Manitoba Committee Hansard — Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 2 (30th Legislature, 4th Session)

30-4-ir2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba HEARING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Chairman Mr. Harry Shafransky Constituency of Radisson MONDAY, June 6, 19 77, 8:00p.m. Printed by P.N. Crosbie- Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

11E: 8:00 p.m. Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 IAIRMAN: Mr. Harry Shafransky (Radisson). MR. CLERK: May I have your attention? Mr. Jenkins, the regular chai rman was taken ill today and > gone home. Mr. Shafransky has been, I understand, appointed as temporary Chai rman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. We have a quorum, we can proceed. We have a numb er of people the list to make presentations. We shall start with Mr. Dave Grant from the Mayor's office. Mr. ant. Is Mr. Grant available? We'll go on to the next person, Mr. Tony Swann, Canadian mufacturers Association. Mr.

Swann is not present so we shall proceed to the next. Hugh Delaney, nnipeg Chamber of Commerce. MR .. .. : Mr. Chair man, Mr. Delaney is delayed for a moment. Could we proceed to another rson until such time as Mr. Delaney is here? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, all right. Canadian Association of Industrial Mechanical and Allied )rkers. Mr. Fast, are you representing ... or Mr. Pitts? ... Yes Mr. Patrick. MR. PATRICK: Mr.

Chai rman, I bel ieve that there are several people from out of town and in case l don't finish tonight, have to be back in Comm ittee tomorrow some time, would it be agreeable to e Comm ittee to cons ider at least two or three people from out of town because I belie ve they've ·eady made one trip, some of them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Wel l I don't know what has been the agreement of the Comm ittee, whether we 1al with those people from out of town or take them in the order in whic h they have been presented. MR.

GREEN: But Mr Chai rman, we have in the past quite frequently dealt with people who are )m out of the city in order that they not have to come in twice. So I understand Mr. King is from out the city, I don't know who else. MR. CHAIRMAN: There's Mr. Hi cks, Camp bell Soup Company, Portage la Prairie and Ralph King, ma dia n Chamber of Commerce. Would that be Morden? MR. GREEN: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Is Mr. Hicks present? Mr. King? If that is the will of the Comm ittee that e proceed on that basis, okay, let's proceed. Mr. King . MR. RALPH KING: Thank you, Mr. Chai rman.

As a Vi ce-Pres ide nt in the Canadian Chamber of ommerce representing Manitoba, and I also incide ntally am a manufacturer in Manitoba employing >O people. I am also a partner in a trai ler com pany which employs 16 people. But it is as a Vice resident in the Canadian Chamber that I would like to leave these words with you today. I think when I report to my colle agues in the other provinces later on this month, I wi ll have to tell 1em that Bill 65, if it is carried through in its present form, will serve as a dis advantage to the 1anufacturers in Manitoba.

The com pulsory overtime bit; I do not claim to be an expert on it because 1 past experie nce I have found that most busin esses use voluntary overti me for a simp le reason, that 1at is the one that works. But the big di sadvantage that I see in Bill 65 is the one and three-quarters ti mes one for overti me �rsus the one and-a-half that the other provinces wi ll have to pay.

As an exporter of 90 percent of the roducts that I make personally, and I think most Manitoba fi rms have to export because the people re not here, if we have to buy labou r at $8.75 and com pete against Ontario who would pay $7.50 for tat same labour, I feel that we will not be able to sell that parti cular item. Manufacturers are confined y the laws that you set. Unfortunately, consumers are not. And if I was able to put an item up on the tands at $8.75, which is ide ntical to one of $7 .50, I am quite sure that the "Made in Manito ba" label •ill mean very little to the con sumer.

I heard certain proposals this morning which says that you can pass the cost off to the customer. ven Mr. Thiebau ltsaid that. That's quite all right if you have the customer confined here in Manitoba, ut this is not so for an exporter of this product. I would li ke also for the board to know that in most companies that I have been associa ted with, 1at the overtime, more than not, replaces the regular time lost. Mr. Paulley made quite an example of 1e fact that certain fi rms only average 38-Y2 hours and I think he talked of more than one ind ustry in 1at, but Mr.

Paulley forgets that we can pay overtime even when the person may work only 32 hours 1 a week, because if a person mis ses on Monday and works overtime on Tuesday, Wednesday, 'hu rsday, Fri day and Saturday morning, we ac cumula te eight hours of overtim e and four hours of 1rem ium pay. I wo uld just li ke to gi ve you some figur es of which I am famili ar with, and these are the our firms which I am famili ar with . One of them last year had $50,000 overtim e premium pay. This is JSt the premium; thi s is not the overtime pay, this is the premium.

One of my other companies had · 1,647 hours of overti me, the thir d one had 4,973 of overti me and another one had 947 hours of 1ver time and this was a small factory in Miami, Manitoba. We also ran a night shift so we were not 1sin g overtime so much to create productivity as we were to corr ect an im bal ance along an assembl y in e. lt has been said that we could staff for the ultima te, but this is almost imp ossible because if you tave eigh t people on one operation and one person stays offfor that particular day, you have to keep 27

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 that other person, all of the other seven people overtime to make up for that loss. You would ha' choice o.f.hir ing nine people to do eight people'swork, but in that particular case, then everybc eventually would end up with less hours. In one of our facto ries last year where we worked overtime on a four-month basis, the overt was accepted on a vote. In Wi nnipeg I think that you will find that most unions would prefer overt to your running a night shift against thei r regular staff.

Even at time and-a-half, you cannot comp1 The labo ur that you buy at time and-a-half in all com petitive markets is not profitable. At time 1 three-quarters we feel that it would have to be avoided. Most overti me - and this I am saying to unions and to Mr. Paulley - most overtime is the more humane way of staffing. lt beats overstaff and layoffs. lt is also the ti me and the money that employees use to go to Hawaii and other thil whic h is outside their particular sched ule. One of the things that is forgotten by the people who are making this particular law is the fact t they're talking only of labour.

But they forget that management has the responsibil ity to sh01 profit. Management has that responsibil ity. Management has to find a way to com pete. ! would li kE point out that in most fi rms we buy labour in Manitoba and then we sell it in other provinces and otl cou ntries of the world. Many of the firms whic h are mem bers of the Chamber of Commerce wi ll l thei r product for two ti mes labour. In other words if thei r labour is $4 they sell that product for $8. When you have to pay $7 for labour and attempt to sell it for $8 you cannot com pete.

One of the other ironic thi ngs about this particular law, I did not see lab our asking for tim e a three-quarters. 11 think labour realizes - and this is the massive lab our- that they will suffer a lov income. We will lose a balance tool that we have found very handy. We have a penalty as is, becaL when a person mis ses a day at $5.00 an hour we have to buy that day back from them at $7.50, a ne most companies you will ha ve more absentees than overtime.

I have heard them hang their hat on 1 health and safety part of this particula r law, but if this is valid then I would like for somebody to st worrying about the owners and the farmers, the dair ymen, the small busine sses, the housewives a even the politicians. Manitoba must export to other provinces. Bill 65 reduces our competitive position; it limi ts c employee income; it also lim its our gross provincial product, and I see, to no one's advantage.

May one of the most im portant thing s, that it is also di scou raging when the need for expansion of jobe quite so obvious, and perhaps this explains the reason why all of the money has not been picked for Job Creation. I would like to see the government handle compuls ory overtim e with empathy, i1 way to satisfy both lab our and the industries involved. But I would li ke forth em to leave the one-an three-quarter ti mes the regular pay, which is a deterrant, to leave it alone so that we would mai ntail com petitive level with the other provinces. That is my presentation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. King.

There are some questions? Mr. Green. Before I proceed I should have made it known that there are the opportunities at this particul time for people to present thei r brie fs on other bills beside Bill 65. There is Bill 26,

An Act to ame1 The Apprentice ship and Tradesmen's Qualific ation Act; Bill 45,

An Act to amend The Vaca tions wi Pay Act; Bill 47,

An Act to amend The Department of Labour Act; Bill 50,

An Act to amend Tl Payment of Wages Act; and of cou rse the bill that we are dealing with. So I would like people to I aware that they can make presentations on any of these bill s beside s the one it seems to be mostly a Bill 65. Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr. King, you have raised a new point whic h I haven't heard mentioned before, ar that is with regard to overtime. You have indi cated that although there could be a week of 38 hours may be three eight -hour days and one ten-hour day, which means that there are six hours of overtin in that week.

And that co uld arise because a person mi ssed the fi rst day ins tead of .... MR. KING: That's right. MR. GREEN: Working five eight-hour days, she did n't come in on Monday and made up tt balance of the week by working three tens and an eight. I think that's what you ... MR. KING : That's right. And that occurs when somebody has an expertise that you cannot rep la< along your regular li ne. MR. GREEN: Well, as a matter of fact, there would be an ind ucement for them to do that. MR.

KING: We have warned the people and we have told the union that if we had a feeling that group of people were cr eating overtime, that we would make a rule that we would not replace the lost pay with their overtime, so that if they were doing that they would have to be doing it for colleague. lt is very true that if an employee stays off on Monday and they make up that extra eigl hours during the week, we have to pay them for twelve. MR.

GREEN: I am not suggesting that this would be a change, but would it, and I know that you ar not going to like it one way or the other, but would it be an amelioration if we said that time -and-threE quarters only applies after 40 hours in a week, that otherwise overtim e is at time -and-a-half? Do yo follow what I am saying? MR. KING: I do, and in most cases we would profit by that particula r arrangement , but I think . MR. GREEN: I am not interested for the moment, although . 28

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 MR. KING: ... but I think you would be penaliz ing anybody that was honestly sick. MR. GREEN: Except that that person would still get time -and-a-halt. I am not suggesting that he Jld not get the overtime rate, but he would not get the premium of ti me-and-three-quarters, except �r 40 hours. MR. KING: One of the things that I wo uld like to have understood, and I have tried to make that lerstood, that most people in busin ess are only processors of fabrics, and all they do is to buy our from somebody in Manitoba and try to sell it at a profit.

And any labour that we were going to r time -and-three-quarters for, it wouldn't make any di fference what it was, we could not make a 1 fit on that. MR. GREEN: I realize , and I am not suggesting that you would be much happier, but that would e care of that particular problem of a person who di dn't work over 40 hours, but was sti ll getting 1e-and-th ree-quarters to make up for her own or his own lost hours whic h are being worked at �rtime . MR. KING: Naturally that would be one of the advantages that we would like to see, and we have a 1ling that we cannot understand why labo ur would di ffer with us.

We would like to see it left alone it is. MR. GREEN: I understand that, and you have made that perfectly clear. I merely wanted to see 1ether I have the substance of your other point. I gather that you and your colle ctive bargaining agent have, over the years, made sati sfactory ·angements with regard to overtime. MR. KING: lt's satisf actory from a point of view that the rest of the provinces com peted on the me level that we did, but would you belie ve it or not that one of the big questions that we have from r bargaining agents is to gi ve them more overtime? MR. GREEN: I appreciate that . . .. MR.

KING: So it is not agreeable .... MR. GREEN: I appreciate that entirely and I have indi cated for your information that labour would most angry with us if we prohi bited overtime. MR. KING: Then we cannot see your point in going ahead with it. MR. GREEN: Let me deal with the next question. You do not require the assi stance of the state MR. KING: Of what? MR. GREEN: The assi stance of the government to require your employees to work overtime. You .n make that arrangement with your employees on your own.

I think you said at the beginning that ur arrangements with our employees; the best way is to voluntarily agree with them with regard to •ertime." MR. KING: I would think that even in an ind ustry, such as the printing industry where perhaps a· iO,OOO machine cou ld be shut off because somebody refused to keep it running from 4 to 5 o'clock, I :>uld thin k even in that industry, that if you kept anybody on that machine that did not want to be ere, it could be a deterrant.

I would like to emphasize, and it is very di fficult maybe in listening to •erybody, that there is a great deal more empathy between employers and employees than you ould be led to bel ieve. You must have that empathy. MR. GREEN: You don't have to tell me that. I belie ve that over 99 percent of the employers and the nployees in this province have arrived at, without any government help or hurt, arrived at their own ·rangements with regard to overtime. MR. KING: That happens to be the same percentage that I have, too. I hated to use that 99 percent �cause somebody may ask me to prove it. MR.

GREEN: If I'm wrong, I'm wrong on the conservative side. lt should probably be a high er nount. MR. KING: Then, Mr. Green, why should we have this deterrant to work with? MR. GREEN: Now let me ask you the next question. MR. KING : Go ahead. MR. GREEN: You do not need the government, and it would not be helpful from what I understood :>u said, for the government to have a law requi ring people to work overtime. MR. KING: I can see in an emergency, but I personally don't . ... MR. GREEN: Only in an emergency the bill .... MR. KING: That's right. An emergency or a great, great loss.

