seek to achieve. lt is also patronizi ng, as if the parties in collective bargaining are children, as if there's not already in collect ive bargaining a great deal of responsibil ity, as if the parties to collective bargaining are somehow unr easonable. lt also seems to assume that strike and lockout, the present dramatic ways to put pressur e on people to get com promise, are somehow not serious.

Bill 61 is gr atu itous and comtemptuous of preco lle ctiv e barga ining. Furthermore, there has been no particular outcry from the public for such a bilL Labour? Labour is divided. Some unions want it; some don't. Management doesn't. Ladies and gentlemen, that also is a very unsound basis for interfering in freedom at any time, much less when things are going pretty welL We make the argument in our written submission that Bill 61 is no t workable, not pract ical , even dangerous.

Academics who have studied FOS are divided, but they generally acknowledge that FOS can be very dangerous and very damaging in all but a limited num ber of situations. How is one to guarantee that those are the situations that will go forward to binding arbitration under Bill 61' s provisions? Furthermore, it is known that FOS can work in a particularly harsh way. If cruel demands are mixed in with reasonable demands and if a package has to be chosen in its entirety or even if that applies to particular clauses, the result can be disaster.

In short, FOS is a very poor form of arbitration - some people argue, the poorest. I don't believe in arbitration. I think it has a chilling effect on bargaining, but that is especially true of FOS and it is generally acknowledged to be the worst form of arbitration. FOS is not sensible. In the context of Manitoba labour relations, it will create more strife where it is used and inde ed when it is used.

Given the complexity of collective agreement, it has the potential to create situations where people may not accept fundamental conditions of employment that will be impo sed upon them by the bizarre nature, the totalistic nature, of the choice that the selector has to make. Most important of all is the third point. Labour relations law is very delicate. lt has to be consistent with sound democratic principles and it has to respect the parties. Free collective bargaining trusts people. There is ample reason to do so in Manitoba on the basis of the statistics.

Free collect ive bargaining works in this province. lt puts plenty of pressure on people 9 to comprom ise. The fear of strike or lockout is very strong, not just that it might be visited upon you by others but indeed, for a worker, the idea of going on strike is a very, very difficult thing to consider . Here, the basic equation of free collective bargaining, with the exception of strike breaking, we in CUPE say, is good. Any step towards undermining it in Manitoba is a mistake. Then you add to that the fact that this bill is not fair; it is weighted in favour of the union.

Now, that may be good for us in some situations, but that's a very short­ sighted approach for anyone to take to his own self­ interest. lt effect ively elimina tes the employer's right to lock out. That is very short-sighted. That may bail the union out in specific insta nces, but it's not fair. lt alters the equation. lt's the beginning of a slippery slope that we know we have a great deal to lose if the same argument were ever made in reverse with respect to the right to strike.

If you add to that the bill is not fair to unions, it inter feres with unions by allowing management to call for membership votes, our conclusion is a very simple one. We'll take our risks with free collective bargaining in Manitoba. The right to strike and the right to lock out are the best guarantees of serious bargai ning. Labour relations works best when both sides are left free to bargain with each other on the basis of fair and consistent rules, and then are required to live by the consequences of their own decisions.

We say that if the bill is not necessary, gratuitous, not practical, even dangerous, lacking in common sense and undemo cratic, then what public purpose could possibly be served by enacting it into law? None. And it threatens to damage the delicate balance of labour relations that Manitobans are justly proud of. We say to the govern ment, withdraw the bill. lt is not too late to see sense. Don't tamper with free collective bargaining in Manitoba. Don't introduce the instability that I spoke of before. Don't start down that slip pery slope.

We're prepared to take our chances with free collective bargaining, as I said before because, like democracy, it's the worst system ever devised except for all the alternatives. One final point before I introduce Paul Moist with some details of our critique of FOS. May I say something to our friends in the government? You are watching the creation among your friends of deep and lasting splits as a result of this action. You have divided us as management has never been able to do. My friends, you should not have done that lt is both sad and unforgivable.

Ladies and gentlemen, Paul Moist will now speak to you for about five minutes on details of our critique of FOS and then Ed Blackman will summarize before we will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paul Moist. MR. P. MOIS T: Mr. Cha ir man, memb ers of the comm ittee, our brief will be distrib uted when we conclude our remarks. Just to further embellish what Mr. Rose has said to the commi ttee, our brief will look at final offer selection and Bill 61 from a number of perspectives, and we first look at it in theory.

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 In theory, the authors tell us - and the authors come from the United States, the west coast of the United States, the inventors of final offer selection -it's rooted as a replacement for conventional binding in terest arbitration. lt's most attractive feature, as Mr.

Rose has said, is that it's such a bad form of arbitration that parties will try to avoid it. it's im portant for the comm ittee to remember and it's important for the members making this decision to remember that, in theory, this form of dispute settlement was designed not to fix free collective bargaining but to fix fettered collective bargai ning, binding in terest arbitration. The jury is out on that and we provide some indi cation of auth ors who have not been able to come to a conclusion. That doesn't make it bad, Mr. Chairman, but the next step we go to is to look at where it's in practice.

We tell you, Mr. Chairman, to the best of our knowledge, it does not exist anywhere in North America or Europe in the format proposed in Bill 61. 1t does not exist in legislation anywhere in North America or Europe in legislation applicable to the private and public sector. That doesn't make it bad; that makes us look closer. So we've looked closer and we found it in a few volun tary relationships usually for monetary matters only.

Right here in our province, the Un iversity of Manitoba Faculty Association had it for mone tary matters and conventional bargaining for non-monetary matters, and it's since been dr opped by the parties in bargaining. 1t also exists in legislation in certain states south of the border, and it's coincident with the strike weapon having been removed by the empl oyer. Public sector employees have that as a method of sett ling disputes and we detail it in our brief where that exists. Without exception, it's in areas where the right to strike is gone. Our brief details the 1984 model, Mr.

Chairman, that was introduced in the White Paper by the Honour able Mary Beth Dolin, former Minister of Labour. In that White Paper that never made it to the legislative table, the concept was first introduced in Manitoba. There were a few changes but, in concept, it was the same as the 19 87 model. There was a provision or a suggestion that the membership could vote at any time, that their right to vote would not be continued beyond 12 months but, in concept, it was the same.

We have a numb er of concerns with the concept, which is the first place we have to look at it, because we don't have the bene fit of analyzing it in practice anywhere in this format. We look at, as Mr. Rose said, the strike-lockout equation. I don't pretend for a moment that it's in balance and I don't argue before this committee that it's a fair relationship that we have in terms of power between management and labour. But we ask the question: Is the redistribution of power in the labour­ management relationship rooted in Bill 61?

