Manitoba Committee Hansard — 5 June 1976 (Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 7, 30th Legislature, 3rd Session)

30-3-ir7

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba HEARINGS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Chairman William Jenkins, M.L.A. Constituency of Logan 2:15p.m., Saturday, June 5, 1976. Printed by R. S. Evans- Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 2:15 p.m., Saturday, June 5, 1976 Chairman: Mr. William Jenkins. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll call on Mr. David NeWinan. Bill 57. Proceed 185 MR. DA VID NEWMAN: I'm appearing on behalf of the Piling Contractors Association of Manitoba. I was out of the province until yesterday when I became aware that this legislation was in bill form last Friday and I didn't see it until yesterday.

I got up at 6:00 o'clock this morning to prepare the submission on behalf of the people I represent and I regret that I can't do more justice to the case that I think should be stated on behalf of my client and on behalf of anyone in the Province of Manitoba who is affected by this legislation. I'd like the opportunity to do it more justice, I think more justice should be done by myself and other people who have an interest in legislation which is going to affect the people of Manitoba.

The Piling Contractors Association is an employers' association comp:>sed of eight employers employing in excess of 100 persons in the construction industry. The Association wishes to go on record as being vigorously opposed to certain provisions of Bill 57. It believes a number of the provisions are inappropriate in the Manitoba con text of labour relations at this time. Some are dangerous because they can be inter preted and administered so as to frustrate the normal way of doing business in managing a company in the province.

Other provisions trample with an unwarranted cynicism) an uncompromising zeal on basic rights of free speech and religious belief. The question I put to this committee is why, what is the quid pro quo for these dramatic and significant changes ? Is it better labour relations ? Is it stronger unions, or something else? With these questions in mind let us look at the specific sections we are particular ly concerned with in order that the numbered sections of the Act be amended. I deal first with subsection 6(2). This

section apparently makes it illegal for managers and even supervisors to talk honestly and sincerely about their views of unions with their fellow workers, on or off the workplace. The way this

section is worded, free speech is not just eliminated within a particular area but on a subject where dialogue and free informed discussion should be encouraged, not feared and outlawed. Is it the union movement and its leaders that is so silent, fragile and gentle, may lead to eliminate any opposition to their views?

It is surprising that the movement which struggled for and obtained some positive freedoms which we today take for granted, such as the freedom to associate and to picket for the purpose of communicating information, has become so weak and helpless that it must go to the goverllTilent to protect itself from the views of supervisors by gagging them. I hope we're not approaching a society where everyone must smile without meaning it and when they must indicate without meaning it that they love unions, that the union movement is so weak or its message and conviction and efforts so atrophied.

The unions now depend on the gover=ent to protect them, but they can't succeed on their own to persuade on the basis of reasoned arguments that employees should join them. It's my submission that this "gag section" should be eliminated entirely. Dealing with the wording of that section, its breadth is astounding. Even if your fellow worker is a next door neighbour you can't indicate to him - and I think Mr.

Christophe this morning gave us some idea of what he meant by "indicate" or what he'd like to have "indicate" mean" - even how an employer looks; it's what he mentions, not just what he says which is of concern to him. The word in that

section is "indicate" to an employee, indicate to him or her that you object to unions. For example, you're having a barbecue in your back yard, your neighbour is a fellow worker, you're a super visor, you indicate to him, you might even not say it, but you indicate to him you prefer the Steelworkers to CEMA, is that a contravention of the section? That's absurd. If I were anti-union I would say from a long term point of view, leave it in the bill, because it is provisions like this that are going to kill the independent strength and credibility of the union movement.

And what are we getting in return for this ex change? We give up a certain portion of the right of freedom of speech, what do we get in return? Why are we asked to give it up?

186 June 5, 1976 (MR. NEWMAN cont'

d) I make a similar comment about the proposed amendment to

Section 68(3) which is the deletion of that provision from the legislation and the substitution of a new one. I also refer to the transitional section,

Section 30, sub 2. Talk about unions being in secure. Are the unions so afraid of a handful of people whose religious beliefs compel them not to pay dues to a union. but to groups like the Red Cross, that they say religious belief or not, even it means it can't work you must pay union dues and thereby support an organization you have no use or respect for and cannot by reason of your religious belief support. What do we get in return for giving up this right which was granted by the 1972 legislation? Does this alleviate the insecurity of the union position? I doubt it.

The second set of sections I deal with are the Unfair Labour Practices part. I'm just going to deal with that generally, I haven't had time to do more. But what I think happens here most significantly is the shift of the reverse onus concept to the Labour Board from the courts which brings with it also the removal of any right of appeal from an unfavourable or unjustified or improper court decision and now brought in the context of the legislation that deals with the Labour Board. Now why should this concern me? What's wrong with the Labour Board dealing with this particular type of case?

My comments are of a general nature here, and it may be that at some time the Board will be in a position and have the resources to deal with matters of more significance than they now deal with, but I don't think in Manitoba in the evolution of Industrial Relations' legislation that this is yet warranted, and I think it's dangerous to give more power to a Board which has difficulty because of lack of resources and because of the composition of the Board, in dealing with present situations. Now what are these particular problems that the Labour Board has now con stituted? I just highlight some of them.

We have short-term appointments to the Board. I don't think the Board - to deal with matters of the significance which it wants to deal with, if I read this legislation correctly - is at this time right and proper. There's a tendency within the short-term appointments not only to give the appearance of political influence, but there is the insecurity of that amount of tenure which is a fact, a sort of security which has been recognized as being necessary to preserve the independence of judiciary.

And we have other jurisdictions where they have Labour Boards which now give longer terms, and those are jurisdictions where more powers have been granted to the Labour Boards. I cite for example, Ontario and British Columbia. There's no pub lication of Board policy, decisions are made without, for the most part, published rea sons being given.

The publication of reasons, the requirement the Board give reasons for its decision is a constraint, it's a pressure to have them give thought to the decisions that they are making and to justify them and articulate, and then those decisions are subjected to the scrutiny of members of the public and persons interested. Out of this comes a certain predictability, a certain policy which members of the public can under stand and govern their affairs accordingly. The Board has a small staff, it pays limited amounts to the people that are on the Board, the consequence is that it's a part-time job for the people.

Another consequence can be the public respect for the Board is not what it should be and what it can be. It is my submission that a specialist tribunal may be appropriate to shift those matters like unfair labour practices if the proper foundation is laid. I don't think that foundation is there.

Section 30, dealing with certification. Again I put the question: Why change what was there before? If I understand it correctly, the reason for that change was to make it necessary for persons applying for union representation to have 50 percent rather than 35 percent before they apply. But the

section goes further than that. If it didn't - if it didn't go further than that, if it were just that way, I wouldn't object to it, but I just put out to you, should not an application be dismissed if there are not 35 percent applied for a bargaining unit? In fact, shouldn't it be dismissed if there aren't 50 per cent support on the basis of the evidence which is filed with the Board by the union? Should there not be a vote required if there is a doubt about whether a majority support the union?

If there's 50 percent on the basis of the evidence filed, why shouldn't there be a vote to determine that; if for some other reason there's doubt in the mind of the Board why shouldn't they be compelled to hold a vote? Why should that be discretionary? What is there to fear about a vote, a vote by secret ballot?

June 5, 1976 187 (MR. NEWMAN cont'

d) Next

section I deal with is

Section 119. 1, which is I think the most significant potential expansion of power given to the Labour Board. And we're talking about an ex clusive and absolute power within the framework of the Legislature. Other jurisdictions have an equivalent, or roughly, I emphasize the word "roughly" equivalent section. haven't had time to research the point, but I do know that British Columbia's

Section 37 is somewhat similar. I also know that Federal legislation has a roughly equivalent sec tion. But even in those jurisdictions where there is more protection, more foundation built in to ensure that the decisions are more likely to be objected or less likely to be absolute , there were qualifications in that sort of provision which are not here in

Section 119.1. For example, there's no guarantee that in a Board hearing dealing with an application before the Board where an issue under

Section 119.1 is raised that the employer will be given an opportunity to express his views. No guarantee. There is in the Federal legislation. An employer might not be advised beforehand, might not know that there is a potential expansion of the unit which he contemplates might form the bargaining unit. In the Federal legislation there's a term in there which says that the Board must afford an opportunity to the employers affected to make representations. There's another qualification in the Federal legislation, also in the B. C. legislation, which makes it clear that this

section can only be used for the purposes of this Act, that is for labour relations purposes. Experience in British Columbia has shown with regard to

Section 37, that a very complex set of policies had to be worked out, articulated and published to enable the Board and the public to understand how this

section would be applied, and a number of written judgments, written reasons for decision were given in reports of the initial cases dealing with this section. I repeat, in B. C. such policies must be published and are readily available to members of the public, or their advisers. In

summary, we do not yet have in Manitoba, in our view, the resources allocated to our Labour Board to enable it to perform the additional responsibilities con templated by this Bill 57, up to a standard which will benefit labour relations in Manitoba. Even if our Labour Board were given these powers, it is too much power to give exclu sively and absolutely. I could deal with other sections of the Act, but I don't feel sufficiently informed to do so. But I would like to make some comments with regard to that religious objec tion provision.