I can see that and I wo uld have an lea that labour would agree to that. MR. GREEN: I agree with you enti rely. Therefore you as an employer and the Canadian Chamber f Commer ce don't need the intervention of the state to requir e people to work overtime. MR. KING: I cannot speak for every ind ustry that I represent, being from Manitoba.

I understand 1at one of the ind ustries that started this in the fi rst place, perhaps by virtue of a batch of steel that ould be very hot at 4 o'clock or, I know that I visit ed a paper mill where these machines run 24 hours a ay with hot water and I forget what the cost is to shut them down. I can see in a particular case, that 29

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 even.then I would see that the compu lsory overtime should. be shared by a group. MR. GREEN: The parties can get together on it. MR. KING: I think so. MR. GREEN: So what I am putting to you is that you do not need a government to have a law says that an employer can requir e an employee to work overtime. That is something that car arranged between the employer and the employee without any state intervention at all. MR. KING: From fi rst-hand knowledge that I have I would agree with you that we can arrang MR. GREEN: I agree with you entirely. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Patrick. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Chairman, .... MR. GREEN: Then the Chamber of Commerce, and I agree on that item entirely. MR. PATRICK: Mr. King, have you got any ind ication what the cost of overtime was last yea dollars and cents, approxi mately? MR. KING: You mean in my fi rm? MR. PATRICK: Yes. MR. KING: Well, in my firm we had a figur e, there are four fi rms involved here, it was aro1 $80,000.00. MR. PATRICK: $80,000.00. And what would it be if .... MR. KING: Well, you can just di vide that. lt would be $1 20,000.00. So it would be a $40, additional cost.

Now I know that Mr. Paulley one tim e asked me if I cou ldn't absorb thi ngs like tl MR. PATRICK: Yes, that's my question. MR. KING: But the manufactu rers in the other provinces don't allow me to make that kin< money. We must make a profit. MR. PATRICK: Would it affect all of your companies? MR. KING: lt cert ainly would. And we would ha ve to make measures by which we co uld com pete and it would not be paying time and three-quarters. lt just co uldn't be.

So there woulc $40,000 that we could just say, and we're not just talking dollar bills, we're talking isolated decisi 1 whic h says if I manufacture something, I must be able to sell it. So along with making laws, I wo have to have somebo dy - perhaps they cou ld make a law that says Manitobans must buy Manit1 products. That would help us considerably. MR. PATRICK: So you would feel that you would definitely be in a non-com petitive positic MR. KING: Certai nly. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. King. MR. KING: Thank you. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Canadian Association of Industrial, Mechanical and Allie d Workers. Pitt will be speaking on behalf of the Canadian Industrial, Mechanical and Allied Workers. MR. ALLAN PITT: Yes, I wi ll be presenting the brie f, Mr. Chairman, and myself and Gerry Fast answer any questions that may be asked of us after I present it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Procee d. MR.

PITT: I appear before this Industrial Relations Comm ittee to oppose, in the stron� possible terms, the amend ments to the Employment Standards Act contained in Bill 65, wh represent this government's position on the subject of the 40-hour week and compu lsory overti1 I am here representing the views of my National Union, the Canadian Association of lndust1 Mechanical and Allied Workers, and the many locals which comprise the National Union.

I especially honoured to present the views of the stri king workers at the Griffin Steel Foundries plar Transcona, who are mem bers of CAI MAW Local 1, and who have been wag ing an hi storic and her battle si nce September 19 , 19 76 agai nst a company which bel ieves it should have the right to fo workers to work overtime and to di sc iplin e and di scharge any worker who refuses to do so.

This company whic h bel ieves in co mpulsory overti me. · 1 am also here to express the feeli ngs and opini ons of literally thousands of working people fr across this co untry who have gi ven fi nancial, moral and political support to the strikers at Gri Steel because they support this fight for the 8-hour day and voluntary overtime. This supp ort I been unprecedented in recent years in lab our struggles. Fi nally, I am here to present to you petitions wh ich cal l for legislation against com puls overtime, which have sig ned by over 3,700 Manitobans.

The opinion of all these people on the subj ect of overtime is basically very simple: overtime sho be voluntary. The indi vidual worker should have the right to refuse to work beyond the norn regular workday and workweek, and this right should be protected by law. lt is such a basic, simp le and just concept that opposition to it can only be interpreted by work people in one way; those who oppose voluntary overtime bel ieve that the employer, and not working person, should have control over how much work a person does once the regular work< and workweek is co mpleted.

Compulsory overtime is not work with dign ity; it is co mpulsory lab1 under threat of di scharge. 30

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 Ve oppose and co ndemn Bi ll 65 because it does not gi ve either the organized or unorganized Ker the rig ht to refuse overtime after the regular workday and workweek is comple ted. �i ll 65 says that "management rights shall be deemed not to incl ude any impli ed right to require mplo yee to work overtime." In other words, management can no longer require overtime simply he grounds that overtime falls within the parameter of management rights.

Under the present law, 1re a coll ective agreement is silent on the subject of overtime, management can claim authority to Jire overtime as a consequence of management rights. If Bi ll 65 is passed, management will have 1eg otiate compulsor y overtime in the case of an organized group of workers, or set out 1p ulsory hours of overtime as a condition of employment for the unorganized worker. 3i ll 65 wil l not change the essential inj ustice of the present legislatio n.

This is easily recognized m you understand that it is always management and not the workers who want com pulsory rtime clauses in col lective agreements. No workers want to give management the right to tell m when they must work overtime. No union ever puts compu lsory overtime on the bargaining le as one of its cont ract demands. Workers may want to negotiate for a guarantee of "X" hours of 1rtime per week, or they may agree to work a reasonable amount of overtime when requested to do on a voluntary basis, but no worker wants to be in the position of being told to work whenever it ts the fancy of management.

Because co mpulsory overtime is desired by management and not workers, it is clear that Bill 65 I change nothing in a practical sense insofar as the col lective bargaining process is concerned. der the present law, a union must negotiate a voluntary overtime clause in the cont ract because a mt cont ract gi ves management the rig ht to require overtime. Under the proposed changes, a 10n wil l have to negotiate against a management sponsored co mpulsory overtime clause.

The :ts of life for the union memb ership are the same: they must still negotiate voluntary overtime. der Bi ll 65, management will continue to demand co mpulsory overtime clauses, which is precisely at happened at Griffin Steel under the present law. To say that the overtime issue should be left to free co llective bargaining is to obscur e the sential pro-management rights nature of this bill. The bill permi ts management to secure overtime a compu lsory basis when workers have no interest in agreeing to give up control over their leisure urs.

At the same time, management already has the right to lay workers off whenever they deem it to be desirable. In other words, you are laid off when you are not needed, and you are compelled work longer hours when you are needed. For almost 10 0 years working people throughout the ind ustrialized world have fought for the 8- m day in strike after strike, including our own Winnipe g General Strike in 1919 , and in some cases ve died during these struggles.

Historic labour struggles, disputes which have created the nditions for a sig nificant advancement of the rights and digni ty of working people, are not a mmon event, and when they do occur they should be supported whole-heartedly by progressive 1d democr atic people who want to see society evolve into something better than what it has been. 1 stice and relief from oppressive working conditions are corn erstones upon which any society 1ich ca lls itself democr atic must be based. The strike at Griffin Steel is an historic struggle for justice and digni ty in the workplace.

The eaning of this struggle has reached the minds and hearts of countless thousands of people from all �lks of life who have responded with an unprecedented degree of support. They are waiting to see if is province wil l support working people and pass legislation which gi ves workers a justified easure of control over their lives. They are waiting to see if the political leadership in this province �li eves in and supports the 8-hour day, which has always meant a person need not work more than 8 )Urs per day, or whether you believe it is negotia ble. Bi ll 65 says the 8-hour day is negotiable.

Bi ll 65 means to us that the political leadership in this ·ovince is turning its back on the hi storic struggle for the 8-hour day. Bill 65 is essentially eaningless legislation for those workers who want the rig ht to choose to work overtime, who want ' say the 8-hour day is enough, who believe they are entitled to this measure of control over their Nn lives.

On behalf of the strikers at Griffin Steel and their many supporters throughout the labour 10vement and the population at large, and on behalf of all of those who have fought for and will ontinue to fight for justice and digni ty in the workplace, I urge you to reject Bill 65 and to replace it 'ith an amendment to the Emplo yment Standards Act which will have the effect of making all vertime beyond the standard hours of work voluntary.

To conclude, I want to say that all of the rationalizations we have heard rec ently about why the vertime issue should be left to so-ca lled "free" co llective bargaining is just so much nonsense as far s our mem bers are concerned. The Griffin strike has shown concl usively and beyond any question 1at the law and the state stand squarely on the side of the employer in a dispute over a principle issue uch as voluntary overtime. Free colle ctive bargaining is a smokescreen for the sabotage of justice 1hich has occurred at Griffin Steel.

The Griffin strike has br ought home to every worker who thinks about it the hard reality that 31

Industrial Relati ons Monday, June 6, 19 77 whenever workers try to fight a principle cause in the workplace, the employer can smash the st1 by call in strikebreakers, with the full co-opera tion of the police, and by obtaining ex parte inj unc til when the pick et line remains effecti ve. The fact that the employer has these instruments at disposal makes a mockery of the notion of free co llec tive bargai ning.

Workers, no matter 11 determi ned and co mmi tted they may be, ultimately face defeat under these cir cums tances. l Griffin strikers fought the company in an economic battle on the pi cket line and they won. l company was forced to reopen the plant and start production. But instead of si gning a col lec1 agreement, they hir ed strikebr eakers and got the police to bring them into work. If free col lective barga ining is sup posed to mean there is some kind of balance of powe1 negotiations, the example of Griffin Steel shows how patently false this notion is.

If you are not going to rectify the imb alance of power on the picket line by outlaw strikebreaki ng, then the very least you can do is outlaw co mpulsory overtime. Then workers wo not have to go on strike to protect their freedom to cho ose whether to work overtime. Thank you, Mr. Chairm an. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Pitt. MR. PITT: I would like to present these petitions to you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Those are the petitions from ... MR. PITT: Thi rty-five hundred Manitobans. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions of Mr. Pitt? There are also Mr. Fast and Mr. McE 1 available for questions if it is the Committee's wish.

Any questions? Mr. Wilson. MR. WILSON: There was a gentleman her here from the Manitoba Federation of Labour 1 morning who was indica ting, except in emergency cases, that he would like to see all overti outlawed. Do you agree with it - prohibited? Would you agree with that position? MR. PITT: No, I think we have stated it pretty clearly in our briefthat, you know, you can negoti - this. There is no question about it. But we want it on a voluntary basis. No question about it - it car done voluntarily. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Pitt. MR. PITT: Thank you very much. MR.

CHAIRMAN: There has been a letter sent to this Commit tee from the Winnipeg Econo1 Development Board Inc orporated. There is only one copy and it is from aT . S. Durham, lndust Commissioner, on behalf of J. D. Mundie, Chairman. lt is sent to the Industrial Relations Commit te wi ll make a copy of this particula r presentation available to all members. In the meantime, I will gi\ to the transcribers so it will be included with in the transcrip ts of the Comm ittee heari ngs. Mr. Hinings, representing four aerospace compani es. MR. HININGS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman .

This evening I am representing four aerospi companies named in my brief. Notice the date of the brief is May 27th. That was because it ' originally sent with a letter to Mr. Paulley because we di dn't know whatt imew e were going to havt present it. This is a brie f of four Wi nnipeg aerospace companies regarding Bil l 65. The four compar submi tting this brief, Bristol Aerospace Limit ed, Standard Aero Eng ine Limited, Boeing of Cani Limi ted, and CAE Ai rc raft Limited, provide the majority of local employment opportunities in aerospace indus try.

All our companies are governed by Provincial Labour Law; some of employees belong to unions; some have chosen not to. The work carried out by these com panies incl udes: The overhaul of airc raft, aircr aft compone and engines, the manufacture of engine and airc raft co mponents, the manufacture of rockets 1 related devices, the manufacture, repair and overhaul of sophis ti cated electr onic equi pment, 1 many other applic atio ns which, while not strictly aerospace, require a sim ilar level of expertis Our activities are fairly typical of an ind ustry that is hig hly lab our-intensive.

Commonly · produc ts require at least double the man-hour content found in the general manufac turing indw and in the case of overhaul work, that content is much greater. As a consequence of ouremp loym of compar atively large numb ers, the financial imp act of Bill 65 will be greater for us than for m other manufacturing ind ustries.