If it's designed to even up the unfair disadvantage being experienced by unions today, we say, with respect, it won't. lt accepts a fundamental equation as Mr. Rose just outlined. That equation has either party, of their own decision, able to take ind ustrial action at specified times, management in terms of locking out and unions in terms of striking. CUPE believes that the strike-lockout equation, while not in perfect balance, ought not to be tam pered with 10 in the in terest of redis tributing power in the labour­ management relationship. Other legislative forms exist to accomplish such a redistribution.

There is precedent and far more consensus in the labour community for these alternativ es. Management's right to secure a vote -that was touched on briefly a moment ago, and one more comment on that -this is an entir ely new concept. Our current system of labour relations would see such a request from management as in terference in the affairs of the bargaining unit and an unfair labour practice. The proponents of FOS argue you can beat that vote down, and you can.

I have no doubt that you can. 1t gives management though -and they won't argue that before the comm ittee -but it gi ves management something they've never had before. 1t gives them a clearer snapshot of the feelings of the bargaining unit prior to bargaining starting if the requ est is in the first wind ow. Under current legislation, they could not gain such a snapshot. CUP E is strongly opposed to any deviation from the current system. Third ly, Mr. Chairman, it's our contention that this legislation separates the membership from the union.

One of the more insidious suggestions contained within Bill 61 is that there exists three parties in collective bargai ning: management, the union and the membersh ip. The members are the union and, insofar as we are concerned, the members elect the negotiating comm itt ee, the mem bers determine bar gaining proposals -bargaining priorities -and ulti mately the members vote whether to take strike action or not. The Manitoba Labour Relations Act up until this date has not treated unions, membership and management as three entities.

Exclusively, the act refers to employees in the union as the bargai ning agent, as one. Bill 61 enunciates a new perspective; that . being that unions and emp loyees are separate bodies. Such a notion, coupled with the view of certain FOS advocates that Bill 61 will allow emp loyees and not union leaders to decide bargaining issues and strategies, reveals an attitude that we had hoped long ago vanished. Bill 61 seems to imply that union staff are separate and distinct from the rank and file membership.

CUPE ha s long he ard such argume nts from emp loyers, especially during organizing drives, and from certain political quarters. We reject categorically any inf erence that FOS and membership votes will return the decision­ making process to the members. for in our union all decision-making processes are permanently housed within the general membership. Fourth ly, Mr. Chairman, FOS breeds winners and losers, and it could be the union as the winner and it could be management as the winner but, if you end up in the award system, you end up with a winner and a loser.

We're worried about emp loyers' buying rights clauses, rights clauses that currently we would price with withdrawing our labour. We detail an example of a strike by 3,000 of our members in New Brunswick in a school board division, 99.5 percent in favour of strike action. Three weeks into the stri ke, the government of tha t prov i nce legislated them back to work, instituted a system of final offer selection, and it ended up being the selector putting the price on the rights issue that caused the strike in the first place. We reserve the right to price our rights and not to have them priced by a third party.

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 There's a

section in our brief which I won't go into, Mr. Chairman, that deals with free collective bargaining and some of our sad experiences across the countr y where our rights have been taken away. Finally , Mr. Ch airman, we do not bel ieve th at Manitoba's strike lockout equation is in perfect balance and we make no such suggestion. Management though, in our view, currently enjoys a situation whereby they ma y beh ave unr eas onab ly, demand sig ni ficant concessions, and go so far as to provoke strikes.

Then they can continue to operate thereby avoiding economic injur y, the same injury they're so callously inflicting on em ployees. Time and time again, emp loyers seek cour t injunctions to limit or abolish picketing. Employers are quick to call upon go vernment to supply pol ice assistance to allow scabs to take workers' jobs. Such activities on the part of management are legal in most areas of Canada, and they are a prescription for violence and unr est as we are all witnessing in the present round of Canada Post negotiations.

The relationship between labour and management not only lacks balance; it demons trates its unfairness, a weakness in our society's unwillingn ess to recogniz e and attach value to a worker's human investment in his job. That investment ought not to be unp rotected or ig nored simply becaus e th at worker has democratically chosen to legally say no to management The imbalance and the unfairness of the current situation ought to be corrected. lt should be corrected without adjustment to the strike lockout equation.

Anti­ scab leg islation, which prevents the legal use of replacement workers during a legal strike or lockout, evens up that labour-mana gement relationship which is so seriously out of kilter today. 1t does so by inflicting an economic penalty on emp loyers equal to that inflic ted today on emplo yees. lt corrects the im balance without altering the union's or management's right to declare a strike or a lockout. The other attractive feature of anti-scab is that there exists precedent both within and outside of Canada. lt exists in the Province of Quebec, and we detailed some comments on that.

Its other obvious benefit is that the likelihood of violence on picket lines is reduced considerably by laws which prevent the theft of workers' jobs. Anti-scab laws reduce the frequency of strikes and, when strikes do occur, they are, as stated earli er, generally more peaceful and shorter in duration. The case for ant i-scab legislation has been docu mented many ti mes for successi ve NDP Governments. There exists unanimous consensus in both the labour movement and the New Democratic Party where, for the last few conventions, there has not been a trace of negative debate on this resolution for such legislation.

In CUPE's view, and with respect, Bill 61 is not an alternative which redistributes power to em ployees. We ask, and we ask sin cerely, for consideration for a real solution to the im balance. Mr. Chairman, I' ll call on Mr. Ed Blackman to summarize our . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Blackman. MR. E. BLACKMAN: Mr. Chairman , to conclude, as stated at the outset we appear before this comm ittee 11 not only on behalf of the 16 ,000 members of CUPE in Manitoba, but also on behalf of our entire Canadian membership of 341 ,000. We deal with governments as empl oyers on a daily basis.

However, we often find ourse lves speaking out against legislative attacks upon our membership. Attached to our brief, in Table 1 at the end of the brief, you will find an outline that says about the small sampling of the legislative attack waged upon the public sector workers during a short 18 -month period. We view Bill 61 as not being in the interest of our membership. We accept that the government is well intentioned, although we submit, with respect, that you have been ill-advised.

Bill 61 and certain of its advocates suggest that FOS will prompt the parties involved in collective bargaining to be more reasonable in their proposals and demands. The unstated premise behind such commentary is that the parties have previously been unr easonable in their proposals and demands. CUPE rejects such a notion on two counts. Firstly, it is our opinion that the majority of work stoppages in Canada in the 19 80's have been defensive in nature. Unions have been battling to hold onto previously negotiated provisions.