Now these comments are my comments, they're not on behalf of the organization I have up until now spoken on behalf of. Sid Green asked a question this morning which concerned me because I wish he'd saved it for me. He'll probably ask it again anyway. But he said what about the Law Society? What about physicians? What about dentists? What concerns me about that, Sid, is the fact that there seems to me a fundamental difference. We're talking about unions imposing membership on people, we're not talking about the Law Society im posing lawyers among lawyers.

Lawyers choose to be lawyers, doctors choose to be doctors, you don't choose to pay dues to a union. Since 1972 compulsory check-off has made it obligatory for even non-members, persons that don't choose union membership to pay dues to the union where there's a collective agreement. To illustrate the sort of problems which I envisage with granting more power to the Board, I'd like to refer to some of the religious objection cases that have appeared before the Board. To my knowledge two applications have succeeded out of all the applications that were presented.

Both of those came after the Court of Appeal decision in the Funk case. After the Funk case in Brandon there was a hearing involving four employees of a nursing home. The Board gave written reasons in all those decisions which were all against the applicants. In those reasons an

interpretation was given to

Section 68(3) of the Labour Relations Act which was a different

interpretation that had even been articulated to my knowledge before the Funk case. The Funk case as I understand it decided that the tenets of one's religious belief were not the governing feature or the proper consideration for the Board. It was personal religious belief, it was the belief of the individual which had to be looked at. The Funk case decided that. The Board referred to the Funk case and those decisions in the Brandon situation. It distinguished the Funk case, because it said the Funk case

188 June 5, 1976 (MR. NEWMAN cont'd) ••••• dealt with a closed-shop situation where a person was compelled to become a member of the union by virtue of wording in the collective agree ment. So if they didn't grant the exemption, this person, if he didn't believe and couldn't by reason of his belief join the union, would not be employed with that organiza tion. They distinguished the case before the Board on the basis that this only involved a situation where they alleged - that is, the four employees alleged that they could not pay dues to the union.

The Board found and was satisfied according to the reasons that these persons were sincere religious believers and sincerely could not belong to the union by reason of their religious belief. They gave an

interpretation to

Section 68(3) which was that the

section was only designed and was only intended to cover that situa tion where there was a closed-shop provision in the collective agreement, compulsory membership to the union. Subsequently another case came before the Board. The Chairman in this case was Vice-Chairman Jamieson instead of Murdoch MacKay who's the normal chairman. In that case, a person in a non-closed-sho p situation, a person whose collective agree ment by virtue of the compulsory check-off provisions of the legislation, required that employee to pay union dues. So if the

interpretation given to that

section in the previous case were to apply here, there's no way that the Board could grant the relief sought by the applicant, no way in that

interpretation of the law. However, the application was approved. Conclusion, and lesson to me, and I think it should be a lesson for you, is that there is not consistency in the decisions of the Labour Board, there is not an articulation of the policies of the Labour Board. Now, I'm not blaming it. If I sat on the Labour Board I would be as likely to be guilty as Murdoch MacKay, because there is no system, there's no foundation laid for doing those sorts of things. That when you're granting additional discretionary powers to this Board which are of the magnitude of what I suggesL

Section 119.1 has the potential of being - and there are two other areas, the Code of Employ:nent, I think is a similar sort of situation, the declaratory power granted to the Board under what appears to be slight amendments to

Section 121.1 - are of the same ilk. My submission therefon, in conclusion is that at the very least more serious consideration, more opportunity for expressi:m of views should be given to this legislation. If that is not to be don.c,, I think this

Section 19.1,

Section 6(2) and its religious objection chBnge should not be part of any changes in the existing legislation. By say ing vhat I've said, I don't want to give any impression that I'm acknowledging the desirability of any other provisions, I just haven't had time to examine them to prepare any comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. ,::HAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Newman, Mr. Green wishes to ask some questions. MR.

GREEN: Dave, my question to you is as follows: If I was acting for a client and you were acting for a client, and I went to your client and told him that he had a bad lawyer who was doing him in, would not I be censured and possibly disbarred by the Manitoba Law Society? MR. NEWMAN: I think you'd be subject to censure, deservedly so. MR. GREEN: Yes. But are you not infringing on my right of free speech to talk to your client?

Doesn't the Law Society have sufficient confidence in your ability to represent your client, that they shouldn't interfere with my right of free speech to tell your client that you don't know what you 're talking about? MR. NEWMAN: I think it would depend on the circumstances. Certainly in some cases it's warranted to make fair comment of that sort. MR.

GREEN: But is it not a fact that as long as you are acting for a client that the opposite counsel is engaged in a breach of ethics for which he could be disbarred, denied the right to practise law in the Province of Manitoba for the rest of his life, if he went and spoke to your client? MR. NEWMAN: Yes. MR. GREEN: So that is an interference with his right of free speech. MR. NEWMAN: Yes. MR. GREEN: Okay. You say that the Labour Board sometimes makes in consistent decisions. Does not the court make inconsistent decisions?

June 5, 1976 189 MR. NEWMAN: I'd like to say, Sir, that that's a self-imposed restriction, a restriction which you accept when you become a member of the Bar • MR. GREEN: Pardon me? MR. NEWMAN: ••• because you accept the ethics, or you , rould object and would try and change it if you don't agree with it ••. MR. GREEN: No, this self-imposed restriction that you are talking about is something that the Law Society which I must join if I choose to be a lawyer, imposes on me. MR. NEWMAN: If you choose to be a lawyer. Right? MR. GREEN: Yes.

So that if I choose to be a lawyer I have to accept that imposition of an infringement of my free speech. MR. NEWMAN: I don't think your word is well chosen, but I think that you do accept that. • • MR. GREEN: Yes. You don't think it's well chosen because it doesn't happen to agree with your opinion, Dave. MR. NEWMAN: No, because it's self-imposed, Sir. MR. GREEN: No, because you don' t happen to agree with it, Dave. MR. NEWMAN: It's self-imposed and practical. MR.

GREEN: Well, how it is self-imposed, if the Government of Manitoba has enacted a law, not that I have chosen it as a lawyer, but the government has enacted a law saying that if I practise law without being a member of the Law Society I can go to jail. You say that I self-imposed that? I tell you, Dave, that you :ere misinformed. I did not self-impose that, that was imposed on me by a government. MR. NEWMAN: That was. But joining the legal profession wasn't. That was a free choice. MR. GREEN: I cannot join the legal profession unless I become a member of the Law Society. MR.

NEWMAN: Well, these don't have to be a lawyer. MR. GREEN: Then you are saying that is a self-imposed restriction. MR. NEWMAN: That's right. MR. GREEN: And is it not equally self-imposed that the employee who doesn't wish to belong to a union • • • MR. NEWMAN: You don't have to belong to a union. MR. GREEN: ••• doesn't have to be an employee in that plant. Well, okay, let's accept, Dave, your suggestion - or Davey boy, that your suggestion ... --(Inter jection)-- Well, Mr.

Chairman, then I tell the honourable member that when he appears before a committee that he is not to address the members as "Sid" and ''Russ" and anybody else, that we are here as legislators and Ministers of the Crown, and if it is wrong to talk about 'Davey boy", it is wrong to talk the other way. MR. NEWMAN: Call me what you want, Sid, it doesn't hurt me. MR. CHAffiMAN: Order please. MR . GREEN: Okay, Davey boy, let's continue. MR. CHAffiMAN: Order please.

I will take the responsibility that I allowed the person who is making the brief to address one of the members on a personal basis and in future I would ask that you address them by their proper names • we have. MR. NEWMAN: My apologies, Mr. Chairman, I certainly will in future questions MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Newman. We have heard your distinction between free speech as it applies to employers and unions and free speech as it applies to lawyers and we'll take it into consideration when we are adopting laws. You have indicated that the Labour Board is not consistent. Are you suggesting that the courts are? MR.

NEWMAN: I'm suggesting that there are constraints which put pressure on them to be more consistent. First, of course, is the 1 rinciple of stare decids which, as you know, courts are obliged to follow, they're obliged to follow decisions of superior courts. Reasons for judgment are given in court cases and on e has the opportunity to determine what courts have done in the past by virtue of those published reported decisions. MR. GREEN: Well if I tell you, Mr. Newman, that in the courts of the

190 June 5, 1976 (MR. GREEN cont'd) ••••• Province of Manitoba the same judge in one year a aid that a union cannot prosecute a grievance in court because it is not a legal entity, the next year the same judge following the dictates of stare decisis said that I was wrong last year, and this year a union can be sued because they are the defendant rather than the applicant, the same judge. MR. NEWMAN: It's fortunate that the decisions were available for you to study so that you could raise this comment here today. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Cha irman, it's not a question of me being available to study, I happened to have been the lawyer in both cases. One year they said that you cannot take this action because a union is not a legal entity and the next year they said I was wrong last year - excuse me, I was not the lawyer in both cases, I was not the lawyer in the second case. MR. NEWMAN: But you also had the Right of Appeal which, if you'd been Counsel, maybe you would have exercised. MR. GREEN: But you have suggested Mr.

Newman . • • I then appealed a case following year when they said that you are again not a legal entity, and they said that you are a legal entity and they said that you weren't; that the court has reversed itself on the question of unions being a legal entity depending on whether or not if the union was being sued or suant, and they have done it c n four occasions, not two. MR. NEWMAN: I'm sorry that you got frustrated by the decisions, Mr. Chair- man. MR. GREEN: Well, I am equally sorry that you are frustrated by the decisions of the Labour Board. MR.