Bill 65 of cou rse contains two basic changes to the present situati on: An incr ease in the rate of 1 for overtim e work; and the provision to make overtime voluntary except under certain circumstanc An incr ease in the overtime rate: The aerospace industry is extremely comp etition and the m so because in North America the ind ustry as a whole has shrunk over the past ten years. · survivors exist only because they compe ted success fully; those that did not com pete, did not surv Any move whic h makes it harder to com pete in such a market, dec reases the abilit y of a compan: stay in business.

The Manitoba segment of the aerospace ind ustry already competes with two great disadvan ta! - distance and clima te. We are a fairly small part of the aerospace ind ustry as a Canadian indus 32

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 )ioying no more than approxi mately 10 percent of the total work force. However, our wage rates 1par e favourably with our competition in Ontario and Quebec but are quite frankly in excess of wage rates paid by some of the United States companies with whic h we try to com pete. )ur use of overtime fluc tuates, depending on our workload and the availabil ity of suitable 1power. Generally if a com pany's work load is increasing, overtime will be used heavily until 'ic ient new employees can be hir ed to meet the need.

Conversely, if a work load is dropping, rtime is compar atively low. Contrary to the Minis ter's opinio n, at least as reported by the Winni peg Tribu ne, overtim e is not ·ked in order to avoid the payment of fringe benefits. If The Tribune was accu rate in its quotation, would be extremely interested to know which companies were referred to. Quite frankly, we know 10 com panies that follow this practice and we cons ider that any that do so, must either have tefit programs that are wildly in excess of the general pattern in North Americ an industry, or are 11y mi staken in their calcu lations.

With the usual package of benefits amounting to 20 to 30 ·cent of wages, it can never be cheaper to work overtime. In any case, it is not uncommon as a 1eral practice to include overtime when cal cula ting one of the major fringe benefits, vacation pay. Overtime is worked because a com pany has insuffici ent workers avai lable to do the necessary rk in regular ti me, or because of a sudden change in work load makes extra work necessary on ·iy short notice. A cus tomer demand for accelera ted delivery, a production problem, machin e lakdown, absenteeism or any one of a host of reasons can cause that extra work.

However, hough the above points have to be placed on record, the reasons for working overtime are in fact mpletely irrelevant. The reasons in Manitoba are the same reasons for which overtime is worked in y part of the North Americ an Aerospace Industry. Whatever the reason for overtime, it is extremely ·eiy that the cost of overtime can be absorbed by anyone but the com pany. The premium portion of ertime paid becomes an extra expense of doing busin ess.

The hi gher cost of meeting the demands our cus tomers - and they can be extremely demanding - will make it more dif ficult to respond to )Se demands. it follows from this that it will be more di fficult to retain those customers and thus He di ffic ult to con tinue to employ Manitobans. The result of this change therefore tor whic h we know of no parallel in North nerica, will be to reduce employment rather than incr ease it.

The same will apply to much it not all Manitoba busin ess and ind ustry. it will be more expensive and thus more difficult for a Manitoba mp any to provide a job tor a Manitoba worker than it will be for a rival com pany to provide a job for worker in Ontario, Quebec, Minnesota, Massachu setts or any of the myriad centres where 1mpetition exists. Vo luntary Overti me: We hold to the view that it is always better to ask an employee to do 1mething than to order that employee.

We also hold to the view that an employee has a sponsibili ty to accede to the reasonable requests of his employer as regard to the working of •erti me. The great major ity of employees the greater part of the time are responsible and co >erative in this regard . There are inevitably occasions when employer and emp loyee do not agree. Jt generally these di fferences are worked out without harm to either party. However, in Bill 65 the lVernment appears to have greatly increased the cha nces of conflict between employer and nployee.

The way this proposed legislation is written with the presumed intention of making tertime voluntary unless a compa ny and its organized emp loyees agree that it should be otherwise , m only lead to more Griffin situatio ns than fewer. One com pany of this group has overtime specifically stated as voluntary in its agreement and has �d this used against it as a pressure tactic by its union during the lite of the agreement and not in �lationship to normal contract negotiations. No doubt other companies, not in the group, have had te same experie nce and if this legislation is passed many others will.

If the withhold ing of voluntary vertime becomes an accepted pressure tact ic, many employers will react at the negotiating table ith obvious results. We cons ider tor the sake of industrial har mony in this province, that this change 1ou ld not take place. If the Leg islature does decide in its wisdom to institute the change then we Jggest a further change.

The definition of strike in the Labour Relatio ns Act should have another la use added. 1 quote: "The refusal, ind ividually or colle ctively to work overtime in an attempt to force 1e employer to accede union or employee demands." We regard this approach, however, as a poor second alternative and cons ider that the situation hould be left as it is at present in whic h the great majority of employers and the great majorit y of thei r mployees quietly work out thei r own mutually sati sfactory approach to the problem.

Submit ted this 27th day of May, and at that time it was si gned by the Chie f Executives of the tour ompanies involved. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Hin ings. We have people wishing to ask questions? Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr. Hi nings, fi rst of all, let me say that I con sider this to be a very constructive 1r esentation. I go to the last part of your brie f where you say that the large majority of employers and 1mplo yees under tree contractual arrangements are able to arrive at sati sfactory provisions with egard to over ti me. That is the way it is at present.

You do not need the state to help you require a 33

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 personto work overtime? You can make that arrangement with your �mployees. MR. HININGS: We do not need the state to help us. We do not need the state to tell us that it has be voluntary. MR. GREEN: So that any state

section that says that it has to be compu lsory you can do witho MR. HININGS: Yes, we can do without it. MR. GREEN: Well, that's what the bill does. lt removes a requir ement that an employee we overtime and you say you can make that arrangement yourself with your employees. MR. HINING S: Most of the tim e that works perfectly fairly, Mr. Green. MR. GREEN!: I am aware that you never always have agreement under any cir cums tances, an know of no ideal state where this would take place.

Now you ind ic ate what I consider to be a real problem that where there is an agreement whi provides for voluntary overti me and you ha ve such agreements wit hin your group that there i� potential abuse. There are potential management abuses as well. MR. HINING S: Correct. MR. GREEN: And the potential employee abuse that you've put is not a hypothetical one, that t employees have a voluntary overtime provision. In the mi ddle of a contr act, they can get together a use that as a weapon to change the existing bar gaining arrangement. MR. HINING S: Yes, they can and it has been done. MR.

GREEN: That could create a real problem. MR. HININGS: Yes. MR. GREEN: That cou ld mean that the next time around the negotiations the employer wot want to see to it that it wouldn't happen again. MR. HININGS: This has happened I bel ieve in one situation, not in all no doubt. MR. GREEN: I know of one in whic h it has happened. MR. HININGS: Yes, so do I. MR. GREEN: Now, co uld you not in terms of a coll ective bargaining arrangement put this claL that you asked us to add.

In other words can't you do for yourselves much better than what t government can do for you -i n lab our relations I bel ieve that that's 10 0 percent true - that y could arrange with your employees that although overtime is voluntary, a clause in the agreemE could say that any attempt in concert to wit hhold overti me on the part of employees or to persuade coerce or otherwise induce people not to work overtime shall constitut e a strike and will allov grievance to the employer? MR. HININGS: This co uld be done , Mr. Green. MR.

GREEN: And that would have the effect and what's more, if it were done in that way agreement between you and your employees it would have the wonderful benefit of not involving 1 state in your relations with your employees. MR. HININGS: The state seems to have set its sights on bec oming involved in the relationshi between employers and employees, Mr. Green. We are suggesti ng an elaboration of tl arrangement to cla rify the arrangement that is suggested in Bill 65. MR. GREEN: But, Mr.

Hin ings in this particu lar case and with regard to this particul ar provision and I'm not dealing with the time and three-quarters tor the moment ... MR. HINING S: No. MR. GREEN: ... we're getting out, we're not getting in. The present law says ... MR. HININGS: You're getting in, Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: The present law says that an employer can require an employee to work overtin something which you co uldn't do without the state. MR. HININGS: The present law has been interpreted that way. lt does not come out and sa; specifically. You know, you're a lawyer.

You know you can get two lawyers who'll gi ve you t di fferent opinio ns. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Hinin gs, I'm happy to hear you say that that law doesn't requir e overtir because I never bel ieved it did either but some Ju dge says it does and therefore in the better par1 wisdom would be to remove it so that the state would not be intervening in your affairs. MR. HINING S: The state is intervening even more deeply in our affair s with this bill as i1 presently proposed. MR.

GREEN: I know , but the bill as it is presently proposed with respect to overtime takes c legal assistance to the employer, I mean state assistance to the emp loyer which you've alrea indicated you don't need and don't want. MR. HININGS: Well, one particular company with which I'm famil iar doesn't need it and does want it, but I can see situations where it could well be needed. MR. GREEN: But the clause that you're talking about which you say cou ld be put into 1 legislation as a second best , is something that you cou ld arrange between yourselves and ye employees by coll ective bargai ning. MR.

HINING S: Conceivably it could be done. 34

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 MR. GREEN: Now, Mr. Hinings, I want to turn to the time and three-quarters because you've ic ated that the Mi nister of Labour -at least you can't belie ve that he said it - and that you are ndering whether he really means it when he says that time and three-quarters is now worked hout being much of a premium. If an employer was making - let us say - $7.00 an hour and those Jrs there were 30 percent fringe benefits that would br ing him pretty close to $1 0.00 an hour that s being paid for the regular time. MR. HININGS: Yes. MR.

GREEN: Then overtime would be $10. 50 which if they only included the hourly rate in culating overtime then your overtime hour is costing almost the same as your regular hour. MR. HININGS: Fi rst of all your assumi ng a 30 percent fringe benefit package, which is a pretty nerous one. MR. GREEN: I took the best argument for myself, Mr. Hi nings, but I wanted to see whether - and � know that it mi ght not be that well- but if we took say - 30 percent is not even high enough to get $10.00 - but I said take $3.00 rather than 30 percent. MR. HININGS: You can't assume that none of those benefits are now covered.

Now wait a lment. Some employers do include overtime in the cal cula tion of vaca tion pay and of overtime pay, t beyond that. . . MR. GREEN: But the Minister has ind icated that where that's included he's liable to - he's nsidering favourably a change - but if it's not inclu ded, are my calcula ti ons corr ect if we assume .00 an hour and $3.00 in fringe benefits that the overtime hour is costing 50 cents more than the ;Jular hour? MR. HINING S: No, I di sagree with you. MR. GREEN: Why? MR. HININGS: Because you have quite a number of fringe benefits that don't depend on how any hours in a month a man works.

For instance ... MR. GREEN: But they do constitute a cost of the employer for the employee whic h is not 1gme nted by having that employee work overtime hours. MR. HININGS: They do, oh yes. But the employer will often agree to provide a certain benefit and at benefit will apply whether the employee works full numb er of hours a month or a short time in tch month or overtim e in each month. MR. GREEN: I agree. That's why ... MR.

HININGS: I'm think ing of supplementary hospital insu rance plans. lt doesn't matter a damn lW much tim e the employee works, he's covered for a certain type and a certain pattern of benefits. MR. GREEN: But doesn't that con fir m the Mi nister's position, that ce rtain hours are paid for and a >st to the employer regardless of whether overtim e is worked or not and therefore working overtime les not augment the employer's costs for these hours, whic h is what the Mi nister was saying. MR. HININGS: Well, the employer has to pay the same amount whatever the hours the employee orks, I grant you. MR.

GREEN: So, it may be more or less right, but at the present time, time and a half is not as much penalty as it used to be when there were lesser fringe benefits. MR. HININGS: Tim e and a half is only a penalty, Mr. Green, because it is wildly di fferentfrom the �tterns with whic h we compe te in Manitoba. Manitoba indus try has to com pete agai nst ind ustry in ther provinces and in the United States that pay time and a half for overtim e. Anything that adds to 1at com petitive di sadvantage is a di sadvantage to Manitoba industry. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Hinings , would it not be corr ect that 40 employees working a certain number of ours, that if you gave them al1 41 hours you would be paying time and three-quarters or time and a alf presently. If you hir ed 41 employees, it would not only not mean that you would have a hi gher Jst but you'd have a lower cost , and therefore isn't time a premium on overtime an incentive to �duce your cost by hir ing more employees. MR. HININGS: No. You don't pay overtime to avoid hi ring employees, Mr. Green. Or very rarely- 1t's put it that way - I'm not saying nobody ever does. MR. GREEN: Well, you should. MR.

HINING S: But you work overtime, as we said in the brief, to cater to situatio ns that keep rapping up. If we have a lathe operator turning out a parti cular part for a U.S. com pany and the U.S. ompany asks us to accel erate delivery of that part, there's no point in us trying to hir e another lathe perator to run that machine for four hours a week or ten hours a week. We ask the regular employee ) do that. That's overtime.