For the most part, strikes have occurred in reply to concessionary demands, and union members have not been unreasonable in any way, shape or form. Second ly, CUPE is made up of some 341 ,000 members in over 2,200 local unions, and as we speak to you this evening, fewer than 1, 000 of our members are on strike. This does not mean we are a weak union, or that we may not find ourselves in large-scale walkouts in the future. But we feel qua lified to state that our members have been reasonable in securing peaceful settlements in the thousands of negotiations we partake in year after year.

In any legisla tive endea vour, government must consider the effects upon and conc erns of the participants to be directly affected by its introduction. As well, government must also consider the view and perspective of the general public. We submit that application of such a test to Bill 61 reveals a public which has not expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of labour relations in the province. Within the directly affected constituencies, the labour movement has no consensus on FOS. Within the management ranks, there is general disapproval.

The only point of consensus would seem to be that there are strongly held views on both sides of the issue. For the reasons outlined herein, CUPE respectfully sugge sts that the Government of Manitoba reconsider Bill 61 and that it not be proceeded with at this time. Respectfully submi tted to you, Mr. Chairman, by the Manitoba Division of the Canadian Union of Public emplo yees. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, at this time, we have copies of the brief that go into more detail, and we'll make them available to the comm ittee. Thank. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you prepared to answer questions, Mr. Blackman?

Any questions, please. Thank you very much, Mr. Blackman. Mr. Douglas Machan, Manitoba Health Organization.

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 MR. D. II/IACHAN: Mr. Chairman, committee mem ber, my name's Douglas Machan, and I represent Manitoba Health Organizations. Specific ally, I'm the Director of Personnel Services, the division of Manitoba Health Organization charged with negotia ting col lective agreements for in excess of 15 0 health care facilities in the Province of Manitoba. Our membership totals over 15 0 em ployers who employ over 23,000 emp loyees. The vast majority of the emplo yees are unioni zed and over 200 collective agreements are currently in effect.

Our unio nized members are covered by the Labour Relations Act of this province. The purpose of this subm ission is to address our concerns regarding the provisions of Bill 61. The manner in which this bill was introduced is a particular concern to the Manitoba Health Organizations. The issue of final offer selection was formally raised by the Min ister of Labour in April of 19 84. The final offer selection was referred to as the centerpiece of the white paper which preceded Bill 22.

Following the contro versy surrounding this issue, the matter of final offer selection was withdrawn from Bill 22 and, in December of 1985, the Mini ster referred final offer selection to the Manitoba Labour Management Review Commit tee for further study. For nearly 25 years, the Manitoba Labour Management Review Committee has, at the request of the Provincial Government, been charged with the specific responsibility of reviewing labour legislation and provi ding guida nce to government on amendments to legislation.

MHO has representatives on the Manitoba Labour Ma nagement Review Commit tee and on its subcommittee which was specifically established to deal with the issue of final offer selection. Though the comm ittee was very close to issuing its report to the Min ister, this had not been done at the time that Bill 61 was introduced. Furthermore, the Minis ter had given no ind ication to the employer representatives of the commi ttee th at legislation was under act iv e consideration or that there was any particular urgency in the completion of the commi ttee's review.

A substantial amount of time and effort has been expende d by both labour and ma nagement in resear ching the issue of final offer selection. These efforts have been at the Minister's request to give him guidance on a particularly controversial issue. The apparent hasty introduction of legislation withou t consideration of the views of labour and management speaks poorly for the so-called "consultative approach" which we were lead to believe would be followed. Insofar as the concept of this legislation is concerned, Manitoba Health Organization belie ves that it is well intended.

As representatives of the providers of health care in this province, we have been dir ected by our members to pursue alternativ es to work stoppages which disrupt the delivery of health care. We're acutely aware of the fact that Manitoba labour legislation currently makes no distinction between a health care facility and a manufacturing plant. lt's one of the few jurisdictions in Canada that does not make that distinction.

In work stoppages in the health care industr y, the impact is not an economic one felt by labour and management but rather one of depriving the public of a vital service. lt is somewhat ironic to note that many health care emp loyers and their unions have been wrestling with 12 the issue of maintaining essential services during a labour dispute. Clearly this is an area of concern to labour, management and, above all, to the public.

If this legislation is intended to reduce work stoppages, then in our view those work stoppages which most threaten the lives or the safety of the public ought to be its prim ary focus. From this perspective, we would welcome legislation which acknowledged the potentially life-threatening dangers which are faced by patients during a health care work stoppage. Unfortuna tely, in our view, Bill 61 does not do this.

Thr ough the media, we learn that the un ions representing the vast majority of health care workers: CU PE, the Manitoba Associa tion of Health Care Profess ionals, and the Ma nitoba Organization of Nursing Associations also oppose the introduction of this particular legislation. Those unions that I've just named represent some 20,000 of the 23,000 employees in health care. To be specific, several provisions of the legislation cause MHO serious concern. The legislation provides for a labour veto of management's request for final offer selection but makes no pr ovision for corresp onding management veto.

The Minister has acknowledged this im balance but has stated that it is intended to correct an existing imbalance which favours emplo yers. The stereotypical view of a large, powerful empl oyer domina ting a small, powerless group of empl oyees is simply not true of MHO's membership. The vast majority of our members are small employers. Ninety percent of them do not have a labour relations department or evern a personnel officer. These empl oyers must deal with large, well-organized , well-financed, national or international unions who employ experts in labour relations.

To the adminis trator of one of our typical health care facilities, the present balance of power between labour and management favours labour, and the single-sided veto provision of bill 61 will in tensify that im balance. This aspect of one-party veto may also cause the opposite to the intended effect by increasing strikes. Currently , a decision to strike or lock out must be made in the full knowledge that, once a work stoppage commences, there may be no way of ensuring that it will ever be settled or the workers will ever return to their jobs. Bill 61, however, provides for an escape hatch.

If an ill-considered work stoppage occurs because labour would be guaranteed to be able to return to work and receive a reason able col lective agree ment, this insurance might well result in a worker voting in favour of a strike in a situation where he might otherwise not support a strike. Quite simp ly, the stakes are no longer as high to labour. The risk to the public, however, may be incr eased. For these reasons, MHO submits that the sing le-party veto provision of this bill be amended to provide for the FOS process to be utilized where both labour and management agree to this method of dispute resolution.