NEWMAN: Well, at least they were available for public scrutiny and the criticisms could be delivered openly, based on the informa tion as to what those decisions were and the Right of Appeal of those decisions if you were dissatisfied. Perhaps the mistake was made in not appealing the first decision. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Newman, all of those decisions, almost all of them were appealed, the ones that I'm referring to, not the two where the judge reversed himself within a year, but the decisions vis-a-vis the legal entities of courts have been appealed several times to the Court of Appeal of the Province of Manitoba with conflicting decisions. MR. NEWMAN: Well, I'm not going to carry a brief on behalf of the courts except as a member of the legal profession. I'm reasonably satisfied with the composition of our courts. I think in Manitoba we should be proud of the quality of the judges we have.

For the most part they make pretty good decisions. MR. GREEN: Then let me say, Sir, that I am more than reasonably happy with the qualifications of the members of the Labour Board and for the most part they make excellent decisions far superior to those that are made in court. MR. NEWMAN: Maybe you know what the decisions are and therefore the benefit of informed judgment on that, Mr. Chairman, I don't have the benefit of that. MR. GREEN: Mr. Newman, you indicated that there should be some respect for the Labour Board, some public respect for the Labour Board. I think you said that. MR.

NEWMAN: I agree with that, Mr. Chairman. MR. GREEN: Would you say that it militates in favour or against respect for the Labour Board, that a Judge of the Superior Court of the Province of Manitoba in his written judgment would say that no Labour Board in its right senses could come to that conclusion. MR. NEWMAN: Yes. MR. GREEN: •• say he's fined $1, 000 by the courts, would you say that that is a conduct which is conducive of respect to citizen-appointed quasi judicial boards in the Province of Manitoba. MR.

NEWMAN: I would think that the object of the judge in that case was not to show respect, but quite the contrary. take. MR. GREEN: To show disrespect. MR. NEWMAN: To show disrespect. MR. GREEN: And you think that that is a proper procedure for the courts to MR. NEWMAN: I'm not to judge the comments that the judges make, but I would

June 5, 1976 (MR. NEWMAN cont'd) ••••• assume that he believed what he was saying. MR. GREEN: Yes. But you are judging the comments of the Labour Board. MR. NEWMAN: I'm judging the written decisions of the Labour Board. 191 MR. GREEN: Yes. Well, this is a written decision of the Court of Appeal. MR. NEWMAN: Well, I'm not judging the conduct that he referred to, perhaps you are. Perhaps you 're • • • the conduct, Mr. Chairman, of the Labour Board in that particular case. lVI.R. GREEN: You are indicating that you are much happier to discuss the con duct of the Labour Board than the conduct of the courts. MR.

NEWMAN: I'm just judging it based on one particular case which I used as an illustration of the sort of problems which I would envisage were they granted more power. MR. GREEN: I'm worried about the power of the courts. MR. NEWMAN: Well you have the right to appeal from the courts and they have an obligation to give reasons, Mr. Chairman. MR. GREEN: Tell that to the Minister in Consumer Affairs in Ottawa. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions by members of the committee? Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Newman. MR. NEWMAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Next we have Mr. Edward Mailey, Bill No. 57. MR. MAILEY: Mr.

Chairman, the Honourable Mr. Paulley and members of the committee, I appreciate the privilege of speaking at this time. I'm a believer in the Lord Jesus. I trust it's more than just an abstract of going to Heaven when I die. I believe that the teachings of Christ and the moral principles set out should govern me in my life.

It's not the first time that I've had the matter of the Rand Forn:_da to meet as an employee of the City of Winnipeg; in 1952 when the City accepted the Rand Formula representation was made to them and provision was made in the working agreement for persons whose convictions prevented them from contributing to a union. I would just like to read that particular clause if I may, Mr. Chairman.

The clause that was in the working agreement read as follows: 'The union agrees that, in respect to moneys collected from employees who by affidavit state they are members of a religious body which precludes membership or financial support to a trade union, said moneys shall be turned over i;J an agreed upon charitable organization." When Bill 81 was passed, I contacted my employer and also Mr. Jamieson of the Labour Board to determine what procedure I should take in view of taking advantage of Clause 68(3).

We were advised at that time that if the request was not contested and all parties agreed there was no need for that matter to appear or to be sent to the Labour Board. I understand the City of Winnipeg made similar enquiry to the Labour Board at that time. I'm sure you can see the position that I am now in, in the 30th year of service ;vith my employer I find that the provision for my conscience having been removed from a jurisdiction of the city by Bill 81 and tben extended in that bill, is now suddenly repealed.

Before this committee, I would just appeal to you to allow Clause 68(3) to remain unchanged in the Labour Relations Act. I've had matters, of course, in this position put to me before such as has already been raised as to benefits, but to clarify my ,-iew in the thing I would just like to use a simile. It might be that a political party in govermnent might claim being the source of all the benefits that the citizens enjoyed; that might even go on to pass a law on account of that, that all citizens must contribute and pay dues to the party. In such a case my po sition would be the same.

I only refer to that bee ause I do distinguish between a political party and govermnent, and I do distinguish between a trade union and my employer. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mailey. There may be some questions mem bers of the Committee may have. Hearing none, thank you. Mr. Alex Plater. MR. ALEX PLATER: Mr. Chairman, Honourable Mr. Paulley, members of the committee, I do not wish to take up much time but I do wish to support what Mr. Henry and Mr. Mailey have presented in relation to 68(3) and it's repeal.

It is my firm con viction that this matter is a matter between my conscience and God and I would most respectfully request the government to leave

Section 63 as it is, because paying dues to a

192 June 5, 1976 (MR. PLATER cont'd) ••••• union is no different to belonging to the union as it in fringes upon my conscience before God. I fully support what these men have stated and they are personally affected. I am not personally affected but I am concerned for them and for future generations which might find it very diff icult to find suitable employment if this clause is repealed. I think that is all that I have to say. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Plater. There may be some questions some members may have. Hearing none, thank you. Mr. Charles Bouskill. MR. BOUSKILL: Mr.

Chairman, I do have copies of my presentation which you may wish to circulate. MR. CHAIRMAN: You can proceed, Mr. Bousl;:ill. MR. BOU SKILL: Mr. Chairman, honourary members of the Legislature, I am appearing on behalf of the Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of Manitoba. On reviewing Bill 57, we are pleased to note that a number of desirable amend ments to the Labour Relations Act are proposed, particularly in areas on which we com mented in a brief submitted to the Standing Committee of the Legislature on Industrial Relations in March, 1976.

Although the Association of Professional Engineers of the Province of Manitoba does not purport to be an expert on the subject of Labour Relations, inasmuch as the inclusion of professional employees under Labour Legislation is a relative ly recent development, we respectfully recommend that the following sentence be added to the proposed sub-section 29(3): "The professional organization that is authorized by statute in force in Manitoba, of which the professional employee is, or is eligible to be, a member shall be the authority in deciding who is practising the profession." We believe the addition of this provision in sub-section 29(3) would assist the Labour Board by clarifying an area of decision which appears to have posed a problem to the Board in the past.

This Association is of the opinion that the Professional Acts hold the governing body of each professional organization responsible for determining who is, and who is not practising the profession. We believe the professional organization is best qualified to make this decision or, in the case of a dispute, the courts. For example, in compliance with the provisions of 'The Engineering Profession Act", the Association has established, and from time to time upgrades, the standards for admission to the profession and for professional competence and conduct. A. P.

E .M considers it's primary responsibility to be to provide for the physical and economic well being of the public. We therefore respectfully submit that the professional organizations are in the best position to decide impartially who is practising the profession. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Bouskill. I have Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Bousidll, your Engineering Profession Act says that each person who is registered a licence to practise under this Act shall pay in advance to the secretary or any person deputed by the council to receive it , such annual fee as may be determined by the bylaws of the Association and the fee is a debt due by the member to the Association and is recoverable in any court of competent jurisdiction. You're a member of this Association, are you not? MR. BOU SKILL: That is correct, Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: And you are in fact speaking for the Association of Professional Engineers which this Act incorporates? MR.

BOU SKILL: Yes, Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Then it says, "where a member omits to pay the prescribed annual fee within six months of the date upon which it becomes due, the Registrar shall cause the name of that member to be erased from the register and he shall thereupon cease to be a member." And then it provides that he can reinstitute himself by paying the dues. Now if he ceases to be a member, only those persons who are members of the Association or who have received a licence from the Council as hereinafter provided are entitled within the province to engage in the practiGe of professional engineering.

So if a person does not pay that fee prescribed by your Association he is prohibited by law from practising professional engineering ? MR. BOUSKILL: That is correct, Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: And if he does so he is subject to fine and imprisonment?

June 5, 1976 193 MR. BOUSKILL: Yes, Mr. Green, that is correct. MR. GREEN: And that is not available to any trade union to put somebody in jail becauce he practises employment although he is not a member of a union. MR. BOUSKILL: That is my understanding, Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Now would your professional engineering association consent to us putting into your Act a

section which says that a person on religious grounds can continue to practise professional engineering but need not pay his dues to the Association? MR. BOUSKILL: I don't believe that it would look very kindly on that clause and legislation. May I expand on the response that I've given, Mr. Chairman. The members of the Association that I represent are of the understanding that trade unions are • • • one of their prime purposes is to represent and be concerned about the interests of the members of that particular organization, that particular trade union, and for that reason - sorry, let me carry on.