If we come up with work for two lathes, then we hir e another employee, ut not just for the extra bit of work per week or per month that is caused by increasing work · ondition s such as the one I quoted. MR. GREEN: I understand. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Hinings, how much overtime is worked in the aerospace ind ustry in the 'rovince of Manitoba -(I nterjection)- Would you kindly listen to my question . Fi rst of all' I would 35

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 li ke to know how much overtime is worked in the aerospace ind ustry in the Province of Manitoba 1 which they would be requi red to pay one and threequarter percen t overti me, not taking in consideration the point that Mr. Green has indic ated to you, that where fringe benefits are included arriving at the base rate, the time and a half will be applicable instead of time and three-quarters.

Ci you tell me against the DBS Statistics that indi cate that in your particular industry, whic h is depressed industry at the present time, the average - and I cite average, it may be di fferent betwe1 the di fferent companies that you are representing here tonight - that on average it only comes about 37 work hours per week. MR. HININGS: I'm trying to remember who it was once said , lies, damn lies and statistics, t\i Paulley ... MR. PAULLEY: I'm not talking about lies I just want to know from you Mr. Hi nings. MR. HININGS: You can use statistics to demonstrate an awful lot. MR. PAULLEY: Pardon? MR.

HININGS: You can use statistics to demonstrate quite a lot, Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEY: That's right. MR. HININGS: The DBS figur es do not take into account such things as abse nteeism. If I had tE employees on my books as an employer working 40 hours a week and I lose through absenteeism tl equivalent of one man per week, I only get 360 hours or an average of 36 hours per employee , anc can work 10 percent overtime and I still don't comp letely come back to the 40 hours a week.

No• what I' m saying is that the overtime that is worked by the ind ustry is not generally suffici ent accoun t for abse nteeism, thus your DBS Statistics that come out with a lower figur e than 40 hou per week plus the fact that those figur es cover some companies that work 40 hours, some compani1 that work 37 %. I can't answer for all the companies in the group that I' m representing , but I knowth the com pany by whom I'm employed works between four and 10 percent overtime depending c whether we are buildin g up or static or tapering off. Ac tually it drops down to 2 percent if we' tapering off badly.

But we still don't catch up with our absenteeism. So, on average, considering t1 numb er of employees we have on our books, we probably average less than 40 hours a week. MR. PAULLEY: Then isn't that a criteria that you should take into consideration when you' making representations to this commit tee that is con sidering this whole problem, - not insofar i the compa ny that you represent, and I'm not sure whic h com pany that you do represent, I mu confess - isn't this one of the factors that we have to take into cons id eration or should take in consideration? MR.

HINING: Assuming that our abse ntee rate, and our reasons for working overtime are r dif ferent from those with whom we compete, Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEY: Then, Mr. Hin ing you would agree then that the DBS figur es are reasonab accu rate that in your particula r industry the average work week is less than 40 hours per week whic would call for punitive overti me rates. MR. HINING S: I'm not quite sure what you mean by punitive overtime rates. MR. PAULLEY: Okay, time and a half or time and three-quarters They're punitive rates. MR.

HININGS: I wi ll agree with you that the average work week in the DBS Statistics - and thE are no doubt correct - is probably less than 40 hours per week. MR. PAULLEY: Okay, then what's the problem? MRBut it doesn't detract and it doesn't remove the fact that we work a certain amount of overtin and I said up to 10 percent overtime. MR. PAULLEY: Ten percent of what? MR. HINING S: Forty hours a week. MR. PAULLEY: No, ten percent in total. MR. HININGS: Ten percent of the hours we can normally get out of our work force. MR. PAULLEY: How many hours are your normal work week input as far as ... MR.

HININGS: For some of our employees 40 hours a week ... MR. PAULLEY: .. . Excuse me, just a min ute. Insofar as your particula r firm or your particuli ind ustry, what constitutes the total numb er of overtime hour s worked by emp loyees in your ind ustr) MR. HINING S: I can't answer for the industry. In in my particular firm we estima te this yei probably 60,000 to 80,000 hours. MR. PAULLEY: On how many employees? MR. HINING S: A thousand. MR. PAULLEY: And you said, Mr. Hi nings, just a moment ago that you can't estima te, or you car gi ve us precise information, but it's just an estimate. MR.

HININGS: That's an esti mate for the particu lar firm that is 60,000 to 80,000 hours on 1 ,OC thousand employees. MR. PAULLEY: But that's 60,000 to 80,000 on 1 , 000, that's about six hours, is it, over a year� MR. HININGS: it's 60 to 80 hours over a year. MR. PAULLEY: Sixty over a year which co uld conce iveably mean one or one and a half hours PE

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 ek per employee. Would that be corr ect? MR. HININGS: Yes. MR. PAULLEY: And your argument is that insofar as the application of the 1% to 1 % percent j I'm excluding the suggestion that I have made to the Leg islature that we will con sider that where 1ge benefits are included in the arriving at the time and a half - that it would not be necessary to ply 1 %, providing of cou rse that the fringe benefits equate basically the differential between 1 % cl 1 %.

Now, if in your particu lar ind ustry, the factor of approxi mately 1 Y2 hours per week per 1plo yee are applic able, isn't that really insi gnific ant in the total cost factor as far as the aerospace lustry is concerned? MR. HININGS: Yes, I never ... MR. PAULLEY: You agree with me then? MR. HININGS: No, I don't agree with you . MR. PAULLEY: Oh, you don't agree? MR. HININGS: ... that it's insignif ic ant, Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEY: Well, what would it amount to? MR. HINING S: $1 00,000. MR. PAULLEY: Half of one percent? MR. HININGS: No, maybe more than that, maybe half, maybe less than . MR.

PAULLEY: Well, let's say one percent and be generous to you. MR. HININGS: But one percent in a tigh tly competitive ind ustry- and it is vicio usly competitive, e aerospace industry - ... MR. PAULLEY: That's right. MR. HININGS: ... one percent can make the di fference between a com pany staying afloat and 1ing under. lt can make the di fference between a compa ny losing jobs that it would otherwise have >tten. MR. PAULLEY: If percha nce in your particular industry, that this is a uniform pattern, that the 1sts are incr eased by this one percent, whic h is a hypothetical figur e and I think we'll agree on that MR.

HINING S: Yes, I do. MR. PAULLEY: ... that you take on another three or four employees in the operation of your dustry, would that not elim inate ? MR. HININGS: No, Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEY: lt won't? MR. HININGS: Because as I told Mr. Green, if a customer demands that we deliver some, or asks · and it's damned near a demand sometimes - asks that we deliver something ahead of time, then e have to have the man who is working on that parti cular machine or carr ying out that partic ular Jera tion, work a little bit of overtime this week and next week.

The week after it will be a di fferent nployee, and that week after that a thir d one, three or four employees who can do every job in the ace? No. MR. PAULLEY: All rig ht, so that lessens the imp act. That lessens then the im pact on the indivi dual nployee. Now I wo uld like to ask you ... MR. HININGS: lt lessens the im pact on the ind ividual, it doesn't dec rease the im pact on the Jm pany, this one and th reequarters. MR. PAULLEY: No, okay. I would li ke to ask you, Mr. Hi nings, how many of the firms that you are lpresenting here this evening, are subject to a co llective agreement? MR.

HININGS: Two of us I know of. MR. PAULLEY: Are there any provisi ons in the col lective agreement that provide for a base for vertime work? MR. HINING S: Yes. MR. PAULLEY: What are they? MR. HININGS: What I am most famil iar with, it is time and a half for the fir st four hours, then oubl e time. lt is double time after more than 12 hours a week. MR. PAULLEY: Then can you tell me, Mr. Hinings, how many hours are worked on 1 Y2 ti mes and ow many hours are worked on double ti me, because in my mathematical mi nd which is quite ·equently defici ent, the differential between 1 Y2 and twice does not equate 1 %. MR.

HININGS: The only hours that are worked on double tim e are very few extreme emergency ,ours in main tenance cases generally, Mr. Paulley. The bulk of overtime is not worked on double me. Time and a half is expensive enough as it is. Doubl e tim e is far too expensive to try and sell a 1 roduct. Time and three-quarters would be more expensive than time and a half. MR. PAULLEY: I appreciate that, Mr. Hi nings. Your observations are corr ect and I think that that is 1bvious, that if you're paying time and a halffor a certain numb er of hours and double time for others, 37

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 it's more punitive for your companies to pay double ti me. But that doesn't answer the question th; am dir ecti ng to you. Your objection is, in part, to 1 %, now, what aboutthe two companies that y indic ate are not represented by col lective agreement. How do they work? MR. HININGS: They pay time and a half. I don't know if they pay double time, Mr. Paulley, or n MR. PAULLEY: They have to pay time and a half. MR. HININGS: Oh, yes, sure they do. MR. PAULLEY: But what about double time? MR. HININGS: I don't know if they pay double ti me or not. But if they do . MR.

PAULLEY: So, then, I don't want to be argumentative with you, Mr. Hi nings, but you do know. MR. HININGS: No, I don't know. MR.

PAULLEY: Apparently the im pact on the organizations or the companies that you � representing here tonight, the im pact of the cost of overtime, but you generalize - and I'm r attempting to be critical of you, the indi vid ual - but you indic ate to the comm ittee that you are n aware of two of the four companies that you are representing as to the im pact of overti me becau you don't know whether or not the two companies that are not under colle ctive agreements p double time or otherwise; and indeed, at your own remarks you don't know the input of doubl e tir against time and a half. MR.

HININGS: Double time is hardly ever worked, Mr. Paulley, in comparison ... MR. PAULLEY: Have you any figur es? MR. HININGS: In the case of the company that I represent, maybe 5 percent of the total hours overtime are double time. MR. PAULLEY: When would that occur ? MR. HININGS: This, as I said a few moments ago, these are mai ntenance cases, extrer emergencies, where you have to have somebody work beyond the time and a half level into dout ti me. MR. PAULLEY: What about work for Sundays? MR. HINING S: Sunday is double time, but it is hardly ever done. MR. PAULLEY: Sunday is double time in any case. MR.

HINING S: lt is hardly ever carried out. MR. PAULLEY: Could you produce for the benefit of the Commit tee, figur es of a breakdown those hours in order that the Comm ittee and myself would be in a position to challenge the avera statistics docu mented in the latest information that came on my desk, that in your particular indust1 Aerospace - and I ag ree that it's in a depressed situation at the present time - cou ld you . MR. HININGS: Depressed but trying to build up ... MR. PAULLEY: Pardon? MR. HINING S: Depressed, but trying to build up at the moment. MR.

PAULLEY: That's right, and we're trying to help you build it up. And we're also attempting provide job s for Manitobans as against other alternatives. I'm sure even that you will appreciate this point in time ... MR. HINING S: I don't dis agree with the attempt to provide jobs, but I feel that this will wo against it though, Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEY: All right. Now then, my question then to you, Mr.

Hin ings is, can you provide t' Comm ittee with information insofar as the input of double time as against ti me and a half, becaus have indi cated in the Leg islature that I am prepared -I'm almost dic tatorial, I don't mean it that w - but I have indi cated to the Legisla ture that where fringe benefits are incl uded in the base rate f overtime, that we are prepared to amend the legislation so that those firms that have a colle cti agreement that provide for the base rate to include fringe benefits are not prejudic ed against

b) uniform application of time and three-quarters. MR. HININGS: I don't get your connection of fri nge benefits with double time; but I can certa ir provide for the company that I represent -I don't know about the group - the incidence of dout time versus tim e and a half, that I can provide for the comm ittee, com pared with regular hours if ne1 be. MR. PAULLEY: Yes. Butthe only thing, Mr.

Hini ngs, is I am sure that you wi ll appreciate or gi ven a little credit for, that I do look at statistics from ti me to time that are contr ary to the position that y1 are taking on behalf of the four companies that you are representing here tonight. MR. HINING S: Not necess arily contrary, Mr. Paulley. lt's just that maybe you are not aware of ' the factors that go into the com pletion of those statistics. I'm not sayi ng that they're con trary. ! do1 agree that they shoot down the position I've taken. MR. PAULLEY: Okay. Can you tell me, Mr.

Hini ngs, as to the total number of employees that a covered under a co llective agreement as opposed to those who are not covered under col lecti agreements? lt is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that provision is made in col lective agreemen for some control or some methodology in whic h overtim e is worked. Can you gi ve me a breakdown 38

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 :he numb er of employees covered with the col lective agreement and those that are not? MR. HININGS: I can do that. MR. PAULLEY: Would you ki ndly do that? MR. HININGS: Certai nly. MR. PAULLEY: And then one further question, Mr. Chairman, . MR. HININGS: What was the purpose of that fig ure though, Mr. Paulley? MR.