If this bill were to be amended in this mann er, MHO would consider it to be a five-year experiment worth trying in the absence of any other legislation which recognizes the potentially disastrous impact to the public of a health care work stoppage. Indeed, MHO and the IUOE utili ze final offer selection on a voluntary

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 basis to resolve a num ber of issues remaining in dispute following their most recent negotiations. In our view, this clearly demons trates both labour and managment's regard for the public's unique int erest in health care labour disputes. Thank you very much. MR. J. McCRAE: You take issue with the singl e-party veto provision of the legislation. If both parties were given a veto, would we not have a situation which would allow for FOS without legislation? MR. D.

MACHAN: lt would make it voluntar y, I guess, and that's the experience that we currently enjoy, prior to introduction of this bill. MR. J. McCRAE: So the type of amendment that you speak of would really render the bill meaningless in terms of what we have already. In other words, if the two sides would like to get together and ask for final offer selection, that is available now, is it not? MR. D. MACHAN: That's correct. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, S. Ashton: Mr. Doer. HON. G. DOER: Mr.

Ch airman, jus t by way of information, I understand seven or eight urban hospitals, la rge hospitals, have negotiated essential services agreement with the major unions. What is the status of that situation with the MHO and the emp loyee groups? MR. D. MACHAN: At the current time MHO and those eight facilities are involved with the Manitoba Council of Health Care Unions trying to negotiate and resolve some problems in the volun tary essential services agreement. We're preparing another position paper that we'll be presenting to the appropriate Ministers on that, shortly.

We're having a great deal of difficulty trying to address the conc erns of the emp loyers in th at umbrella agreement, which I believe you're referring to. The big gest problem we have with that Voluntary Essential Services Agreement is that it's volunt ary. lt doesn't matter how good it is; it's still volunt ary. HON. G. DOER: Am I to und erstand - I understood there was a resolution on the books years ago from MHO. Has this volunta ry negotiated essential services provision been negotiated at many of the MHO facilities outside the City of Winnipeg which your organization represents? MR. D.

MA CHAN: There are four that I'm aware of. The majority of health care facilities in rural Manitoba don't feel they need essential services because, in the event of a work stoppage, they have enough volunta ry help to get them through, to care for the patients. HON. G. DOER: So basical ly, most of your facilities are opposed to the model that has been developed, or don't see it as essential. MR. D. MACHAN: Most of the facilities do not feel that it's a workable solution in their facilities. 13 HON. G. DOER: Thank you. MR. J.

McCRAE: Sir, you made reference to the Manitoba Labour Management Review Committee and its deli berations on FOS. On page 2 of your brief, you tell us that the committee was very close to issuing its report to the Min ister. MR. D. MACHAN: That's correct. MR. J. McCRAE: Although that hadn't been done when this legislation was introduced. I und erstand tha t the night previous to the introduction of this legislation, the Mini ster did call some members of the Manitoba Labour Relations . . . MR. D. MACHAN: Labour Ma nagement Review Commit tee. MR. J. McCRAE: . . .

Labour Management Review Commit tee on the night before the introduction to let them know that he was doing this. What reason did the Minis ter give that he did not wait for the report of the Labour Management Review Comm ittee? MR. D. MACHAN: I was on vacation at the time, Mr. McCrae. I didn't attend the meeting. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Being no further questions, thank you, Mr. Machan. The next presentation is from Professor Neil Tudiver from the Univ ersity of Manitoba Faculty Association. DR. N. TUDIVER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Neil Tudiver and I'm here representing the Un iversity of Manitoba Faculty Association. I'm the president of the association. I have brought with me a written brief which I'll make available to the committee at the conclusion of my presentation. I, first, before addressing the substance of the bill itself and our concerns about it, do want to comment on the process that's been engaged in for these hearings.

I don't know if our experience is typical, but it was not until last night that we were informed that commi ttee hearings might be either tonight, Thursday night, or perhaps next Tuesday. lt wasn't until about five o'clock this afternoon that we finally were informed that the hearings would be this evening and our presentation would be accepted, and our presentation would be made this evening. We find this a rather distressing state of affairs, to be rushed in this matter to make a presentation on a piece of legislation which is so important. I do ask a question of the committee: Why the extreme rush?

With legislation which is so significant, legislation as important as this, why the extreme rush to pressure people to present in such a short time possible? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I can ind icate, Mr. Tudiver, that is the normal procedure. lt is often difficult to predict when a particular item of legislation will be passed by the Legislature. We are actually, I think, one of the only provinces which does have the public

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 hearings com ponent. I think the basic notice for legislation is basically seen as when it's introduced for Second Read ing, rather than when it's passed. Obvious ly, ther e has been some time sinc e the introduction on Second Reading. lt's unfortunate that we couldn't give greater notice. Sometimes we do have an extra day or two in terms of notice, but I can assure you that it's unf ortunate, I guess, the by-products or the fact that things are rather unpredictable in terms of the Legislature itself. DR. N. TUDIVER: Thank you for your response.

To proceed to our brief, The Uni versity of Manitoba Faculty Association is the certified bargaining agent for some 1, 150 full-time academic staff at the Univ ersity of Manitoba. We do, despite the rushed time, welcome this opportunity to present our views regarding Bill 61. The University of Manitoba Faculty Association has been party to a final offer selection process for six of the past eight years. The agreement to use final offer selection was a voluntary one, which was first negotiated between the association and the adminis tration of the university in 19 79.

The three-year agreement to use final offer selection was renewed in 19 82. Final offer selection was propos ed in order to speed up the collective bargaining process. If the parties could not reach agreement, then an arbitrator's decision on the monetary articles would create pressure to settle the remaining outstanding articles. We wish to emp hasize that the final offer selection agreement was restricted to outstanding monetary articles of the collective agreement. Both parties to the negotiations were firmly opposed to thir d-party decisions on any other issues.

The Faculty Association and the admi nistration of the un iversity have used final offer selection twice during those six years that we had agreement on them. In 19 79, both parties reached agreement on 20 of the 23 outstanding articles prior to the expiry of bargai ning, with the remaining three monetary articles submi tted to arbitration for selection. In 19 85, we signed off 18 articles before final offer selection took place. The remaining 10 open articles were signed off after the monetary articles were referred to an arbitrator for selection.

Our experience with the process has been positive, but I must empha size that it is lim ited to the selection of the single issue of monetary items. For these reasons, we maintain that the association is in a fairly unique position to comment on the process of final offer selection. The method of resolving labour disputes known as final offer selection -or we unde rstand to have been developed -to facilitate collective bargaining by putting pressure on each party to provide reasonable cont ract proposals or risk losing all of their positions to the other side.

For this reason, the process is best suited to single-issue proposals. The inclusion of a variety of issues does not allow for clear decision making, since the arbitrator must weigh each party's position on each issue to arrive at a final selection. 1t has also been argued that final offer selection may protect small or weak bargaining units in the case of strong empl oyers who have refused to bargain even after a strike has occurred and replacement workers 14 have been used to weaken union positions.