On the other hand, it is our belief and our understand ing that the professional acts of this Legislature were established as a means of the Legis lature ensuring that the practise of whatever the profession might be would be in the best interests of the public and in ensuring that the public is well served.

We believe that the councils or governing bodies of the professional associations are established by virtue of the power of the Act and that those governing bodies or associations were established to assist the Legislature in ensuring that the practice of whatever that profession might be, is done so in the best interests of the public • I c:"aise this point becaune in our view there is a distinct difference between an organization that is established by legislation of this province and therefore however loosely is responsible directly to the Legislature on the one hand and a trade union which we believe is not directly responsible to the Legislature on the other hand.

MR. GREEN: So those of us who believe that the establishm�nt of employee and employee relations and the way in which they are carried out are something which we are doing in the public interest to see to it that these are carried out in ::he best manner and for the protection of the public, we are entitled to think other than you? MR. BOUSKILL: I respect that, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAffiMAN: Are there any further questions? Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Bouskill. Mr. William Wilberforce • MR. WILLIAM WILBERFORCE: Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, Honourable Mr.

Paulley, I am a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee today just to simply appeal that

Section 68(3) of the present Labour Relations Act be maintained in its present form. I wrote a letter to each of the members of the Committee and to the Minister. I wonder if I might be permitted to read it. 'This letter is written to register my vital concern as to the proposed amendment to repeal

Section 68(3) of the Labour Relations Act contained in Bill 57 presently before the Legislature. As one of the persons who made representation to the Industrial Relations Committee in July 1972 when Bill 81, now the Labour Relations Act, was being considered it was recognized by the present government that provision should be made for persons whose conscience before God does not permit them to join or belong to a union or other like association, nor pay dues or financially contribute to such union or association. I, along with others wi.Jo made representation at that time were most thankful for the provision that was made for us in

Section 68(3) of the Labour Relations Act which permitted us to make the payment of the equivalent of union dues to the Red Cross. In the collective agreement between my employer, the City of Winnipeg and the Association representing certain employees, this arrangement has been agreed to between all the parties concerned and is working out in a mutually satisfactory manner. With the repeal of

Section 68(3) I am placed in a very difficult position which could involve my being forced out of my employment with the City which I have been in continuously for 35 years. On this account I would respectfully urge that this proposed amendment be withdrawn and that

Section 68(3) of the Labour Relations Act 1972 be allowed to remain intact as providing an essential safeguard to the right of all persons whose conscience before God does not permit them to belong to nor financially contribute to unions or other similar associations. MR. CHAffiMAN: Thank you, Mr. Wilberforce. Mr. Green.

194 June 5, 1976 MR. GREEN: Mr. Wilberlorce, I just have one question. You say that you'd be required to leave your employment that you've had for 35 years ? MR. WILBERFORCE: Yes, Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Where are you employed, Sir? MR. WILBERFORCE: The City of Winnipeg. MR. GREEN: And you have been employed with a union contract there for some years prior to 1972, before this provision came in. MR. WILBERFORCE: When

Section 68(3) was passed into law in 1972 there was no collective agreement covering employees in my classification at that time, but it was a view that there would be possibly a union formed, an association, which has come about, t�1e Winnipeg Association of Public Service Officers. MR. GREEN: Was there not a union - what classification are you, Sir? MR. WILBERFORCE: I'm a Secretary in the Assessment Department. MR. GREEN: And the union didn't cover those people prior to 1972? MR. WILBERFORCE: No it didn't. The WAPSO group was not formed.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees covered persons in other classifications. but I was not in a classification covered by CUPE at that time. MR. GREEN: I am advised, although I couldn't be 100 percent sure, that CUPE has an arrangement vis-a-vis religious objectors and that they deal with tl1is on their own. MR. WILBERFORCE: Yes, they do, Mr. Green, and the provision has been made in the WAPSO agreement in the same fashion. MR. GREEN: If that arrangement has been made by the union with the employer, at least it would not affect your job. I'm not saying that the

section wouldn't affect people, but you've indicated that it would affect your job. If the union does have an arrangement it won't affect your job. I'm not saying, in principle, that you're any less right for ob jecting, but I'm talking about your particular job. My understanding was that CUPE has some arrangement respecting religious objectors and that this would not result in your losing your job. If I'm wrong, I want to !mow. MR. WILBERFORCE: Mr. Green, if I might enquire.

The working agreement between the city and the Canadian Union of Public Employees as well as the agreement between the City of Winnipeg and the WAPSO group provides specifically in the agreement for the recognition of conscience and the paying of union dues, the equivalent of union dues, to the Red Cross in our case. MR. GREEN: This legislation wouldn't supersede the collective agreement.

Now I'm not saying that that means your objections are any less sound in terms of the principle but I think the union that you are a member of has recognized your problem and have signed a collective agreement with the city which sees to it that you won't lose your job. The union has done that as a union. MR. WILBERFORCE: They have done that, that is true, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Green. But with the passage of this

section of Bill 57 I was under the understanding that that would remove the right of the union to exempt me were the city to continue the arrange ment that presently exists. MR. GREEN: I don't think so. I'm not saying that that couldn't happen if the union changed its position, therefore your objection is still sound and I appreciate it, but I think that the present condition that your union has with the city, which I expect they will continue, and I'm aware of the circumstances under which it was made many years ago because my partner had something to do with it, that that wouldn't happen.

But your objection still has the force and effect. I just don't think that you'll lose your job and I want to thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, just following on the points of Mr. Green and Mr. Wilberlorce. As I understand it this is a fear that individuals like Mr. Wilberlorce have at :he present time, that while under the collective agreement at the present time where there is a piece of paper in existence at the present time by the representative union that persons in the situation of Mr.

Wilberlorce are protected, by virtue of the present no. 68(3) that is confined in legislation. The basic fear is the possibility with the possible change of legislation that assurance that they have at the present time in the collective agreement and in the piece of paper could go by the way. And that is the fear. Is that correct?

Jrme 5, 1976 MR. WILBERFORCE: Yes it is,Mr. Pauliey. MR. PAULLEY: Thank you. MR. CHAffiMAN: Any further questions? Hearing none, thank you. Mr. Wilberforce. Mr. Norman Plater. Mr. Plater, you may proceed. 195 MR. PLATER: Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, Mr. Paulley. I don't want to prolong this discussion in connection with the conscience clause but I just wanted to speak to this committee as a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ and one whose conscience would be affected by compulsory payment of rmion dues. I would like to support the position taken by these other speakers.

This legislation, as has already been mentioned, was passed in 1972 and I for one was very thankful for the provision made by this government. I would urge the govern ment to leave the

section stand as being protective of the rights of persons who have genuine conscience before God. The authority of government, I believe, is God given and along with the authority is the responsibility which I'm sure would be recognized. It's already been referred to, but there are other jurisdictions that have such provision and I believe without negative results, Australia and New Zealand and the Canadian Government, in connection with the Second World War, l',lade such provision on the basis of conscience in respect to other matters. Thank you. MR. CHAffiMAN: Thank you, Mr. Plater.

There may be some questions. Are there any members of the committee who wish to ask any questions? Hearing none, thaY'k you, Mr. Plater. Next we have Mr. Frank Fowler. MR. FOWLER: Mr. Chairman, committee members and the Honourable Mr. Paulley. I represent today the Road Builders and Heavy Construction Association of Manitoba. There are approximately 90 members in the association and we employ some where in the c'Ieighborhood of 8, 000 or 9, 000 people Ett our peak season. We do perhaps 90 percent of the contracted municipal and highway work in the province.

Last winter we did not receive a copy of the White Paper and we were really rmaware of what was going on rmtil very recently. It was not rmtil yesterday, in fact, that I saw it and it was not rmtil Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning that we were able to acquire a copy of the legislation. We have briefed through it and we feel we have not had time to make a sub mission and we're requesting that time be given. In Mr. Paulley's own words, we would like very much to be able to read this document thoroughly and rmderstand it and come again before this committee to make a submission. MR. CHAffiMAN: Thank you, Mr.

Fowler. Are there any questions any mem bers of the committee may wish to ask? Mr. Axworthy. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. ChEirman, just one question in terms of the cursory look that you've had at it. Are there any areas that strike you as being objectionable at the start that you would requi re further examination or assessment? MR. FOWLER: Oh, yes, definitely there are. MR. AXWORTHY: Well could you indicate those b:riefly to us. MR.

FOWLER: Well 119(1) - these have already been referred to and of course we share a lot of the feelings that have been reflected here today. 6(2) is another, and really that is just the start. You must rmderstand, Sir, that our association frmctions on the volrmteer basis. We do our own studies. we make our own policies and make our own decisions, so we must gather together the people in the organization to do this. We don't have anybody that does it for us. Since this only came into our hands on Wednesday, we just have not had time. MR. CHAmMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, since 1955 at least and for many years before, I believe, it has been the law that no employer shall interfere with the internal acm:rlnistration or the organization of a trade union. Have you understood that to mean that an employer could go running arormd and tell his members that he doesn't believe in unions and that they should not belong to rmions, or that they should belong to one union or another union? Because that has always been the law. I mean, always, it's been the law for the last 20 years.