PAULLEY: Because statistics are lacki ng; and that is one of the reasons that in the proposed islation that there will be a requir ement for a reporting to the Manitoba Labour Board of overtime urs so that we will have stistical information for the future; because you, li ke I, are arguing a point re that we're really not knowledgeable about because of the lack of statistical date, and that's the >vision there. So that is . . . MR. HININ GS: Don't you think you've jum ped the gun a bit with this type of legislation if you are :king in statistics, Mr. Paulley? MR. PAULLEY: No, it is not, Mr.

Hini ngs, because I am going in accordance with statistical ormation that is avai lable to us which you dispu te, and that is the statistical information provided the Dominion Bu reau of Statistics which indic ate that your particular industry only works about .5 hours on average per week. MR. HININGS: If you accept those figures as ind icating that there is no overtime worked, what is � purpose of the legislation, Mr. Paulley? MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Hinin gs, I am not going to get into an argument.

All I'm sayi ng to you is, that u are appearing before the co mmittee tonight to di spute our suggestion that overtime is really >igni ficant to the total cost operation of your ind ustry, and I use the only statistics that we have ail able to us to di sprove your allegations, and those of others, who we wi ll be hearing from, thatthe rplication of one and three-quarters for overtime will chase the ind ustries out of the Province of mitoba. MR. HININGS: I don't di spute the statistics you have, Mr. Paulley, ... MR. PAULLEY: All right, that's ali i want to know as far as that

part is concerned. Now you say that 'O of your companies are organized? MR. HININGS: Partly organized, I should say. MR. PAULLEY: Pardon? MR. HININGS: Partly organized, I should say. Partly organized. MR. PAULLEY: Partly organized. Now what do you mean? MR. HININGS: Not al l of our employees are covered by a bargaining unit. MR. PAULLEY: Okay. One la st question to Mr. Hin ings, Mr. Chairman.

In the period of time that >u have been conn ected with these four companies, two organized and partially, two unorganized, ive you had any industrial dis putes in the aerospace indus try which could be attrib uted to· ·ovisions for overtime? MR. HININGS: Not in my own company, and I don't belie ve in the other company that is ·ganized, Mr. Paulley, no. MR. PAULLEY: Fine, Mr. Chairman. So it hasn't been a factor insofar as negotiations in the ·riving at a co llective agreement? MR. HININGS: Not to the point of an ind ustrial dis pute' Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEY: Thanks. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR.

SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hinin gs, has it been your experience in in dustry 1at fringe benefits, generally if not consis tently, are based on gross pay? MR. HINING S: lt varies widely, Mr. Sherman, and not all fringe benefits can be related to pay. acation pay can and in some of the companies cert ainly it is related to gross pay. In the matter of rovision of life insurance, no, it is not generally related to the number of hours a man works, or nything like that. You provide a cert ain amount of life insurance that is either a flat sum or based on n assumed annual rate of earnings.

Provision of semi-priv ate hospital insurance is not based on pay, nd this type of thing. So some are and some aren't, but it's widely varied. You can't generalize on that ne, I'm sorry. MR. SHERMAN: What about the Canada Pension Plan, it's based on gross pay. MR. HININGS: That's based on gross pay, yes. MR. SHERMAN: What about, well vaca tions with pay, that's based on gross pay. MR. HININ GS: Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. lt isn't requir ed to be under Manitoba law. Sorrie ompanies do pay a percentage of gross pay though. MR. SHERMAN: What about Unemployment Insurance? That's based on gross pay. MR.

HINING S: Based on gross pay, yes. MR. SHERMAN: What about Workers' Compensation? That's based on a flat levy per job. MR. HININGS: Per $1 00.00 a payroll. MR. SHERMAN: Yes. 39

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 MR. HININGS: ... for regular payroll unit. MR. SHERMAN: Per payroll unit, yes, So when Mr. Green - well just before I get to that - th are a substantial numb er of major fringe benefits that are based on gross pay. They are based gross pay. MR. HININGS: Yes. MR. SHERMAN: So to take the figu re, for example, that Mr. Green took of $7.0 0 and 30 perc fri nge benefits which would bring that up to $9. 1 0, Mr.

Green said $9.00, $1 0.00, well $9.10 - e1 that would be something of an exaggeration, would it not, because if you're looking at 30 perc fringe benefits, you're looking at a lot of these substantial fringe benefits we're talking about here t are based on gross pay to beg in with ; so do you see any benefit to the amendment that the Min iste Labour has suggested he mi ght bring in, in terms of basing the overtime rate on the rate of pa fri nge benefits are include d in the base? Do you see any particular im provement if the Min ister t suggested he migh t impr ove the bill, in his view, by doing that?

Would you regard that as a sign ific1 impr ovement? MR. HININGS: lt would be a bu reaucra tic nightmare. MR. SHERMAN: Rather than being a signi ficant impr ovement, it would be a bu reaucra nightmare. Not only that but it wo uldn't even be an imp rovement, really would it, because of 1 numb er of fringe benefits that are based on gross pay to beg in with ? The second point: I want to ask you about the im pact of overtime. Beyond the pure mathemat that Mr.

Paulley has been pursuing and that's a legitima te pursuit, but beyond that, measured no1 terms of those pure mathematics but measured in terms of the psychological im pact, do you se' serious psychological im pact for busi ness and industry in this province by going to the time a three-quarters overtime rate? MR. HININGS: I am no psycholog ist, Mr.

Sherman, but I think it would incr ease the feeling that ' are working at a di sadvantage in climbing uphill all the tim e trying to keep a private ind ustry ba going in this province. lt would certa inly work against the development of new industry in t province or the expansion of existing industries. MR.

SHERMAN: If you were working for your company at the presentti me, not in Wi nnipeg but us say in Ontario, and you were asked, having studied the facts, to suggest where you would like come and start up an operation for your company in western Canada and you were told that in Briti Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan - let us say all thi ngs being equal in terms of available labo force - and in British Columbia, AI berta and Saskatchewan, the overtime rate was tim e and on e-h and in Manitoba it was time and three-quarters without goi ng into the mathematical calculations tt Mr.

Paulley has put, would you find that a rather significant dis couragement for elec ting to come in Manitoba? MR. HININGS: Yes, I wo uld most cert ainly. MR. SHERMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Hin ings, did you gi ve us a figur e of the approxima te overtime cost you'll ! faced with, with this legislation? MR. HININGS: For one particular company I did. I think the fig ure I tossed out was probat $1 00,000 -(I nterjec tion)- a little more, $1 20,000 did I say? MR. McKENZIE: The other question, Mr.

Chair man, di d I hear you or the Min ister say that tl legislation will create more jobs for your company? MR. HININGS: I did n't. I think I said it would be likely to cr eate fewer, Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Hin ings. MR. HININGS: Thank you Mr. Chai rman. · MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hi cks, Campbell Soup Company, Portage la Prairie. MR. WILKINSON: Mr. Chairman, migh t I corr ect two thi ngs. Fi rst of all my name is not Mr. Hi ck it's Wi lkinson. Mr.

Hicks was not able to be here and this morning it was alleged that Campbel l SOl Company was in Brandon. lt isn't, it is still in Portage la Prairie. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well I have ind icated Portage la Prairie. MR. WILKINSON: In Mr. Hicks' absence, I have been asked to read a brie f, I have a few copies of available. MR� CHAIRMAN: Fi ne. The Clerk clerk wi ll distribut e them. Wilki nson as in Wilki nson ... I didr want to gi ve any extra publi city. MR. WILKINSON: I am sorry I don't have enough to gi ve one to every one.

The brief reads � follows: We are very concerned regarding the proposed legislation to be introduced in Manitot amending the The Emp loyment Standar<ls Act which would prohib it voluntary overtime and raise t� overtime rate to time and three-quarters. We bel ieve the impl ementation of this amendment would add addi tional costs to the operation < 40

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 Jr manufactu ring faci lity located in Portage la Prairie and would also limi t our abil ity to operate our ant in an eco nomical and efficie nt manner. Since we are working with perishable ingredie nts and finished food product, it is essential that ese food items be processed with in prescri bed tim e limi ts. Although we normally sched ule eigh t >Ur working periods, any delays in the manufactu ring process such as equipme nt breakdowns, !cessi tates overtime to handle ingredie nts already in the system.

Vo luntary overtim e has storically allowed us to cope with this type of situation. Legislation to the contrary will hinder our >il ity to deal with such problems in the most effective manner possibl e. Production of the products manufactured at Portage la Prairie is sales orie ntated. In any gi ven eek, it mi ght be necessary to manufacture for longer than eigh t hours a day to fill orders. At the ·esent time we are able to cope with these production peaks with voluntary overtim e.

Restrictions 1 voluntary overtime could force us to im port extra product from our Ontario plant. lt has been a Campbell Soup Company policy to util ize as much as possible, ingredi ents grown ithin the im medi ate area of our plants. In Portage la Prai rie, we have worked with growers to 3velop vegetable cr ops which meet our needs. Since some of these vegetables are perishable, uticularly when weather is unfavourable, extended production hours are so'metimes necessary if e are to maximize the use of local grown crops.

Our objective is to manufacture as much as poss ible of produc ts sold in western Canada, using anitoba labour and Manitoba ingredie nts. Since the Portage la Prairie plant com petes with our ant in Toronto, Ontario, for sche dule, it is essential that we be able to operate efficie ntly and fectively so that our products are econ omic ally competitive with produc ts manufacturered 1anufactu red in the east - not only of our own com pany but th ose of our com petitors.

Any �strictions which would increase the cost of manufac turing in Manitoba could make the imp ortation f product from the east a viable alternative. Mr. Chai rman, that's the brie f that I wish to present. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr. Wil kinson, I take it that you would want a law whic h would permit voluntary �erti me? MR. WILKINSON: Yes, Sir. That has worked historically very well with us. We do not have a )llective agreement with our employees and this is has not been a problem. MR. GREEN: So you wouldn't want a law that would prohib it people from working overti me? MR.

WILKINSON: No, Sir. MR. GREEN: And you wouldn't want a law that would requir e people to work overti me? MR. I WILKINSON: No, Sir. MR. GREEN: You would want a law that would leave it up to the parties? MR. WILKINSON: That's correct. MR. GREEN: Can you tell me whether this law prohi bits voluntary overtim e or are you just reading brie f? MR. WILKINSON: Well I am reading the brief but oneofthe con fusions, as we understand it in our )m pany, is that we weren't certain that voluntary overtim e would be allowed. MR.

GREEN: Can I tell you to rest assured that you can go back to your com pany and tell them 1at the law does not prohibi t voluntary overtime. What it does is take out what appears to some eople to be a requi rement in the law that the overtime be compul sory. But it doesn't pr ohibit an nployer and an employee from arriving at an arrangement with regard to overtime. - nterjec tion)- Oh, yes, it does change the rate. Well Mr. Chair man, I wasn't trying to confuse Mr. lilki nson. -(ln terjection)- MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. I'll put you on the list. MR.

GREEN: There are two parts to the bill and in case you have the same mi sunderstanding as lr. Bi lton, I wasn't referring to the rate. MR. WILKINSON: No, I was aware of what you were saying. MR. GREEN: You understood that? MR. WILKINSON: Righ t. MR. GREEN: Well Mr. Bi lton di dn't understand that but I am glad that you did. I was just talking bout the provision as to a requi rement, that as uar as you're concerned, the law should neither !q uir e or forbid overtime. That should be something between the employer and the emp loyees. MR. WILKINSON: That's co rrect, Mr. Green. Our

interpretation of this was that the only overtime 1at would be allowed would be emergency and we really did not know what emergency meant. MR. GREEN: The law wi ll not prevent you from arriving at an agreement with your employees · ither for overtime, when and if they want to do it, or some prearrangement, a pre-understanding as >o vertime. MR. WILKINSON: Individually or on a colle ctive bargainin g basis? MR. GREEN: lt will let you and your employees make whatever agreement is a sati sfactory to you 1at you can arrive at with regard to those things, but it will not prohi bit voluntary overtime. 41

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 MR. WILKINSON: If I migh t clar ify that, Mr. Green. Are you saying that there would have to co llective agreement? MR. GREEN: Not necessa rily, no, no, not necessa rily. MR. WILKINSON: Very good, that's good. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEV: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Wi lkinson in effect answered the question of Mr. Gr insofar as Campb ell is concerned at Portage la Prairie, there isn't a coll ective agreement, Wil kinson, at the present ti me. MR. WILKINSON: That's corr ect, Mr. Paulley. MR.

PAULLEV: You say on the fi rst page of your brief, referred to about the last sentence. "At present time we are able to cope with these production peaks with voluntary overtime." Ther nothing in the a Act that prevents, as Mr. Green has poi nted out, an arrangement for volun overtime and I trust and hope that as far as Camp bell is concerned, as a good employer, that it will attempt to imp ose so-c alled voluntary agreements on its employees arbitr ari ly and I just make · comment aside. MR. WILKINSON: Well Mr. Paulley, in the interest of bei ng economically competitive, it's in own interest not to work overtime.