In th ose cases, final offer selection may offer an alternative to the strike or lockout. lt requir es both parties to reach a resolution. However, we think that a better legis lated solution to these problems would be to prohibit the use of replacement workers during strikes. The Facul ty Association do es not su pp ort the extension of the final offer selection process beyond single issues. Fundamental protections of a collective agreement, which union members and management have struggled over, could be lost in one round of final offer selection.

A selector may not be familiar with the reasoning behind an existing contract provis ion. One party's entire package may not be selected because of one high-profile issue. I refer to presentations that have preceded mine suggesting that there are cases of where high monetary offers from from emplo yers could, in fact, gut significant other provisions of a colle ctive agreement. We maintain that it is inappropriate for a third party to make binding decisions on entire packages of outstanding issus such as job security, seniori ty, layoff, and others. I want to proceed to a few specific comments on Bill

Section 82. 1(1) states that either party may apply in writing to the board for a vote to determine whether the dispute shall be resolved by the process of final offer selection. This provision allows the emplo yer to request an election by mem bers of the bargaining unit. If the Labour Board orders a vote, then the union is required to hold one. We are concerned that one party to negotiations would have the right to precipitate an election by the other side. Employees under the legislation have no right to canvass the management or directors of the company.

There should be no reciprocal right for management to require a canvass of the union members. We see a clear advantage here being given to management in being able to, in fact, precipitate an election of a party they're negotiating with where the same right in fact is not given to the union. Under

section 82. 1(1) as well, an application for final offer selection can be made "not more than 60 days before the expiry of the collective agreement and not less than 30 days before the expiry of the term of or preceding the termination of a collective agreement." The

section goes on further to present the other window of opportunity that's been referred to between 60 and 70 days into a strike or lockout. The first 30-day period is a rather arbitr ary one. To us, it seems quite early. Collective bargaining often does not begin until two to four months prior to the expiry of a collective agreement. This pre-expiry provision would provide only one or two months of free bargaining before the early provision would take place. The positions of both sides may not be clear enough for the members of a bargaining unit to form their opinions on a vote for final offer selection.

Such constraints on the timing of collective bargaining do not serve the union or the emplo yer well. In fact, this provision reduces the amount of time available for free colle ctive bar gaining and then the provision evaporates until 60 to 70 days into a strike or lockout. Such time lim its should not be necessar y. To conclude then, final offer selection can be a helpful tool to settle single -issue disputes in labour relations.

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 In our own experience, it's been restricted to monet ary items and we would not suggest any other single issue other than monetary items. If certain protections are not built into the process through legislation, final offer selection may have the effect of destabilizing unions and weakening the collective bargaining process.

These protections would include the limitation of the final offer selection process to single issues only by agreement of both parties involved, the elim ination of the right of emplo yers to call for a vote on final offer selection amongst the mem bers of the bargaining unit and some alteration of the proposed time frame to reflect more adequa tely, the realities of free collective bargaining. Thank you. I do have written copies of the submission which I can circulate. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Tudiver. Mr. Doer. HON. G. DOER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I bel ieve the la st opportun ity tha t the Faculty Association had to use final offer selection was in 19 85. DR. N. TUDIVER: That's correct. HON. G. DOER: I also believe, in that same year, that the support staff, the clerical staff primarily at the uni versity, the AESES staff, were unsuccessful in getting a strike vote, and receive a zero percent settlement in that same year , at th e same time th e Faculty Association, I believe, received a 2 percent settlement with final offer selection. Is that correct? DR. N. TUDIVER: That's close.

I don't recall the exact percentage, I'm afraid, but, yes, we did receive a small percentage inc rease, and AESES did not. HON. G. DOER: I also believe, Mr. Chairman, at the same time, that the food service staff at the un iversity also negotiated, as opposed to going for a strike vote, zero in the first year of a three-year contract, the same year that the professors, I think, received 2 percent in final offer selection. Is that correct? I'm just trying to go by memor y. DR. N. TUDIVER: I'm sorry, I can't answer by mem ory. I don't know what . _ .

A MEMBER: I can answer to that. lt was 2 percent, and 3 percent, 3 percent, and 3 percent. HON. G. DOER: Mr. Chairman, I also believe the last time the un iversity went to -again, I'm operating from memory -final offer selection, there was an employer proposal to tamper with the univ ersity proposal, to tamper with the structure of the increments, which was rejected by the selector, if I'm not mistaken. DR. N. TUDIVER: You're referring to the package proposed by the admin istration ? HON. G. DOER: Yes. DR. N. TUDIVER: There were different components of each package.

One component of the administra tion's package was to alter the salary structure, yes. 15 HON. G. DOER: Thank you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? No further questions. Thank you for your presentation. The next presentation is Mr. Ron Wally from the Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals. Mr. Wally. Since Mr. Wally is not here, the next presentation is from Mr. Wilt Hudson from the Manitoba Federation of Labour. Mr. Hudson. MR. W. HUDSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to introduce the people who are with us here tonight from the labour movement, from the Manitoba Federat ion of Labour. The Vice-President of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, John E. Pullen is here. The Treasurer of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, Dennis Atkinson, is here.

Also, we have Peter Olfert, the President of the Manitoba Government Employees Association; AI Cerilli of the Canadian Brotherhood of Rai lway and Transport and General Workers, the Regional Vice-President; Wayne Cutting from the United Steelworkers of America, Vice-President of the Manitoba Federation of Labour; Bob lmrie, from the United Steelworkers from Flin Flon, Vice-President of the Manitoba Federal of Labour also; Horst Som merfeld, from the Unit ed Steelworkers, Southe ast Manitoba, Labour Council; also Bernard Christophe, the President of the Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 832; Bruce Prozyk, from the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union; and Sandy Trowsky from the In ternational Association of Machinists.

Also, we have Barrie Farrow from the Canadian Autoworkers; and Bruno Zim mer, the President of Local 111 of the United Food and Commercial Workers. Bill Haiko, unfortunately, another Vice-President from the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers, is away at an international convention. First of all, we congratulate the Government of Manitoba for the innovative spirit which underlies the introduction of Bill 61. lt is a time when new solutions must be found to old problems and old remedies must be applied in new and creative ways.

The Mani toba Federat ion of Labour represents approximately 80,000 union members and their families in this province, and is the largest labour organization in Manitoba. At our last constitutional convention in 19 85, we debated the issue of final offer selection, commonly known as FOS, at great length. In the end the delega tes voted to support final offer selection by a two to one majority. We are making this presentation as a un ited group representing the Manitoba Federation of Labour. Many of our affilia tes are present in this hall this evening, as I've already mentioned.