196 June 5, 1976 MR. FOWLER: True enough, but they seem to be trying to make it more and more difficult for a person to speak at all. MR. GREEN: But it has always been the law that no employer - and I'm now trying to quote it from memory - that no employer shall interfere with the internal ad ministration or organization of a trade union. I have some small knowledge in the law, I always believed that that meant that an employer could not go and tell his members to join a union or not to join a union or that it would be good for them or that it would be bad for them, because it says that he shall not interfere with the administration or the organization. Now I think that this

section merely indicates what has always been understood by people in the trade union movement. MR. FOWLER:. Mr. Green, if I may say so, if this has been the law for 20 years why do they need the provision in this Act ? MR. GREEN: Because there are people who, of course, have differed from what I think has been the law. MR. FOWLER: Well, this was what I was saying ••• MR. GREEN: Well, that's why I asked you, Sir, that's why I asked you in that it will be even a stronger position to enact the law. You are an employers' group.

Under the previous law did you think that you had the right during the organization of a trade union to get the employees in to tell them that they shouldn't belong to the union, to tell them that unions are not a bad thing? Has that been your opinion? Because if it has been then for sure we need this law. MR. FOWLER: No, on the contrary. I agree that that has been the law and I see no reason to make it more stringent. It already exists. MR. GREEN: So what we say is that this is the law and all we are doing is spelling it out. MR. FOWLER: I understood it was spelled out previously, Sir. MR. GREEN: That's fine.

So this really doesn't change things, does it? MR. FOWLER: No, it doesn't. It's redundant. MR. GREEN: All right, fine. So then you are not worried about it. MR. FOWLER: Then we don't need it. MR. GREEN: Okay. MR. FOWLER: You agree. MR. GREEN: But for those who believe that we need it , i t will not create a problem for you because you always understood it to be the case. MR. FOWLER: I understood it to be the case but the wording is more restrictive than it ever was • MR. GREEN: It is more specific than it ever was. You have always said that the restriction was there, now it has been specified.

With regard to the other

section that you referred to - and you know I'm really talking about the fact that you haven't had time to prepare - my impression is that the legislation was made public approximately a week ago. The bill was distributed last Friday. --(Interjection)-- Distributed last Friday., Was it? Correct, last Friday. MR. FOWLER: We were unable to get a copy until Wednesday morning. MR. GREEN: My understanding is that it was distributed Friday; you couldn't get a copy until Wednesday and I concede that that is a problem.

But really, those two points, one with regard to what has been referred to as ''freedom of speech" and the other one which deals with an employer who has more than one company operating what the Board may consider to be one appropriate unit, that's the law in six other jurisdictions in this country. MR. FOWLER: I'm not aware of that. I'm not dealing in law. MR. GREEN: Those things are, if not simple legal positions, they are concepts which you as a businessman would not have a great deal of diff iculty dealing with in four or five days.

I mean businessmen have come in and asked us as lawyers to prepare briefs for two days later on much more complicated subjects. Your association really couldn't get a brief prepared for today because of the time when the legislation was brought in. MR. FOWLER: That is correct.

June 5, 1976 197 MR . GREEN: Okay . MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paulley . MR. PAU LLEY: Mr . Chairman, I would like to ask the delegate a couple of questions of a similar nature. We've been hearing cries of speedup, of the inability of individuals to have had an opportunity of preparing for representation.

Are you not aware, sir, that as far back as about July in 1974 advertisements were placed in practically every paper, including the rural papers in Manitoba, asking all interested organizations and firms and individuals who were concerned with labour relations in Manitoba to submit papers or to make representation to the Minister of Labour and the Department of Labour in respect of labour legislation in Manitoba ?

Further and following that, that in December of last year I sent out or the Department sent out to all of those who made representations earlier in respect of labour relations, copies of those representationc with a further press release announcing that this was being done and that if any firm or group or person or individual felt that they could still or would like still to make representation in respect to the labour laws as they were existing or as in the opinion of people should exist, or contributions as to methodologies of making them more amenable to the people of Manitoba that those repre sentations should be forwarded to the Minister of Labour where they would be welcomed.

It was on the basis of representations which have been going on now well over a year that followi ng the White Paper - that was also publicized · · that there was cause to be compiled the document that we have before us making certain suggestions in changes in our legis lation.

Now, my question to you, and I'm not trying to berate you at all, Sir, but in that period of a year and a half as against the pe:r)od of a week or two since we've had Bill 57, have you not seen any of this or have you not given consideration of forwarding to us the be·.1efit of your knowledge and of your input into the Labour Relations affairs and matters of the Province of Manitoba ? MR. FOWLER: Mr . Paulley, I did not see the original advertisement. Perhaps that's why we weren't on the lists that were distributed, your White Paper . MR. PA ULLEY: There was an announcement though.

I'm sorry for my inter- jection. There was a public announcement of the availability of such . MR. FOWLER: Well, that was obviously missed too . MR. PAULLEY: I see . MR . FOWLER: I regret deeply that that happened. But nevertheless if the White Paper is a paper of generalities where the Act is very specific in what they want to do, and regardless of your in-depth knowledge of the Wh ite Paper, it wouldn't be until your received a copy of the Act and had an opportunity to study it that you would really know what was in the mind of the legislators • MR .

PAULLEY: But would it not be more reasonable for me as a Minister of Labour to expect that while I would agree with you that you might not be knowledgeable of the detailed content of any bill following the announcement or production of a White Paper, that your keenness of interest would cause you to make an endeavour what the production of the results of the year and a half of investigation by the Department of Labour into the aff airs of labour were to be . MR . FOWLER: Sometimes these things move rather slowly as you 're well aware and as you've illustrated. • • MR.

PAULLEY: We're moving quickly, and we're getting . MR. FOWLER : ••• and all of a sudden, bang, it's done. This is the pobt I'm making, and I'm not the first one to make that point today, Sir. MR . PAUL LEY: That's right. MR . FOWLER: But we have not had time to study the specific wording, and it is the specific wording like the old maxim, "it's the big print what gives and it's the little print what takes away ". We'd like to be able to read the whole thing, the big print and the little print. MR. PAULL EY: I don't disagree for one moment .

Most of the members of the Legislature, the members of this committee are reading the so-called small print for the first time , but they have been involved, others that have been here making repre sentations this afternoon have been involved in the White Papers, or pink papers, call them what you will, but in my opinions I don't know, maybe it was me that failed, that it was my desire, and I'm not trying to blow smoke up me own kilt, but it was my desire as

198 June 5, 1976 (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) ••••• the Minister of Labour to give to you, Sir, and all people of your inclination, time to have an opportunity to make representation to be heard insofar as our labour legislation is concerned, long before the bill was printed and placed on the desk of the members of the Legislature. Even yourself, and here again I'm not trying to be argumentative, indicated that while you did speak precisely to one

section in the bill I believe in answer to a question of my colleague Mr. Gr een, you said that there were a number of others that you would have wanted to speak on had you have had the opportunity. Now, I just ask you, Sir, and I presume I will be the Minister of Labour for a week or two, can you give me other than, of course, the suggestion of deferment or postponement for another year or two, but for the future apart from that, can you give me some ideas of how you would handle the job differently? That's not a question, Mr. Chairman, it's not fair. It's not fair, Mr. Chairman, and I withdraw it.

But I'm sure Mr. Fowler would be more than pleased to quiety take me aside and say, "Well, now, look Mr. Paulley, I think this would have been a better way of doing it. " So maybe we'd better leave it just at that. MR . FOWLER: Thank you. MR. CHAffiMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman., Through you to Mr. Fowler. Mr. Fowler, you have said that you didn't have a chance to see the White Paper for one reason or another. You've also pointed out that one of your major areas of concern is the pro vision in 119(1) relating to Associated Businesses.

Since there was no reference to that provision in this pbce of controversial legislation that we 're dealing with in that

section in the White Paper, do you think it would have done you any good to have seen the White Paper? MR. FOWLER: No, I don't really think so, because the White Paper only talks in generalities. MR. SHERMAN: I agree with you. I don't think it would have done you any good, because that provision wasn't in the White Paper. MR. FOWLER: I'm not aware really that it was, because I haven't read the White Paper. MR. SHERMAN: Well, like you Mr. Fowler, many persons are being exposed to consideration of that provision for the first time, even those of us who saw the White Paper.

So you're in a large company there, whether you saw it or not. Mr. Fowler, notwithstanding the existing laws that Mr. Green referred to with respect to 6(2) Interference by an Employer, or what we call the "Infringement of Freedom of Speech" provision, notwithstandi.ri.g the earlier existing laws that Mr. Green referred to, would you not say that your

interpretation of · that provision diff ers from Mr. Gr een's

interpretation? MR. FOWLER: I find it very restrictive, the

interpretation is very restrictive. I think it's too restrictive . MR. SHERMAN: Yes. MR. FOWLER: I think an employer should be able to talk to his employees. Perhaps the right way to do it is to have a forum where the union representatives can talk at the same time to the employees as the employer can talk to them. MR. SHERMAN: Yes. MR. FOWLER: What's wrong with that? They won't do it. They won't let us talk to our employees . But the union people can come in and badger them for weeks on end. MR. SHERMAN: That's right. What Mr.