MR. PAULLEV: Righ t, that's right. And I note, too, that insofar as your particular ind ustr concerned, accord ing to DBS, that your weekly average, and I always emphasize average, work w is - in accordance with the last DBS statistics that I have available to me- a3 7.4 represent, whic less than the 40-hours, which, of cou rse, obvi ates the necessity on average. I can apprecia te th can be fluc tuations and I'm sure that there is no di fferences of opinion between us in the usE average, as against particu lar or pecul iar situations that migh t arise from time to time. MR. WILKINSON: Righ t. MR.

PAULLEY: And unless you can indic ate that there is a co nflic t in the statistical informat that's supplied to all in sundry from the DBS, there really isn't much argument except as so far pecul iar situations are concerned. One thing, Mr. Wilkins on, I would like to ask of you: "Restrictions on voluntary overtime wo force us to im port extra products from our Ontario plant." That really di sturbs me, Mr.

Wi lkins because I'm a native Manitoban and want your ind ustry to flourish at Portage la Prairie and it dt concern me when indic ate in your brief that restrictions on voluntary overtime, whic h I think Green has clarified, is not our intent, would force you to imp ort extra produc t from your Onta plant. I wonder if you would expand on that? MR. WILKINSON: Yes, Sir. Migh t I say that I' m an easterner who has become a Manitoban and . MR. PAULLEV: I bet you find benefits far greater than in Ontario. MR. WILKINSON: ... and I sort of find that I am liable to stay here. MR. PAULLEV: But go ahead. MR.

WILKINSON: What we were saying here was that if the intent of Bill 65 was to say that co uld not work overtime, voluntary overtime, then in order to meetthe peaks of production we wo have no alternative but to reach into our Ontario operation and bring the product out to Manitoba. ' don't want to do that, obviously. MR. PAULLEY: No, and we don't want you to do it either. We want you to "t in" our o Manitobans. And I guess, Mr.

Wilkin son, when I make that statement that we want you to emp Manitobans I cou ld be accused of be ing sli ghtly parochial, because that is our objective and I de think, as has been pointed out by my colleague, Mr. Green, that there is anything contained in t legislation that goes contrar y to that general objective. And I apprecia te too, Mr. Wi lkinson, that tht has been, at least in my opin ion as a sponsor of t his bill, a mi sunderstanding of some of the objecti\ and provisions with in the Act.

I hope, Sir, that as a result of your appearance here, and I apprecia t• very much , that some of those areas have been clarifie d to the satisfac tion of Campbell Soup Portage la Prairie and indeed in the whole area of manufactu ring in the Provi nce of Manitoba. MR. WILKINSON: Well, we appreciate your comment s, Mr. Pa ulley, and if indeed volunt! overtime is sti ll access ible without, say, negotiati ng a colle ctive agreement as in our case, then tl does not become a problem. We can still meet our peaks of production and emergencies and carry the busi ness in a com petitive manner. MR.

PAULLEV: I think this is the case, Mr. Wilkin son, and if after this bill is passed - and I'm st of inclin ed to think that it wi ll be passed - you have any problems in this particula r area we would more than pleased to hear from you accor din gly. MR. WILINSON: There is one other comment, if I mi ght make it, that our present policy is a tir and a half policy and therefore, just in plain mathematics, any incr ease in the overtime rate woL necessarily be an incr eased cost to our busi ness. MR. PAULLEV: Well, I' m glad you raised that, Mr.

Wilk inson, Can you tell me whether or not int l base rate to which time and a half is applic able at the present time, ce rtain fringe benefits a 42

�l uded? Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 MR. WILKINSON: I can't answer that. I'm not ... MR. PAULLEY: I wonder, Mr.

Wilki nson, then as you can't answer -I 'm not trying to nail you to e masthead - that you mi ght take a look at that because I announced in the House the other day at where fringe benefits are incl uded in arriving at the base rate, if they are not less than the >plic ation of a general formula of the base rate of one and three-quarters, we would take into msid eration and, as a matter of fact as I indic ated, I announced in the House, that I'm prepared to tve cause an amend ment to the legislation to the effect that where fringe benefits are inclu ded to, juratively speaking, equate the one and three-quarters, time and a half will sti ll be applic able.

So I ink that it may be in the interests of Camp bell Soup as indeed, in the interests of other plants as well, ·take a look at that aspect and then the one and three-quarters would not be as widespr ead as it is �cause we have no desire of asse ssing double penalties on an employer who takes into msideration the fringe benefits that are being paid by making that employer apply one and three Jarter percent as against one and a half and I think this gi ves me the opportunity, Mr.

Wilki nson, �cause of the type of your presentation, what I think is reasonable and fair to re-emphasize the :>sition taken by myself as a sponsor of this bill in the Legislature when we were dealing with it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bi lton. MR. BIL TON: Mr. Chai rman and Mr. Wilki nson, I have one or two, possib ly three questions I would <e to ask. I wonder if you cou ld inform the Comm ittee as to how this legislation may effect the growers? I sk that question because I compare your industry with the dair y ind ustry.

The cows have got to be lilked twice a day whether we like it or not, whether it's a 40-hour week or a 48-hour week or a 60- our week. How does that affect the farmers when the vegetables are ready to be transferred to you? MR. WILKINSON: This is one of the problems that we have that falls into the norm of working 1ore than eight hours in a day. We contract, for example, about 800,000 pounds of celery. You have a llatively short period of time of about four weeks to get this off. If you have any inc lement weather uring that period of ti me, you're running to try and get that crop salvaged before frost comes. MR.

BIL TON: Do you pay overtim e during that period? MR. WILKINSON: We pay overtime over eight hours, yes. MR. BILTON: During that four-week period to take off that crop? MR. WILKINSON: Oh, yes, if we work more than eigh t hours we pay the overtime. MR. BIL TON: How does thi s affect other vegetables? MR. WILKINSON: To a lesser extent because potatoes and carrots, for example, can be stored. le have a mushroom farm whic h is company -owned which has peaks of growth and that is cert ainly ffect ed. When the mushrooms are ready, you have to run them. MR. BIL TON: Could you tell us, Mr.

Wilkins on, what this means to the agricultural ind ustry in the 'ortage la Prairie area with your firm? Ju st a bal lpark fig ure? Payroll. MR. WILKINSON: No, Sir, I can't. I'm not confident to gi ve that figur e; I don't know it. MR. BIL TON: You wouldn't say a mill ion dollars? MR. WILKINSON: I wouldn't want to guess on it, no. MR. BIL TON: We heard this morning a good deal on a 40-hour week and a 36-hour week. How 1o uld this affect your industry and the farmers as well that supply you with the wherewithal to keep our plant running? MR. WILKINSON: Are you saying if we cou ld only work 40 hours? MR.

BIL TON: That's right. MR. WILKINSON: There would be times when we would be in trouble because there would be :rops to harvest and product to run and we would not be able to run it. MR. BIL TON: You are telling us, you are telling this Comm ittee in no way, in no way at all would 40 1our s a week acc ommodate this ind ustry? MR. WILKINSON: What we would have to do, I think, would be to modif y our antici pation as to vhat we could handle, contr act less of the materials on a local crop basis, and imp ort the balance vhen and if we co uld handle it. MR.

BIL TON: Cou ld you gi ve us a ball park figu re as to how many hours overtime your company >aid out last year? MR. WILKINSON: No, Sir, I can't. I don't know that figur e. MR. BIL TON: Could you gi ve us those fig ures, or co uld you provide the Comm ittee with them? MR. WILKINSON: I cer tainly think they could be, yes. MR. BIL TON: One last question, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Wilki nson, if what I' ve attempted to outline to · rou today -y ou probably heard what happened this morning - but however, if you find that this egislation com pacts and restricts your company, would it be the feeling of the Camp bell Soups that hey would take the same route as Christie Biscuits? MR. WILKINSON: All I can say to that is that we have a plant in Ontario that is about five times the lize of the plant that we have in Manitoba and if the econo mi c cli mate became so bad that the Portage )peration wasn't viable, yes, I think it would have an effect. 43

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 MR. BILTON: Thank you very much. MR. PAULLEY: Could not the reverse take place between Ontario and Manitoba? MR. WILKINSON: Yes, sir , we try to take sched ule away from them whenever we ca n. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Do you understand under this legislation that you as an employer cannot requ your employees to work overtim e unless it is an emergency? MR. WILKINSON: Yes, but I understand from what Mr. Paulley said that there cou ld be a voluntl agreement. MR.

McKENZIE: Yes, but would there be cases of an emergency in your operation, weather such, where you would requir e X number of additional hours of overtime in a certa in case? MR. WILKINSON: That's possible, yes. MR. McKENZIE: Would you think you should be include d in the definition of what an emerger is in the Act? Have you looked at that possibil ity? MR. WILKINSON: We do have emergencies.

If a fillin g mach ine br eaks down at three o'clock the afternoon and we lose half an hour and our eight hours are over at four o'clock, obviously we h� got to make up that half-hour because the produc t is already in the system. If we cou ld not we overtime, then obviously what you would have to do is dump the product and this would not conduc ive to an ec onomic situation. MR. McKENZIE: Mr.

Wi lkinson, this rnornNG THE Deputy Mayor of the City was here and br ought matters to the attention of the Commit tee such as hydro, fire, polic e, health servic1 transportation problems, wi ll likely be cla ssed as emergencies. If something happens to the essential services, then they would be in the legislation spelled out that they could be classed as emergency. I'm just wondering if you have any idea of any weather system that co uld cause emergency to your plant or the people who are on contr act for your fi rm? MR.

WILKINSON: Certainly an interruption in hydro power, an interruption in gas -t hese thin could very definitely affect us. MR. McKENZIE: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Wilki nson . Oh, Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr. Wilki nson, Mr. McKenzie has asked you, when you have extra work you WOl requir e your employees to work overtime. I take it from what you sai d, Mr. Wi lkinson, that you hav1 pretty good working arrangement with your employees? MR. WILKINSON: Yes, we feel we do. MR.

GREEN: If you had the right to ask them to work overtime under such a situation, has it be your experience in the past that you could get co-opera tion from them? MR. WILKINSON: Yes. MR. GREEN: You don't need the help of the government to pass a law requir ing your employees work overtime in order for you to get thei r co-opera tion? MR. WILKINSON: No, I don't think we do. MR. GREEN: Thank you very much. MR. WILKINSON: As long as we can have voluntary overtime. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Wilk inson. MR. WILKINSON: Thank you, Sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

The next one is the Manit oba Cham bers of Commerce and I ha a letter from the manager, Gordon MacPherson, ind ica ting that due to heavy

schedule comm itme nts by senior officers of our organization, it is not likely that they will be abl e to be prese to present thei r brie f on Bill 65. However, the brie f is avai lable for di stribution to Members of tl Comm ittee and will be di stri buted and put into the transcri pts. MR. PAULLEY: Okay, I'm sorry, Mr. Chaimm an, for the interjec tion. MR. CHAIRMAN: We shall proceed to the next one. Mr. Holmes, Lab our Relations Council. MR. H. HOLMES: Good evening. I wi ll be reading the subm ission of the Labour Relations Counc Mr.

Akins, the Di rector from the Counci l, will be up here to field some questions and to dir ect son questions to the Committee after I am finished. MR. PAULLEY: This is a construction ind ustry, is it? MR. HOLMES: lt is. MR. PAULILEY: Thank you. MR. HOLMES: On behalf of the unionized sector of the construction industry, the Labour Relati1 Council would like to make the following comments regarding the proposed Bill 65. Ordi narily the construction ind ustry is largely unaffected by The Emplo yment Standards Act bt in the case of Bill 65, a numb er of amendments seem to apply to the constraction ind ustry.

Section 1 Subsection 4 of the Construction lndnstry Wages Act, would seem to cause Amendment Numb er whi c h calls for a min imum oftime and three-quarters for overtime, to apply to us. This, combined with the amendments to 31 , Subsection 1 which limi t us to negotiating no mo than a 40-hour week or the amount specified in The Construction Industry Wages Act, will caw 44

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 ·ge incr eases in costs on many projects. For example, in The Construction Industry Wages Act, we have 42-% hours for labour ers, 'wever, in our col lective agreements, masonry labou rers have 45 hours as a workweek. Because construc tion is a "pass-on" ind ustry, it is the purcha ser of construction produc ts who 11 pick up this added cost. In the case of recrea tional facil ities, schools, hospitals, etc., it will be the tizens of Manitoba who wi81 pick up this cost.