The colle ctive bargaining environment in Manitoba, collective bargaining works as a means of resolving labour-management disputes only when both parties negotiate in good faith. In some instances, it takes the threat of a strike to force the employer to bargain seriously but, in the vast majority of cases, the parties eventually get down to good faith bargaining and a settlement is reached. There are all too many examples, however , of em ployers who are determined from the

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 outset to hold the line at all costs, to turn back the clock, or even break the union. There is no shortage of strikes that have been lost, bargaining units that have been destroyed, and working people who have lost their jobs, all because the employer waged a war of attrition to drive the union out of the workplace. Present labour legislation allows them to do that. lt is not unkno wn for employers to take advantage of the situation and return collective bargaining to the law of the jungle. Final offer selection is an alternative which may be used by either of the negotiating parties.

There are many ind ividual workers who could benefit from the protection of union representation but who are afraid of the prospect of being forced out on strike. They would welcome the news that, in the final analysis, a strike is not the only option and that there are methods of settling disputes without resort to extreme measures. In this regard, Bill 61 is also consistent with the present Labour Relations Act which encour ages collective bargaining and uni onization of emp loyees as a basic human right.

Too often collective bargai ning energies are wasted in fighting each other, rather than seeking the common ground on which the parties will eventually settle. Sometimes it is necessary to fight and we strongly support the right to strike, but sometimes a strike is wasteful and unproductive. We believe that FOS im proves the prospect for productive negotiations for both parties at the negotiating table. However, we must point out that final offer selection, while valuable in its own right, is by no means a solution to the inequities of the bargaining system.

The tremendous powers and legal rights of management must be counterbalanced by an equiv alent strength on th e part of the union. If meaningful negotiations are ever to take place, in the final analysis, the only source of bargaining power available to the union is the ability to withdraw their labour and bring the operation to a halt. If management enjoys the right to give away jobs of striking workers to scabs, that balance of bargaining power is lost.

In addition, as the current postal dispute attests, when working people witness the theft of their jobs by scabs, they are inclined to protect those jobs vigorou sly. Violence can often result. Hence we continue to take the position that anti­ scab legislation is not dispensible. Final offer selection is but a valuable alternative and a useful option in the collective bargaining arena. The reason we sup port FOS over conven tional arbitration is precisely because it creates pressures on both parties to negotiate in go od faith.

Unlike conventional arbitration which creates incentives for the parties to drive their demands further apart, FOS creates an incentive to come closer togeth er. As such, it complements the collective bargaining process, and can contribute to productive negotiations which make it unne cessary to invoke FOS procedures. In fact, the success of final offer selection may be measured by the infrequency of its use. We can support Bill 61 because it provides another option for union and management negotiators in the collective bargaining process.

But we must point out that we support it only in that context. lt can only be an option which cannot be forced on the mem bers or their negotiators. The final decision must rest with the 16 emplo yees. They are the ones who must live with the consequences. Besides, it accords with the democratic practices of the union movement to submit all significant options to a vote of the membership. There are certain features of Bill 61 that we would consider crucial and essential for the success of final offer selection.

First and foremost, as mentioned above, is the tact that the workforce may decide not to use the provisions of Bill 61, and will never be forced to go to the final offer selection route. Seco nd ly, it facili tates to continuation of negotiati ons, and encourages the parties to reach a settlement before selection occurs. Thirdly, it contains a safety provision, whereby issues which are already settled and "off the table" are not subject to the selection process. Fourth, the sunset clause option provides a means of testing the effectiveness of the legislation.

Though we firmly believe the legislation to be sound, we are protected by the sunset clause from the long-term effects of any unforseen problems. We trust that these items will remain in the legislation. We are no t afraid of final offer selec tion. As experienced un ion negotiators, we trust that our members will make a wise and informed decision when the issue of FOS arises.

We believe that the Government of Manitoba has made a wise choice with the introduction of Bill 61 at this time. 1t impr oves the balance of forces at the bargaining table while at the same time expanding, not restricting, the options available to the negotiating process. When negotiations break down we need a more civilized alternative to achieve fair settlements without un necessary confrontation. The Manitoba Federation of Labour feels that this is good legislation, and will assist in the bargaining process. We urge you to proceed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions? Mr. McCrae? MR. J. McCRAE: Mr.

Hudson, you made the point near the end of your presentation that you felt that -well, you firmly belie ved that this was sound legislation, but went on to defend the five-year sunset clause in the legislation. I have to ask the same question about previ ous legislation brou ght in by th e pr esent government. There were no sunset clauses on some of those other provisions, I take it you were firmly in support of those provisions too. Now, why at that time, did your federation not move or push for a sunset clause in some of those other areas of legislation which we debate quite regularly in this House? MR. W.

HUDSON: Well first of all, Jet me say that, in our presentation to the Manitoba Government, we didn't ask for a sunset clause. We've made presentat ions - now we cheer tor the last three or four years -asking for final offer selection. We know though that this is a new and inn ovative clause which we think will assist in the options. We're not afraid of the dark. We think that it's inn ovative and we' re not afraid of any boogeymen in it. We think it's good, sound legislation but, at the same time, it hasn't been tested in legislation in this format so, to some extent I suppose, it's experimental.

So we're not opposed to the idea of a

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 sunset clause because, if it's found to be not as good as we think it will be because maybe it hasn't stood the test of time yet, it would then be dropped. MR. J. McCRAE: I want to ask you, Mr. Hudson, about changing the rules of ind ustrial relations in our province. As a union representative or leader, if you were in a situation where you had a dispute with an employer, what would be your position on changing the rules of that labour relations atmosphere in the middle of that di spute, in other words, bringing in a new regime which could be used or brought to bear upon that dispute?

What would be your opinion of that? MR. W HUDSON: Well, I guess any legislation has to be proclaimed at some time and nearly it's always that there is some sort of negotiations going on, and who knows what stage it may be at when that's proclaimed? MR. J. McCRAE: In the past, legislation has been brought in to bring an end to strike action in the transportation indus try -that springs to mind -and in other areas of vital importance to the public. I take it that the union movement would not have been in favour of such an action by the legislatures or by the Parliament of Canada.

Knowing as we do now that the legislation before us could be used in the very im portant labour dispute going on in Manitoba right now, are we not looking at the same kind of thing, a legislated end to a present dispute? MR. W. HUDSON: Well, you'r e talking about two altogether dif ferent things. You'r e talking about where you have a dispute and the government decides, for whatever their wisdom is, that they need to end that strike so they force the people back to work. This isn't what we're proposing.