Green is talking about is interferenc e, What you 're talking about is the reference to indicating one way or another just in con versation. There's a discrepancy here and there's a difference in

interpretation as to whether conversation and indicating constitutes what Mr. Green like to think is interference. So there is a difference in your approach to that

section and his approach to that section. MR. FOWLER: Well, I imagine there are diff erent

interpretations of to what the degree of interference or what degree of contact with your employees constitutes interference. MR. SHERMAN: Yes. You don't consider that the kind of activity that could be implied in the term "ind icating" - it's the term "i ndicating" that is used in that provision - you don't necessarily feel that the kind of activity that could be implied in that kind of

June 5, 1976 199 (MR. SHERMAN co nt'd) • • • • exercise neces sarily co nstitutes interf eren ce, it may mere ly constitute the transmission of information . MR. FOWLER: I would think that the transmission of info rmation is not inter- feren ce. MR. SHERMAN: Right. In other words what you're saying, Mr. Fowler, �.s I read it, is that the ball game has chang ed . Actually that you 're fac ed, and many others are fac ed here with content in this la')our legislation that has not been put before the public for examination prior to this time • MR. FOWLER: I would agree with that 100 percent. MR.

SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr . Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gre en. MR. GREEN: Mr . Chairman, I want to deal with this point again. I rather understood from the witness that he understands that his present restrictions are that he is not to try to tell the employees whether they should or should not belong to a union. I ask you, and I read you

Section 7(1) of the existing Act: ''No employer or employers ' organization and no person ac ting on behalf of an employer or employers ' organization shall participate in or interfere with the formati on" - the words are '':larticipate in or interfere with" - �the formation, selection or administration of a union or the repres entation of employees by a union that is the bar gaining agent for the employees or co ntribute financ ial or other support to a union ." Now do you under stand that your rights under that sect ion as it now reads are that you co uld go to your employees and tell them not to belong to a union?

MR. FOWLER: No . I see nothing wro ng. I don't think it would be breaking the law if I went to my employees and said that I don't like that union . MR. GREEN: Do you think that that would be within your rights at the present time? MR. FOWLER: I think so, yes . MR. GRE EN: Then I think that we ce rtainly have to change the law, because that has never been my understanding. MR. FOWLER: What's wrong with saying that you don't like a union ? MR.

GREEN: I think that the Act says : 'Th at no employer shall interfere with the select ion of a trade union." I think that an employer telling his employees that he doesn't like a particular union or that he like a particular union, the co .,.. ollary, are both prohibited by the existing legislation. If you think th,'oy are not then you have given me reaso ns for the passing of this law that I never had befo re . I thought we were really just specif:<,.ing, but if you really think that this is a change then I think we need the change . Now I'm going to ask you •• • MR. FOWLER: Excuse me, Mr .

Green, just before we leave that subject, In the existing Act I believe that Sect ion 23(1) ''Nothing in this Act deprives ·�cny person of his freedom to express his views if he does not use intimidation, coercion, threats or un due influen ce ." If I say to my employees ''I don't like that union, " is that a threat ? That's not coer cion, that's not intimidation . MR. GREEN: I think that the respect ing of free speech is carried forward into the new legislation. So there 's no change there . MR. FOWLER: No, I can't say that in the new legislation. MR.

GREEN: The new legislation co ntains no refe renc e to free speech, freedom of speech being protected ? MR. FOWLER: As I read 6(2) • • • MR. GREEN: Yes, I believe it does, yes . MR. FOWLER: As I read 6(2) I can't say. MR. GREEN: I'm glad, Sir, that we are getting this point cleared up because I practised Labour Law for 15 years , If I could ever prove to the Labour Board that the employers went to the employees and told them that he didn't like that union, I had a good case for unfair labour practic es . That was my thinking for the 15 years that I pract iGed. --(Interjection) -- That's right .

That was under previous legislation. However I want to ask you this . Is this a problem for you ? "Except with the co nsent of the emplo yer, no person shall attempt at an employer's plac e of employment, during working hours of an employee of the employer, to persuade the employee to become

200 June 5, 1976 (MR . GREEN cont'd) ••••• or to continue to be or to refrain from becoming or continu ing to be a member of a union. Now, as I understand that section, if there are two people working for a trucking company and they are driving from here to Thompson - probably about an eight-hour drive - that during that drive if one employee says to the other em ployee that I think you should join the union or I think you should stay a member of a mlion that would be an unfair labour practice for which that employee could be prosecuted. Or I think you should be a member of a union.

Now, is that an infringement of the free speech of the employees contained in the same legislation? MR. FOWLER: Mr. Green, as I've said, I have not practised law for 15 years. I am not that familiar with the Labour Act as it stands, or as it's being proposed to be amended, and I am not in a position to debate with you the merits of this Act . This is what we are asking for, time to study so that we can come forward and make a presen tation and if necessary answer your questions. MR.

GREEN : Sir, it c.oes interest me, and I ask you the question, that this provision regarding the free speech of the employees has been in the Act for at least 20 years that I' m aware of and employer groups and lawyers and members of the Law Society have not come here or gone to any Legislature and complained about the denial of free speech of employees that is contained within the labour legislation. MR . FOWLER: I think there's a denial of free speech of the employers, not of the employees . MR . GREEN: I know that 's what you're worried about. MR . CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Hearing none, thank you Mr .

Fowler. The next delegation is either Mr. A. Dueck or Mr. Harold Jantz. One or the other . It was indicated that one or the other would present their brief . Would you give us your name, Sir? MR . JANTZ : My name is Harold Jantz . I've copies of this brief. I suppose I' m here speaking on behalf of the Flat Earth Society. Maybe one could just as well say that it's the legislation which is trying to create a Flat Earth Society by forcing everybody into the same m old.

This statement is being made on behalf of the Mennonite Central Committee, Manitoba, a service organization and relief Minister of the Mennonite Conferences of Manitoba. The decision of the Manitoba Gov ernment to move ahead with an attempt to remove from the Manitoba Labour Relations Act

Section 68 (3) a

section guaranteeing pro tection for the person who genuinely objects to membership in a union and paying dues to a union has caused us great concern. While even the present Act did not appear to give real protection in the manner in which it was initially interpreted, the rulings in the case of Henry Funk in the Court of Appeals and of Mrs . Gertrude Fries en of Swan River and of Gordon Dyck of Winnipeg have been encouraging and gratifying to us. We are persuaded that

Section 68( 3) can provide adequate protection for the person who wants to exercise his conscience in the difficult area of labour-management strife. However, the proposed new legislation appears to be an attempt to carefully take away the possibility for appeals of people like Funk, Friesen and Dyck to stand. Now what are some of the reasons why there have been concerns ? We have been concerned because the underlying philosophy which has been almost universally accepted by the union movement in this country is an adversary philosophy.

We have seen this demonstrated in many ways by the ready use of intimidation to win a point, by the growing militancy of unions and their leaders, by the use of the strike as the major means of achieving the desired results, or the assumption that labour and management must seek questions from opposite points of view, and this has been reflected again and again today by the adoption of unreasonable positions at the start· of negotiations as a matter of course and all of these based on the assumptions of a class struggle.

We are concerned about the adversary stance because Christ taught us a way of reconciliation and love. He taught us to look to the interests of the disadvantaged and the poor, the sick and the helpless before we look to our own interests. He taught us that both employers and employees are answerable to the same Lord, and we want to assert this, and therefore ought to look at one another as partners rather than adversaries . And for a Christian to lend support to a movement which easily adopts intimidation, force and

June 5, 1976 201 (MR. JANTZ cont'd) •••.• strikes to gain its goals creates a serious crisis of con science. We are concerned because of the growing disrespect for both a signed contract and for the law of the land which has been demonstrated by many unions, and while the average citizen is frequently fined heavily or otherwise made to suffer if he is in violation of the law, all of us have repeatedly been witness to a flagrant disregard f0r the law and for signed agreements on the part of Canadian unions .

These are reasons why some of our members have been particularly forced into situations of crisis of conscience where they have been required to join unions. We are concerned because of the attitudes reflected in the shrill demands for an increasingly higher standard of living. We already enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world and yet our demands are not ceasing to climb. There is a kind of attitude of selfishness which is constantly being encouraged by the demands which unions put forward.

In manv cases these demands do not correspond to the real increase in produc tivity of the working people that they cl aim to represent. There's a demand for a higher standard of living which are made here frequently at the expense of others who are worse off than they. The greatest demands are frequently being made by those already among the most favoured and best organized while the impact is felt by those worst off and least organized. Our concern as Christians is that unions have lost the ability to ask themselves the questions which a keen sense of justice would suggest.

They no longer ask about the needs or the concerns of others. "To hell with society" would sum up the attitude of many . If hospitals have to be evacuated, as has happened in Manitoba, if schools have to be closed, if the elderly have no buses, if roads cannot be adequately maintained, if police and fire protection are withdrawn, if the postal service is stopped, all of these can be accepted so long as we achieve our goals . Much less do we ask ourselves what our growing demands do in terms of the needs of the rest of the world.

What about the 85 or 90 percent of this world 's people who have to live with much less, much less than we, who are perhaps even asked to feed our insatiable desires, since our six percent of the world consumes forty percent of the world's goods. We 're also concerned about the acceptance of the principle that right be esta blished through force and exercise of might.