Also, any increased costs in the constructio ind ustry 11 have a serious inflationary effect on the economy and a dampening effect on the demand for mstruction and the refore, an incr ease in unemployment. Also inc luded in the proposed amendments are restrictions on employers requir ing employees to ork overtime except in emergencies as defined in

Section 33 (1 ). This sec tion 33( 1) refers 'ecifically to the manufacturing ind ustry with its references to a plant and its machi nery, but it does )t define what can and should be consider ed an emergency in the constructi on ind ustry. Because any operati ons, such as a concr ete pour, require a co ntinuous work flow until the procedure is )mplete, it is not feasible to cease work at the normal quitting ti me when a concr ete pour or similar )eration is not co mplete.

The definition of "emergency" in the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Act which reads, "any Jdden or unusual occu rrence or cond ition that cou ld not, by the exercise of reasonable judgment, :lVe been foreseen by the employer" would seem to be more reasonable. Inci dentally, this seems to cover a number of the problems that were brought up in earlier briefs.

In conclusion, we feel that this legislation is ai med at correc ting what we feel are largely (agge rated problems in other ind ustries, yet these legis lative amendments may detrimentally affect ur ind ustry whic h has operated effect ively under existi ng legislation with very few problems lgarding hours of work and overtime. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Holmes. Mr. Paulley. I'm sorry, there is a second part. I belie ve tat we should take both of the parts. Mr. Aki ns. MR. GEORGE R. AKINS: Gentlemen, with your permis sion, I would like to reverse thi ngs and ask 1e Comm ittee some questions.

The concern of our Council is to cla rify whether or not the proposed wisions to the Emplo yment Standards Act will be applied to the construction ind ustry. MR. PAULLEY: That's obvious that it does not. MR. AKINS: With respect, Mr. Paulley, from reading the amendments, it is not obvious whether 1ey will apply or not. MR. PAULLEY: lt is most regrettable that they are working compuls ory overtime and we are not. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green, on a poi nt of order. MR. GREEN: Yes, I speak on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Akins can make a presentation. le cannot reverse the proced ure.

He is not here to ask us questions. If he wishes to make his brief a eries of questions rhetoric ally asked in which he hopes to get answers, that's fi ne, but it is not our roced ure that the procedure is reserved and the delegation asks questions of the Comm ittee. So 1erefore, let him make his brief. If it is done in a question form, that's quite all right. MR. CHAIRMAN: You may proceed, Mr. Akins. MR. AKINS: If I'm assured tonight that the amendments will not apply to the construction ind ustry wLL HAVE NO PROB LEM AND I wi ll go away happy.

If they are to be applied, then substantive hanges are requi red in the wording of the emergency provision

section of the Emplo yment ,tandards Act to make it compatible with the working co nditions of our ind ustry. Now, the organized sector of the construction industry has been bargai ning with the International :raft Un ion si nee the turn of the century. Overtime has never been a contentious issue. Weekly hours ary by trade, by location of the work, and by the season of the year. We have agreements with 40 ours, 42-% hours, 44 hours, 45 hours, 54 hours, and even move hours. Daily hours vary in the various greements from eigh t hours per day to eleven hours per day.

Overti me premium s vary from tim e and ne-half to tim e and one-half for the fi rst two or more hours, to double time. Gentlemen, why would anyone wish to inte rfere with this range of equitable solutions freely rrived at ny the people who know the industry best, the employers and the unions they deal with? 1/hy should not the regulation of our industry be left to coll ective bargai ning? Even the Manitoba ederation of Labour admi ts that the construction ind ustry has special needs that they do not wish to ee interfered with.

They suggested this morning that only the Wi nnipeg and Manitoba Building ·rades Council is qualified to speak for lab our on the special needs of the construction ind ustry. 1/hy, then, would this government wish to cir cumscribe the special arrangements dealing with our 1d ustry that were freely arrived at by the parties of int erest. But perhaps our fears are groundless. Perhaps, Mr. Paulley, it is not your intent to apply these evisions to the organized sector of the construction ind ustry? Could you inform me on that point? MR. PAULLEY: When you have finished your presentation I wi ll. MR. AKINS: Yes, Mr.

Paulley, I have fin ished the formal part of my presentation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paulley. 45

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 MR. PAULLEY: I think, Mr. Akins, that if you take a look at Bill 65, you will find under 31 (1 ) declaration of what the stahdard hours of work for an employee are. In

Section (d), reference is mad "In the case of an employee too whom the regulation applies, the numb er of regular working hours any day, week, month prescribed in the regulation under

Section 12 of the Construction Wag1 Ind ustry is a maxi mum number of hours that the employee may be requi red to work in any day, we• or month before bei ng paid at overtime rates.

I think that reasonably, if legislation can reasonab explain a position, is the position of the Construction Wages Act and the regulations theret because I' m sure that each of us are aware of the di fferential in the numb er of so-called standa1 work week provision for hours vary with the various compon ents and trade union agreements enterE into between the Lab our Relations Counci l, who act for the construction ind ustry, and the unior concerned.

In the last order-in-c ouncil that was passed, I be lieve last Wednesday, dealing with the Great1 Wi nnipeg component of the Construction Wages Act there were variances from 40 hours to I bel ie1 44 or 46 hours as the standard work week after negotiations had been com pleted between the varioL unions and the Labour Relations Council.

In the Rural Construction Act regulations whic h apply to di fferent group of employees and employers there are variances there that the standard workweE would be far in excess, or considerably in excess - let me put it that way rather than - far in exce� than the 40-hour standard workweek which is indoctri nated now or enshrined or whatever the hec you want to call it under the Emplo yment Standards Act. Agai n, as far as the so-c alled remote are� or other areas and I am think princ i pally of remote areas north of 53.

There are provisions under tt negotiated agreements ca lling for a greater numb er of hours whic h are components of the standar workweek, so I suggest, Mr. Akins, that those provisions are there. And then under the legis latia there is a provision that where a colle ctive agreement is entered into between management an labour for voluntary overtime and beyond that, that that is permissable under the propose legislation. So I really, Mr.

Akins, can't see any problems insofar as the application of that aspect • the Act is concerned. lt is my understanding, as I read the colle ctive agreements - and I want to say how much apprecia te the fact that the co llective agreements have been co nsummated without a withdr awal < services this year, as contrary to some other years - but it is my impr ession or understanding that i the colle ctive agreements that have been freely entered into between construction ind ustry unior and the Labour Relations Council, there are provisions for the payment of cert ain fringe benefits. have ind ica ted to the Assembly that the government is consideri ng proposing an amendment to Bi 65 so that where fringe benefits are incl uded in the base rate for co mputi ng the amount of overtime i dollars and cents, then ti me-and-a-half will be applic able as against one-and-three-quarters.

Ther is no desire on the part of the government to doub le-penalize companies or ind ustries that hav co llective agreements to make provision for those fri nge benefits, and I would agree that it would b most unfair for us to apply the one-and-three-quarters to an employer that is already in effe< reaching that goal under a co llective agreement. So I suggest to you fi rst of all, Mr. Akins, that in the proposed legislation there is consideration t The Construction Wages Act and the reg ulations thereto.

I wo uld like to ask though, why yot reference to the defi ni8ion of an energency in the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Act, "any sudde or unusual occurrence or condition that could not, by the exercise of reasonable judgment, hav been foreseen by the employer" would seem to be more reasonable than what is proposed in Bi11 65 And I ask you, Mr. akins, I know of your long association in the construction ind ustry, that, is reall the defi nition of emergenc y, as contained in the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Act, reall meaningful when it says "any sudden or unusual occurrence or co ndition that could not, by th exercise of reasonable judgement." In the presentation of Mr.

Holmes on your behalf, behalf of th cou nci l, reference is made to the pouring of concr ete. Surely a com petent contrac tor would kn01 the amount of ti me that it would be necessary to pour concr ete in a con tinuous operation. No111 under the Saskatchewan Act, I can see, and I mi ght say I have looked at it very closely, I cou ld see conflict of

interpretation as to the meaning of the word "reasonable," reasonable judgm ent foresee by the employer. Surely an employer in the construction ind ustry co uld regulate the com ing an going of concr ete trucks so that the concr ete co uld be poured in a con tin uous operation. Now these are one or two of the firsthand observations, Mr. Akins and Mr. Holmes, that I find i your presentation.

In our Act I hope to clarify, or hope to cause clar ification of the input of the wor' "emergency," but not necesarily to adopt the Saskatchewan wording of their Act, because it has bee1 my experience that where we use the phraseology such as "by the exercise of reasonable judgm ent, that there are always dif ferences of opin ion as to what constitut es reasonable judgment. And tha Mr. Akins, I is pri marily my direct question to you. We are making provisions to try and have a reasonable applic ation under Bill 65 for the provision of overtime.

I apprecia te that it is not going to be accepta ble to everybody. lt may not be accepta ble t1 anybody, but on the other hand, however, when we use phraseology as you refer to in th' Saskatchewan Act, I question the valid ity of that type of legislation. 46

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Akins. Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 MR. AKINS: Mr. Paulley, there are several questions that you have read. I will work on them in terse order. Fi rstly the matter of the defin ition in the Saskatchewan Act. No, for construction it is not perfect, 1t it is a great deal better than what is existing in our Act. Now we will cover a great many of the cases constructi on. For instance it is not just a matter of putting the con cr ete in the forms, it is a matter of 1w quickly the co ncr ete sets up so that it can be fin ished.

This can be affected by humidi ty •nditions, temperature conditions, etc., etc ., Now these thi ngs cannot be foretold in advance, even 'a person using quite a bit of reasonable judgment. You would cover the cases where your hoist eaks down, or the transit trucks are late, or where there is a traffic jam ora parade or something and e trucks can't get through and you are dela yed.

Now what it will not cover is the case where you have to pour 1, 800 yards of concr ete in a 1nti nuous pour and there is just no damn feasible way that 1, 800 yards can be poured in eigh t hours, 1 you know right from the very beginning that it is going to take you six teen hours, but you still have do it because there isn't any alternative. MR. PAULLEY: Split shif ts. MR. AKINS: Well, not even that, Mr. Paulley.

You know you can sometimes shift a pour, but 1metimes you don't have the experienced people you need availa ble to work for one day, to do one )Ur which will never reoccur, so you just have to work the men you have a little longer. Now that is e one change that I wo uld like to see in the Saskatchewan defini tion if it was to be applied in anitoba. Working into the matter of The Construction Industry Wages Act which you suggest protects the mstruction industry fully, I have question as to whether this is so, and this is what I am trying to ;cert ain here today.

My fears are these, that there is a secti on, 12(4) , of The Construction Industry 'ages Act that says that nothing in this Act will be applied in such a fashion as to call lesser benefits 1 be paid than are called for in The Emplo yment Standards Act. Now I wonder, then, if this will not )id the entire protec tion of The Construction Industry Wages Act upon which our industry relies. MR. PAULLEY: I doub t it. MR. AKINS: The other question that comes to my mi nd is this, that the way 31 (

d) seems to be orded, it seems as if the provisions in The Construction Industry Wages Act come fi rst and the ::>llective agreements come seco nd. Now I think that's the wrong order, that what is decided in the :>llective agreements should be the governing factor. The Construction lndustryWages Act fo llows 1e agreements. Now there have been cases, and Mr. Holmes gave you one, where in the col lective agreements, 1e provisions of The Construction Industry Wages Act have been incr eased. He has poi nted out, for 1stance, how in one agreement labourers who formerly had 42.5 hours in an agreement negotia ted 5.

There was another case this year where the working week went from 40 hours to 45 because both arties to the co llective bargai ning process could see that our industry requi red this incr ease if we 'ere going to func ti on efficiently. MR. PAULLEY: There is no prohi bition here, is there, Mr. Akins? MR. AKINS: Well, this is our question: Does the agreement come fi rst, or the Act? lfthe Act follows 1e agreements, we have no problem because in our industry we can usually negotiate what we need ' handle the job. The other matter that we would raise would seem to be under 31 (b) .

The way that's written it eems that 40 hours in any week is the governing facto r, and that the only thing you can vary in your ollective agreements is the amount of hours per day. Now if that were true, that would give our 1dus try some terri ble problems. -(l nterjec tion)- Well, Mr. Paulley, you hearten me greatly because perhaps some of my concerns are groundless. I ronder if we could have a chance to sit down and work out some of theseconcer nswith your people. MR. PAULLEY: Well, yes, Mr.

Akins, in di rect reply to you I would be more than pleased because I dmit I made a public statement that the purpose of this is not to imp ose penalties on lab our or 1anagement, but it is bei ng, in some quarters construed as bei ng precisely that, and we have �rovisions, as I understand it, at the present time, under The Emplo yment Standards Act, provisions :>r variances through the Labour Board and in co-ope ration with industry and its employees, for a ariance of the hours of work. But if you feel, Mr.