That's the situation where the government forces them back to work and usually forces arbitration up on them which is altogether different, not altogether but somewhat different than final offer selection. We're suggesting here that it's another tool in the tool kit, if you will, that you can use at the bargaining table. lt's nothing being forced on you to end the strike. MR. J. McCRAE: Well, in view of the no-veto power on the part of the em ployers, would you no t be suggesting that the government make this legislation not apply to any pending disputes at the present time?

Would you not suggest that the rules be the same as they have been, the rule s th at were there when strategies were set and plans made? Would you not be suggesting to the government that the legislation not affect pending disputes? MR. W. HUDSON: Well, it can't stop the letter carriers, that's out of scope. MR. J. McCRAE: That's not the one I'm referring to. MR. W. HUDSON: Okay, let's be more specific. MR. J. McCRAE: You know which dispute we're talking about, Mr. Hudson. MR. W. HUDSON: Okay. No, well let me try to answer you question hypothetically then, if it's a hypothetical question. 17 MR. J.

McCRAE: lt's not hypothetical, Mr. Hudson. I'll make it very plain for you. We have a dispute going on between Westfair Foods and the Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Union in this province, a very important dispute in the province. In the midst of that dispute, the NDP Government of Manitoba is bringing forward legislation, the potential of which is to end strikes, and that strike perhaps in particul ar. What is your position on the government intervening at this time? MR. W HUDSON: Well, our position is that we started asking for this in 1984.

We didn't know that there was going to be a strike in 19 87, so we've asked for this to come forward at this point of time, and I don't know how long that strike may last. If the strike goes on for the next three years, I don't want to wait three years to introduce the legislation. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr. Hudson, were you not one of the members of the empl oyee subcommittee of the - I can never get this one -Labour Management Review Commi ttee, along with another empl oyee representative? Have you been a mem ber of the subcommi ttee studying FOS? MR. W. HUDSON: Yes. MR. J. McCRAE: Who was the other mem ber, Mr.

Hudson? MR. W HUDSON: Bernard Christophe and Neil Tudiver. MR. J. McCRAE: Have you reported to the Min ister on your feelings on the matter? MR. W. HUDSON: We have never reported to the Min ister on any thing that go es on in the Labour Man agement Review Commit tee. Tha t's not the process. MR. J. McCRAE: Alright, maybe you can explain to me the process because some people on th e su bcommit tee -(Interjection)-sor ry, Mr.

Chairman, because some people have expressed some displeasure that the subcommittee and the Labour Management Review Commi ttee never had an opportunity to report to the government before this legislation came in. In other words, the Mini ster didn't apply the pressure to the committee to say, "hey, we want to move on this and we'd like to hear from you." What part did you and Mr. Christophe play in the subcommittee? MR. W. HUDSON: Well, Mr. Christophe and I played the part of being labour's representative on that subcommittee.

When we started out as a subcommittee, we agreed with the management representative at the table being Wint Newman, Dennis Sutton, Doug Machan. I can't think of the names of others right at the moment. We agreed at the outset that we may not be able to find common ground on this issue. In any event, we agreed we would reach a conclusion in December of 1986. In December of 19 86, we had not reached a conclusion but, in January 1987, we each submitted a report to one another -written report, our

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 written submi ssion. I think it was January 26, I'm not sure. That was to be our report. lt was mentioned at that time, but no firm commitment was made at that time. But later on, it was suggested that we should have a further meeting about it to discuss this -to critique, so we could critique each other's reports. That meeting, Bernard Christophe, the other member of the comm ittee was away for the month of Februar y, and it just slipped to the backburner and that meeting was never held. That was really a meeting that was subsequent to the written reports being given. MR. J. McCRAE: Mr.

Hudson would . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: The presentation that he has made to clarify -could you ask questions to clarify the presentation, rather than go ahead and explore other fields? MR. J. McCRAE: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, when other presenters to this commi ttee made comments about how the Labour Management Review Committee conducts its affairs, you didn't get involved then, and I suggest you allow me to carry on with my question. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I was being relieved, but I just don't want us to go into all the world affairs when I think that you should be asking que stions that deal with the presentation itself. MR. J. McCRAE: Well thank you for your advice, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Hudson, in any event, regardless of the position taken by your federation or the position taken by anyone else on whether Bill 61 is good labour law for this province or any other place in this whole wide world, maybe you could tell me today whether you would agree and sugge st to the government that any pending labour disputes should not form or be governed by the provisions of this bill. Would you be making that subm ission to the government? MR. W. HUDSON: No, that wasn't part of our submission. MR. J. McCRAE: No. I'm asking you to reconsider that part of it, Mr.

Hudson. lt sounds to me like you haven't thought about it in those terms. Perhaps maybe it's an important matter to think about. MR. W. HUDSON: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask that perhaps the member consider your comments. I realize that we're fairly open­ ended here, but I don't think it's appropriate for members, when they don't get an answer they like, to get engaged with presenters. I think we're hear to listen to the presentations and ask questions for clarification resulting from that group. I wish the Member for Brandon West would follow by the rules.-(lnt erjection)­ a valid point.

I think you should be questioning the presentation and not going ahead and debating and, in effect, getting your point of view across. You should be asking questions to clarify the presentation that was made to this committee. 18 MR. J. McCRAE: Thank you, once again, Mr. Chairman, for your advice. I think that's about the third time you've got invo lved to give advice to one of the members of this comm ittee. Mr. Hu dson, in your presentation, I believe you were silent about the submi ssion made by CUPE, that this legislation allows emplo yers to by-pass the unions and go directly to workers.

Would you address that now please? MR. W. HUDSON: Well I think it's been addressed in my brief. I don't think I was silent on that. We have said all along, when the discussion first started in 19 84, that the emplo yer would have the right to seek final offer selection and that the final offer selection process could only be utili zed with the consent of a majority vote of the membership. I'm sorry, I don't understand your question other than that. I think we've addressed that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hudson. Mr. Johnston. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Hudson -(inaudible)-because you represent the Manitoba Labour Board. I ask you this question because Mr. Ross represents a very large union. You represent the Manitoba Labour Federation.­ (l nterjection)-Mr. Rose, thank you. In his presentation he said, "I say tn our friends, you have divided us as management has not been able to do, and you should not do that." Do you feel this legislation has divided the union movement in Canada or the labourers in Canada or the workers that he mentions? Why would he make that statement? MR. W. HUDSON: First of all, let me answer your last question.