It is a reflection of the sterility of the thinking of both government and labour leaders - and, of course, of management in many cases as well, I think one could just as well direct this to management - that force should be seen as the only effective means of coming to some solution on differences . This en courages the use of intimidation and makes the definition of right dependent on the side which can develop the greatest force. Justice and morality are minimized in favour of force .

It should be clear to any thinking person that this is deeply troubling to many, not least of all Christian believers who wish to allow the spirit of Christ who taught love and openness to others, reason and reconciliation and concern for others to permeate their lives . I'd like to say something specifically in relation to the proposed repeal of 68(3) and its replacement with a new section.

This change is deeply troubling to our Mennonite community as I believe it is to many others within the Christian community and other faiths perhaps as well but certainly within the Christian community in the province, it is troubling because it is clearly more restrictive than the previous legislation. On the fourth page I have the two sections side by side, and it's quite clear that the new pro posed legislation is much more restrictive than the previous, which was itself already a compromise.

It should not be necessary for a free, ostensibly democratic society such as ours to have to make special provision to allow someone to keep on working if he opposes membership in a union and paying dues to a union with which he is fundamentally opposed. We have already had to accept that we have to make a special appeal to stay out of that kind of an association and withhold our dues to that kind of an association, but now even that compromised legislation is being further withdrawn. This is a shame to our government and to our province.

The new legislation, secondly, removes the right for an employee to withhold

202 June 5, 1976 (MR. JANTZ cont'd) • • • • • dues from a union with which he does not wish to associate or identify . It is not enough to say that a person should be content to simply remain outside of a union to which he is opposed . If that right is granted and then he is still compelled to support that union with his money, the right to disassociate becomes a mockery . For the right to be real, he must be granted the right to at least apply the equivalent of the dues to a mutually agreed upon charity . This position is well-established in jurisdictions across this country and elsewhere .

Paying dues to a union with which one cannot identify in principle means that one has to give tangible, material support to the tactics, the leaders, the political affi lia tions and the goals of the unions in question. To make such extraction of funds legal is a direct contradiction of the human rights code of both this province and our nation which professes to protect the rights of all citizens of this nation regardless of their race, creed, sex or nationality. The new legislation removes the references to conscience as you will have seen, refe rring only to his religious beliefs .

The intent appears to be to disallow tests of the individual's belief and conscience and to allow the Labour Board to enquire again con cerning the religious beliefs of the church to which the applicant may belong . This is how the Labour Board began to interpret

Section 68(3) at the beginning, but as a result of the Funk case they were compelled to enquire concerning the beliefs of the applicant not his church . We should be very aware of the implications of this change . The Mennonite churches of this province and most other Christian churches do not have specific teaching or church rules against union members hip . They never will . They do not functio n that way. They teach general guidelines and principles which they believe are taught in the Bible from which the individual must draw his conclusions in the situations in which he finds himself in every day life .

This is what is meant by the fun ctioning of one's conscience. If we are disallowed the right to make an appeal on the basis of a reli giously instructed conscience we will effectively deny the real ri ght of most genuine conscientious objectors in labour unions to some protection. We will move in a direction which is counter, as well, to a proper def inition of what is religious . When conscience is emphasized, religion is clearly whatever is an ultimate significance to the person himse lf.

A defin ition for religious or religion which appeals only to church rules or clearly stated church positions, however, will ultimately have little meaning since there is no reason to assume that they will shed a definitive light on the real state of the individual's convictions . A fourth concern. The new legislation appears to be a direct response to the successful appeals to the earlier legislation. This places into question the motives of the government in providing the legislation in the first place since the obvious reading of the earlier legislation clearly seemed to give opportunity for sincere appeals .

And I want to just read the wording. It says: ''Where an employee in a unit in respect of which a collective agreement is in effect has satisfied the Board that by reason of his religious beliefs he is by conscience opposed (

a) to joining a union; (

b) paying dues to a union, the employer shall not remit to the bargaining agent" and then continues. Now the reading seemed to be quite clear and the rulings in the end followed that reading. I think it should be drawn to everyone's attention that at the very conclu sion of Bill 57, the transitional provisions, we have in 30(2) ''all orders of The Manitoba Labour Board made under subsection 68(3) ," that is in relation to the conscience clause of The Labour Relations Act, as that subsection was before the repeal thereof by

section 22 of this Act, "cease to have force and effect on the date that

section 22 of this Act comes into force . " I think that this is a dreadful provision for a government to pro pose to pass . In other words, to put a law before the Legislature which will make null and void rulings that were handed down prior to the passage of this legislation . I think it creates the impression of a cynical piece of legislation of a legislation that was not really intended as it appears to read. Number Five .

The new legislation may make "economic martyrs " of people who will not be able to accept the compulsion to support with their dues organizations to which they are principially opposed • Thank you . MR. CHAffiMAN: Thank you, Mr . Jantz. I have Mr . Green and Mr . Johannson.

June 5, 1976 203 MR. GREEN: Mr. Jantz, just on that last point about the Legislature undoing previous deci sions . If the previous decisions denied a right of a person to opt out where we thought that he did have the right to opt out - let us say that the court ruled that a person can't opt out and we had thought we passed

an Act that said he could opt out, would you complain if we then came into legis lative ses sion and said, what we thought we passed is the right to opt out, the court has ruled against it, we are now going to rule that he can opt out which makes these decis ions null and void . Would you object to that? MR. JANTZ : If the intention that you had in mind was to allow opting out and it didn't work that way, I think we would be ••• MR.

GREEN: It's not really the court decis ion that's sacrosanct, what you 're looking for is a principle and if the principle that we wanted is not in fact the principle that's adopted then there'd be a dif ferenc e of opinion between what you are suggesting and perhaps some of us are suggesting, but the fa ct of passing legislation to undo what we consider a wrong decisi on is not a horrendous thing to do . We do that all the time . Depends on who thinks it's horrendous. MR.

JANTZ : I am a simple layman in law but when I read the law on the face of it it app ears to provide protection for a genuine conscientious objector, and I take it that this is what the government had in mind, that the government was sincere in this . I believe, Mr. Green, that you were sincere when you passed this, but now you are saying that you were not sincere by what appears to have been there . MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Jantz, if you would read what I said in the Legis lature at the time you will see that I said that this opting out

section is going to go much fur ther than what the Legislature says it will do and I did not approve of the legis lation. So my sincerity is there and I think that the members of the Legis lature did not think that the Funk case would be decided as the court did but as the Lab our Board did . And if we did, if we thought that it was the Labour Board's decisio n that reflected the view of what we passed in legislation then you wouldn't call what we are now doing horrendous; you would think it was horrendous because you don't agree with it but in terms of registering our intention it's not horrendous. MR. JANTZ: Well there is a Fair

Interpretation Act that seems to me to be in conflict with what you're doing in the end of Bill 57. MR. GREEN: Mr . Jantz, I accept the fact that you don't agree with what we are doing and really that wasn't the point that I wanted to bring up and if you still stick to the position that's being horrendous I'm not going to try and argue you out of it . I rather think that if you were in favour of it you would not be calling it horrendous • However, I want to deal with another point. What you are saying is that as the individual believes his conscience dictates to him is the esse nce of the religion.

I would gather that you are not talking about your own religion, you are talking about anybody's religion. MR. JANTZ : That's right . MR. GREEN: And that the esse nce of the religion is what a man in conscience feels, that it may be reflected to a divinity of one kind or another or perhaps divinity need not enter into it, that a religion is the searching and adherence to conscience . I think you said that in your brief . MR. JANTZ : What a person considers to be of ultimate significanc e and what he would seek to shape his life by . MR. GREEN: Right .

And it doesn't matter what religion, it could be Christianity , could be Judaism, could be Mohammedan, could be Confusism or it could be an "ism " that you and I aren't even mentioning, that doesn't exist in the sort of formal religion, And if any of these religions dictate to a person that he should not associate himself with paying to trade unions then he should be able to use that religious clause . MR. JANTZ : If he could persuade the Board that he was genuinely in con science acting upon his belief and in good conscience, then our position would be that the Board should respect that, yes . MR.

GREEN: Well now, Mr . Jantz, do you not agree that what you are saying, that anybody who does not believe in unions should not have to pay union dues , period . MR. JANTZ : If he can persuade the Board in that particular work situation in relation to that particular union that that is a genuine matter of conscience for him, yes, then our position is that that should be respected .

20 4 June 5, 197 6 MR. GREEN: Well if there was a ce rtification proceed ing and 70 voted for the union and 30 voted against the union and each of those 30, and you would respect a per son's beliefs, each of those 30 came to the Lab our Board and said I said I did not vote for this union because I don't believe in unions, I think they are a bad thing, I think they crea te dissention, I think they cr eate conflict, I think they cr eate situations which are intolerable , it is contrary to my conscience to belong to such a union.

Then each of those people should be able to opt out in accordance with what your standard would be . MR. JANTZ : Is that wrong ? MR. GREEN: I, Mr. Jantz, am asking you whether, am I wrong about your feelings ? I don't want to discuss the • • • Am I correct in assessing that to you ? thing as MR. JANTZ : Yes, you are . MR. GREEN: So what you are really saying is that there should be no such MR. JANTZ : A closed shop . Yes . MR. GREEN: ••. not a closed shop, but a shop where everybody is re quired to be a member of a union. MR. JANTZ: Right. MR. GREEN: Well, that puts it squarely on the table .