Akins, and I rec ognize the im portance to the onstruction industry in Manitoba, if you feel that there should be a change, or feel that this is going ::> be pre judicial to the construction ind ustry in Manitoba, I wo uld be - agai n, that's arbitr ary and I lon't intend to be arb itrary - but if you feel that there is some requir ement, necessity for a change in he wording to spell out what we consider as being a practical approach, I would be more than !leased, Mr. Akins, to sit down with you.

And I mi ght say that I don't think that it is the intention of the ;ommit tee to proceed tonight with the adoption of the precise wordin g of the Act until after we have 1eard representations from organizations such as those that you represent. MR. AKINS: If I co uld, Mr. Chairman, there is one point on which I am sti ll confu sed. Mr. Paulley 47

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 has indic ated that it is not the intent for these amendments to apply to the construction ind ustry, yet in talking at other times he indi cated that the matter of benefits would mitiga te the overtime r suggested, that varianc es could be applied for to the Labour Board, etc. Now my question is tl Does the Act apply to us or does it not? Because if it doesn't we don't have to be concerned with th1 other matters. MR. PAULLIEY: lt applies, Mr.

Akins, to the construction industry insofar as hours over and a be the so-c alled standard workweek as provided tor in the regulations of The Construction Wages P beyond that it does. Then the applic ation of one-and-a-half or one-and-three-quarters, 1 application of that factor, comes in or is establ ished if the input of the base rate tor computing tin and-a-half or ti me-and-three-quarters, depending on the amount of fringe benefits incl uded in tl base rate. I don't know if I am bei ng clear, Mr. Akins, or not. MR. AKINS: Mr.

Paulley, I am really taken back here because our industry bar gains coll ectiv' and settles its overtime rates through tree coll ective barg aining, and am I now bei ng told that 1 Leg islature is mo ving in and setting aside our colle ctive agreements and imp osi ng rates upon 1 parties that neither of them want? MR. PAULLEY: Ti me-and-a-half was always there, Mr. Akins, as Mr. Green ind icated. What we l saying, that in relating the time -and-three-quarters, that we take into consider ation the benefit fac contained in the base rate to arrive at one-and-a-half or one-and-three-quarters.

If your col lect' agreements in the construction ind ustry gi ve a benefit to the employees who are working overtin the one-and-three-quarter factor, then only the punitive rate of one-and-a-half will apply. MR. AKINS: That sounds very confusi ng. MR. PAULLEY: I know it does. MR. AKINS: Are you sai ng that our agreements that cu rrently contai n ti me-and-a-half will have go to time -and-three-quarters under this legislation? MR. PAULLEY: I am sayi ng the reverse, Mr. Akins.

If, in your colle ctive agreements, there f provisions for fringe benefits that are applicable to the base figur e used for computi ng overtime, th one-and-a-half will apply if those fringe benefits are not less than the general application of one-an three-quarters. Now I don't know if I can make it any more sim ple. MR. AKINS: Mr. Paulley, this proposed amendment about the fringe benefit ratio seems a ve confusing thing. lt is not in the bill at the present time ... MR. PAULLEY: No, that's right, Mr. Akins, that's just what I have said for the House. MR.

AKINS: ... and it is going to be, as one of my predecessors here suggested, , adminis trative nightmare. Wouldn't the simpl er thing be to exclude the co llective agreements frc the effect of this Act? When the parties have decided by free colle ctive bargai ning what suits the both they should be allowed to stick with it? MR. PAULLEY: No more, Mr. Akins, than the applic ation of The Minimum Wage Act of tl Province of Manitoba does not allow an employer and an employee to arrive at a colle ctive agreeme to pay less than the minimum wage. MR.

AKINS: Well, I am really confus ed now because of all the statements that have been made I this government about thei r respect for the colle ctive bargai ning process and of its essential natu to industrial peace. And now it appears as if co llective bargai ning is all for naught because tl government will step in and set the provisions anyway. MR. PAULLEY: Well, Mr. Akins, I respect your opinions and your knowledgeabil ity, but that ju simply isn' t true. If the government were to say in this legislation that overtime is not a bargainab issue between trade unions then I would say that basically you are correct.

But we are not doing thl we're leaving to the tree col lective bargai ning process the rights of management and lab our to ent into a contractual agreement. We're removing from management the rights that they had previous to deem that they co uld compu lsorily require overtime. There's the big di fference. MR. AKINS: With respect it would seem as if you are limi ting the parties by telling them that th1 can't bargain for less than ti me and three-quarters. A MEMBER: There's no dif ference. MR.

AKINS: Well, the di fference is simp ly the dif ference between time -and-a-half and ti me-ant three-quarters which is a substantial monetary penalty. MR. PAULLEY: Except, Mr. Akins, that there were considerable numb er of employers that we using a base factor that di dn't take into consider ation in computing overtime fri nge benefits that we contained with in a colle ctive agreement. There's the dif ference. I know from experience of eigl years of co llective agreements com ing across my desk that this was a case in respect of considerable numb er of employers and that is why this appr oach is being taken. MR.

AKINS: Ju st for purposes of clarification, Mr. Pauley, si nce these proposed amendmen have not been reduced to writing and we have no chance to study them, if there are fri nge benefits f< health and welfare and pension plans we'll say in the amount of 50 cents per hour and these a1 applicable on every hour worked but they do not double to a dollar an hour if a double tim e hour 48

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 rorked, then in your way of looking at things are these fringe benefits bei ng made applicable to vertime or aren't they? MR. PAULLEY: Only to the extent that the incl usion of fri nge benefits of the base rates equate one nd three quarters. A numb er of your co llective agreements do make provision for double time which oes far beyond the proposal that we are making of one and three-quarters, Mr. Aki n.

And we're not oing to interefere with the rig hts of you as a negotiator for the Labour Relations Council and the lnions that you deal with; we're not going to interfere at all with a provision in your col lective greements for the payment of dou ble time after four hours or after some fig ure. MR. AKINS: Then if this is the case, I would li ke to suggest as the solution for our industry, that it hould be excluded from these amendments in its enti rety because I feel that the problems of the ndustry can best be handled at the co llective bargai ning table without the interference of legislation �f this type.

And I do not know this because I haven't checked but it would not surprise me if the �uildin g trades cou ncil didn 't agree with me. So perhaps you migh t want to check with them also, Mr. >aulley. MR. PAULLEY: They have every opportunity as you indeed do, Mr. Akins, of appeari ng before the :ommi ttee to express their viewpoints. That's one thing that the type of operation we have here in o'lanitoba has different with other jurisdic tions, we do gi ve the publ ic, ind ustry, management and m ions an opportunity of appearing before our com mit tees to be heard.

That is what you're doing onight and I apprecia te it very much. MR. AKINS: I would just conclude by saying this, that the bill as writt en, as I read it, and you md erstand I have not legal traini ng, would be a very bad pi ece of legislation for our ind ustry. MR. PAULLEY: Okay, thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wilson. Ju st a min ute Mr. Akins. Mr. Wilson. MR. WILSON: A lot of my concerns were possib ly answered but I wrote down a cou ple of ;omments as the Mini ster was talking. Are you satisfied that this bill 65, the way it is, will have no �ffect on the construc ti on industry?

This seemed to be the argument between you and the Min ister. Nould you not. .. -(I nterjec tion)- Well, I wondered if, in light of the fact that you had suggested it Nas a bit of a nightmare the way it was now, that the confusion will probably cause the Min ister to 1ave to seek another term in office to clear it up. MR. PAULLEY: That would be to the benefit of Manitoba provided I supplanted you and took your )lace. MR.

WILSON: I wondered if the unions that you deal with -(I nterjecti on)- You're talking about 3xcl ud i ng your industry, what wou Id happen if all the delegations appearing tonight would want their ndustry excluded from this bill? When we were dealing with Mr. Nels Thib ault this morning from the Manitoba Federation of Labour and you of cou rse deal with a lot of unions, he ind ic ated that he wanted to outlaw all overtime except in some emergency cases, so are you satisfied that this bill the way it is is not going to have any effect on the construction ind ustry? MR. AKINS: Taking that question fi rst, no.

I still have grave fears that it will adversely affect our industry. Moving on to the remarks of Mr. Thib ault, I bel ieve that he said that he would like to see c:on,struction excluded as we ll as emergency work. He further said that only the Buildin g Trades Council could speak on the needs of construction, not the Manitoba Federation of Labour. From what I heard, though I haven't had the opportun ity to read his written brief, from the verbal presentation this morning I took it that he would li ke to see construction excluded from the provisions of this bill .

As far as all ind ustries bei ng excl uded, I'm only inti mately acquainted with one ind ustry, the construction ind ustry. I' ve worked in it all my life. lt is an ind ustry with problems that are not shared by other industries and I think this is ill ustrated by the types of co llective agreements we have. I' ve poi nted out we vary from 40 to 54 hours and even more per week, written right into our agreements, because our industry needs these special conc essions. Now, I don't know about other industries and how bad their need is, but I do know that these are a vital part of ours. MR.

WILSON: The comment that I had again, was that it seemed that the Min ister indic ated that yes, this time -and-three-quarters would apply after your standard agreed work week. He tried to shoot down the prior speaker regarding the tim e to pour concr ete as an example given and you corr ected hi m. Doesn't this seem to indic ate that more di scussion shou Id take place on this bi 1 1 ? What I' m concerned about is, if you're dema nding that we exclude your industry from the bill, others will be demandin g that they be excluded as well and it seems that we may find we'll run i nto some problems . here. MR.

AKINS: Certainly as far as our industry is concerned, the wordin g of this bill needs some defin ite revision. MR. WILSON: Thank you. MR. PAULLEY: I'd li ke to ask, Mr. Chairman, if nobody else. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I have, Mr. McKenzie. 49

Industrial Relations Monday, June 6, 19 77 MR. McKENZIE: One questi on, Mr. Akins. In the last sentence of your brie f you express' concern less unduly magnified and large artificial problems in other ind ustry should occasi1 legislative amendment detrimental to our operations. Could you elabor ate on that or explain wh you mean there, Mr. Aki ns? MR. AKINS: Well, in maki ng that statement I was referring to the fact that in all our years collective barg aining, overtime has never been a major problem in our ind ustry. The bargainir agents have come to agreement that could take care of our needs.

Now it seems to me that we have few problems in this province that are bei ng blown out of all proportion and I don't li ke to s1 legislation predi cated on those problems applied to our industry to its detriment. MR. McKENZIE: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: Thanks, Mr. Chairman . Mr. Akins, I'm trying to clear up one thing for you and f1 me and rising out of your exchange with the Minis ter, with Mr. Paulley, and I think, hopefully, tha can do it.

Do you understand that the way Bill 65 is writ ten at the present time, but leaving tt Min ister's suggested amendment on overtime aside for the moment, that the way the bill is written , the present time that there would be an additional overtime premium incu rred in your ind ustry as i other ind ustries for any time worked beyond the standard work week prescribed in your industr) MR. AKINS: The way the bill is worded this certai nly seems to be the case. The entire roa buildin g ind ustry, for instance, has premiums of only time -and-a-half.

The great majority of t� agreements in the commer cial industrial sector allow for at least some time -and-a-half work. lt woul look as if all these provisions are going to have to be incr eased. MR. SHERMAN: Okay, I be lieve that is the correct

interpretation of the bill as it stands at th present time. Now Mr. Paulley has suggested that he is amenable and is gi ving consi deration to a amend ment that would make the time -and-three-quarter rate operative only in those cases wher fringe benefits were not calcula ted into the base and where fringe benefits are calcu lated into th base the operative overtime rate would be time -and-a-half. But if you go through a series c calculations, mathematic al, as Mr.

Paulley did earlier, you come really to rates that are almol equivalent, that is it works our virtually to wit hin a few pennies, a few dollars anyway in man instances, to virtually the same thing. So that in effect what the government is sayi ng is that from no, on, for the purposes of arri ving at an employee's overtime pay, an employer mi ght as well, for a practical purposes, add the employee's fri nge benefits into the base before calculating the th overtime.

So, my question to you is whether, in your ind ustry and your bar gaining agreementl whether you ca lcula te an employee's fringe benefits into the base before you calcu late the overtime If you do then this bill in terms of its overtime provision probably won't hurt you very much. If yo don't, it will inflict an additional cost on you. MR. AKINS: Mr. Sherman, these provisions vary from agreement to agreement. There are over 2 agreements in the industry and every single one of them would have di fferent provisions in thi regard.

Now this is why I suggest that for our industry the practical thing would be to exclude th co llective agreements and the people that are governed by them. So that in lieu of this suggestion c calculating in the fri nge benefits the amendment would be that where a col lec

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-4-ir2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 4th hansardpdf ir2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2a71429bae91740241272f43840acbb90dc32f2a

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