I don't know why he asked that question. He didn't consult me before he asked the qu es tion. Second ly, we have a process, in our organization, where we reach conclusions. We had a convention which we hold every two years, in Winnipeg, with over 600 leadership dele gates which are leadership from the known local unions represented and, as our brief says, we made a decision. If we had have made that decision by 51 percent, it would have been a majority and that would have been the decision of that group, but we made that decision by 2 to 1.

The only reason I say that, it was a more overwhelming majority than that. So that is the position and that resolution is owned by the members of the affiliates of the Federation of Labour across this province. They don't belong to me; they don't belong to -(inaudible)-as a single affiliate, they belong to the Federation of Labour. They belong to the people who are representative of that convention. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Hudson, you're telling me what your Federation did at convention. My question to you is: Does your group not feel the same as Mr.

Rose does that this government is dividing us, as he says, "divides us as management has not been able to do"? Do you believe this government is doing that? MR. W. HUDSON: I don't believe the government divided us.

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 MR. F. JOHNSTON: The government's not divided. MR. W. HUDSON: I said, I don't believe the government divided us. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. Merci er. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Huds on, can you tell th e committee how many members of your executive have resigned over the position that you're taking here tonight? MR. W. HUDSON: Two. MR. G. MERCIER: Can you tell us why the Winnipeg Labour and District Council are not here making a presentation tonight? MR. W. HUDSON: I can't tell you that, no.

I can tell you a little bit about the rules of the labour movement, which we follow quite closely. The Canadian Labour Congr ess represents the workers of Canada, who are affiliated with Canadian Labour Congress, and represent us at the Federal Government level. Each province has a Federation of Labour. Each Federation of Labour represents the workers, as instructed by convention or executive between convention, to represent them at the provincial level. Labour councils would be at Winnip eg, Bra ndon, Thomp son, or wherever . Responsibility is to represent those workers at the mun icipal level.

So I would expect that the reason the Winnipeg Labour Council isn't here is because, if they were here, they would be out of their jurisdiction. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Hudson, does your federal organization have a general position on final offer selection? MR. W. HUDSON: Do you mean the Canadian Labour Congr ess? MR. G. MERCIER: Yes. MR. W. HUDSON: I don't ever recall it being discussed at a CLC convention, no. I've missed one or two, but I've been to a lot of them. I don't remem ber. I'm quite sure they don't have, but the Manitoba Federat ion of Labour has autonomy to deal with legislation in the provinces. MR. G.

MERCIER: Mr. Hudson, how many NDP caucus meetings have you attended this year? MR. W. HUDSON: None. MR. G. MERCIER: None whatsoever? MR. W. HUDSON: No. MR. G. MERCIER: How about any other members of your organization attending NDP caucus meetings? 19 MR. W. HUDSON: 1 don't know, I really don't know. I can only answer for myself. MR. CHAIRMAN: How is that relevant to the bill? MR. W. HUDSON: I never delegated any others to go. MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have some order here?

I would belie ve that the presentation being made by the person, you should be questioning on that presentation to make it clearer, and that's the bounda ries that we're operating under. MR. J. McCRAE: What rule is that? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the rule, I believe, of the relevancy. Otherwise you can talk about how many dogs you have, Mr. McCrae. MR. J. McCRAE: Which rule are you referring to, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Rules of order. Could we have some -look we could be here until three o'clock in the morning, if you want to discuss your whole life.

Let us stick to the presentation made and ask questions to clarify it. Mr. Merci er. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Hudson, why should just one party have a veto and not the other parties? MR. W. HUDSON: In what respect are you asking the question? MR. G. MERCIER: As I un derstand it, the employees can turn down final offer selection, but management side could not turn it down, if it was requested. MR. W. HUDSON: We are of the opinion that it's the members, as we said, who will be directly affected by the results of that decision of the final offer selection.

We also know that the emp loyees can't decide how many emp loyees that em ployer is going to hire, how long that employer is going to employ people in a certain location. We have no control over that. We think, we believe this, that it balances the scales a little bit more. 1t gives the union movement one more little leg up at the bargaining table. We think it assists the process. MR. G. MERCIER: Do you not think, Mr. Hudson, that management would be directly affected by a decision on final offer selection? MR. W. HUDSON: Of course I would hope they would be affe cted, because they would be bound by the decision.

MR. G. MERCIER: Right. So when both parties are significantly affect ed, as I think you've ind icated, why should it be binding on one party and not on the other? MR. W. HUDSON: Well I thought I had answered that question by saying that the emp loyer already has an

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 awful lot more ways of influencing the workers' right to their jobs or the right to have a job or not have a job; the right whether or not the plant closes down; the right, in some cases, where there are a lot of places where I spend most of my life in Northern Manitoba where companies had the right to decide whether or not you kept your house or not, or whether your house became valueless, whether or not your whole biggest thing a working person mostly does during their life is buy a house.

I've seen friends of mine - an old friend of mine -who've had to walk away from houses they've inv ested their life in, while the mining company had mined out the ore body and had taken their profits and went away and said, thank you very much to the workers. Now your houses are useless, you can leave too. MR. G. MERCIER: So what you're saying in this process then is that the remedy of the empl oyer, in the event of final offer selection goes against the emp loyer, will be to shut the plant or fire emplo yees. That's their remedy. MR. W. HUDSON: I'm not saying that.

I think what we said at the outset - let me just reem phasize what we said. We said that the best test of FOS is the less it's used. We think that, first of all, it will make both sides reas onable. They will try to come together with reasonable proposals before they go to the selector. If they go to the selector and they have reasonable proposals, as I understand the legislation, and they find they're close together, they don't have to let the selector make the decision. We think that the best way of parties working out an agreement is by the two parties sitting down and having meaningful collective bargaining.

MR. E. CONNERY: Well, Mr. Hudson, I think the reason that we're here tonight is to discuss and deal with what's in the best interests of the workers of Manitoba, and I hope that is what the unions are here for, although I have some concern. Mr. Christophe, we have some 40,000 Manitobans who are -(Interjection)-Mr. Hudson, we have 40,000 Manitobans who are unem ployed in Manitoba. A MEMBER: You have what? MR. E. CONNERY: Forty thousand Manitobans who are unempl oyed in Manitoba, the highest numb er that we've ever had in the modern era. So this is a concern as to how we put these people to work.

Now if we didn't have labour unions, we would see management abusing labour and we did see this in the past and that was not proper. But when we see some legislation that dr ives em ploy ers away from Ma nitoba or discourages them from coming into Manitoba, then I think that this is not good for the workers of Manitoba. Do you not think that this legislation has gone that one little step too far that is going to