The reasons that have been given by Mr . • • So you are asking me to unlegislate the procedures which by certification says that a majority will decide that there 's going to be a union and that everybody will be in the union . MR . JANTZ : Which would certainly be in the direction, ye s. MR. GREEN: Now, I gather you say that some of your members have opted out on the grounds that they feel that there 's force and militancy and grasping demands, and I think that you said that that applies the other way too . MR . JANTZ : Yes. MR.

GREEN: That the employe rs try to pay as little as possible, that they argue about what wages are, that they try to resist the demands of tlieir employees, that from time to time they will hire other employees rather than ones that are asking for higher demands, that they will engage in conflict. Are you aware of any of your members who have refused to sit on a board of directors because employers are engaged in con flict with employees ? reason. MR. JANTZ : I couldn 't speak of members either joining or not joining for that MR.

GREEN: So you know of no person who on account of his religion who has refused to be either an employer or a member of a board of directors of employer on the ground that being an employer involves him in conflict with his employees ? MR. JANTZ : I know of people who have taken very cr itical positions towards what employers and employer-management groups have done . In most cases I think I should say that the employers that I know are usually small business people who may not find themselves in those groupings. But I can't speak of specific situations • MR.

GREEN: But you know of no sort of Mennonite Ch urch movement which has asked people to not be employers or not be members of board of directors because they are liable to be involved in conflict and intimidation practices and class war against employees, or things of that nature ? MR.

JANTZ : Well, I know of several Mennonite organizations, Mennonite Ec onomic Development Associates, Ch ristians in Business and Industry, groups like that1 among Mennonite business owners> employers who have formed these organizations for the purpose of trying to help one another to know how to act as Chri stians in their business practices . That would be the extent to which I am aware of, of attempts on the part of employers to try to work with the issues of strife and injustice in the economic marketplace from a business or management point of view . MR.

GREEN: Would you also know of many employees of Mennonite background who have participated and worked in unions on the very same basis ? MR. JANTZ : Yes, I know of a great number of Mennonite worke rs who have been parts of unions • MR. GREEN: So it is possible for a person of the Mennonite Church who be lieves in what we all believe in, better things, less hatred as between people , who are

June 5, 1976 (MR. GREEN cont'd) ••.•. able in conscience to the Mennonite Church to work within trade unions for the achievement of those results ? 205 MR. JANTZ: Well I should say that many of them work with a troubled con science because they 've seen the amount of strife , they've seen the kind of militancy that's been pumped into the union movement in this country, and who work with a great deal of conscience. I should think that some of us would be deeply disturbed, for instance, that a hospital has to be evacuated in this province because of a threatened strike . MR.

GREEN: Would you think that people should not be on the hospital board because they, on the hospital board, may be involved in creating a conflic t by trying to get their employees to work for less than adequate wages ? That they should leave the hospital board for that reason ? MR. JANTZ: Well, you say that this is a one-sided thing. MR. GREEN: That it 's the unions that are causing the trouble and that every body who has to pay wages is doing good and everybody who has to work for them is doing bad. MR. JANTZ : By no means, Mr. Green. I feel very deeply that the problem isn't on one side • MR.

GREEN: But basically to follow your position to its ultimate logical con clusion1 anybody who firmly, strongly, believes against trade unions should be able to opt out of any union. MR. JANTZ : Yes . MR. GREEN: That's fine . MR. JANTZ : I should just like to add this one comment. That there 's a great deal more freedom in ass ociation in management groups , employer groups than there is in worker groups . There isn't that kind of freedom and this is our concern . Wherever it becomes totalitarian, as it's becoming here, undemocratically, we become seriously concerned. MR.

GREEN: Can you tell us where that freedom is for me and my prof essi on ? I mean I am required by law, not by any type of union militancy or support that they have obtained by 50 percent, but I am required by law to pay $220 to the Law Society to be able to practise law. You know that the medical prof ess ion got up and didn 't have a secret ballot, had a standing vote, to see whether they were going to withdraw their services from the patients in the Province of Manitoba .

Have any of your Mennonite colleagues felt that it is neces sary for them in conscience to withdraw from the medical profession on that account ? MR. JANTZ : I know that some of them are struggling with their conscience in this situation. I'm not aware of any who have withdrawn.

I think that the profe ssional societies that tried to say themselves that they were not unions in the sense in which labour unions are unions, and that they are even operating on a dif ferent set of standards, and this might make membership there more acceptable . • • But I might very well have the same problems with the Law Society as I would either . MR. GREEN: Mr .

Jantz, do you agree that I should have the same rights in my society as you are asking for the members of your employees, that if I firmly be lieve in conscience that it was wrong, that it created a class elite within society for there to be a society which runs its affai rs and drives members out when they don't do exactly as they say when they engage in free speech, that we should put a provision in the Law Society Act which permits me to send my money to a charity ? MR. JANTZ : Well, in that situation I would say yes .

So yes, moreover that the way to go would be to form Law Societies that would allow people to identify with the kind of philosophy which does represent their convictions . That is to say, for those of us who feel that there are some principles which Christians ought to operate with which are different than those accepted by the Law Society, then perhaps we ought to have a Christian Law Society in this province . What reason is there for assuming that that couldn't work as well as what we have now ? MR. GREEN: Yes . But at the present time we have a Law Society which is secular, which I have to be long to .

We have the same with regard to the medical pro fession . I am really now going to te rminate my questions • Do you believe that the

206 June 5, 1976 (MR. GREEN cont 'd) ••••• members of those professions should have the same freedoms vis-a- vis their professional assoc iations as you are now saying should apply to trade unions ? MR. JANTZ : I would say if the profess ional societie s adopt the practices and the philosophy of the labour unions , then you sh ould have the same right to opt out there as you do in the labour unions • MR. GREEN: But, Sir, you will respect my rights .

You say that not whether you think they are adopting those practices, but you say that every individual member of the Law Society has a right to judge for himself on the basis of his religious deep-felt conscience whether in fact they are acting the way he thinks they should act; not that you say that they are acting properly or improperly, but the members of the society should have that right . Is that not your position ? MR. JANTZ : Yes. MR.

GREEN: Therefore you say that the same proviSion you are now asldng for with regard to trade unions should be given to the members of those learned societies and professions " MR. JANTZ : Yes. MR. GREEN: Okay, we're a long way from doing that, Sir . MR. JANTZ : Yes . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Johanns on . MR. JOHANNSON: Through you, Mr. Ch airman, to Mr. Jantz . Mr. Jantz, you in effect, say that the government members of this committee are being cynical and totalitarian in supporting this piece of legislation, and you're spealdng as a Ch ristian .

Now I will not say that you are being cynical or being totalitarian in proposing your viewpoint, but I do want to ask you a number of questions on your brief. You made the position on behalf of individual conscience being the key factor with regard to the conscience clause . MR. JANTZ : Yes. MR. JOHANNSON: But I gather you're not spealdng as an individual today. MR. JANTZ : I've been asked by the Mennonite Central Committee of Manitoba to speak on their behalf . MR. JOHANNSON: So this statement then has the support of the Mennonite Central Committee of Manitoba . MR. JANTZ : That 's right . MR. JOHANNSON: I see .

You state in your lis ting of concerns reasons for concerns about unions, that you're concerned about the adversary philosophy of the union movement . I would agree with you that there is an adversary philosophy . Does your church oppose the present economic system in whic h we live , the private enterprise system ? MR. JANTZ: It frequently has difficulties with it. MR. JOHANNSON: But does it oppose the basic concept of the so-called pri vate enterprise or free enterprise ? MR. JANTZ : I would say that 's bard to answer precisel y in those terms.

It very frequently condemns many aspects of the free enterprise system, there is a deep criticism that is constantly taldng place . MR. JOHANNSON: I perhaps haven't lived in this province long enough_, I haven 't heard that ldnd of criticism coming out very frequently and I haven't heard it from the Member for La Verendrye who represents a predominantly Mennonite area . Now the whole concept of free enterprise is an adversary concept and it fre quently involves the use of intimidation of all kinds . Do you approve of this or do you disapprove of it ? MR. JANT Z: I would disapprove of that . MR.

JOHANNSON: You disapprove of it ? MR. JANTZ : Yes. MR. JOHANNSON: You disapprove of the use of intimidation. You disapprove of precisel y what in the free enterprise system ? MR. JANTZ : I think where there is manipulation of people through advertising , where there is manipulation of employees through practices which demean people ,

June 5, 19 76 207 (MR. JANTZ co nt'd) ••••• depersonalize people, a disregard for the dignity of the person, where there 's a drive for consump tion without regard for the real needs of people or the needs of people in other parts of the world , cert ainly we are against those things . Those are things that we would cr iticize . Listen, I don't want to sound pious or hypocritic al .

I know that you could point to any number of cases, any number of people within our own co mmunity who may do those things and yet I think there are also very many people who sinc erely believe as Christians within a Mennonite tradition that these things are not right and seek to live a diffe rent way . MR. JOHANNSON: You've just cri tic ized muc h of the free enterprise system . MR. JANTZ: Yes . MR. JOHANNSON: I'm rather astounded. Has your organization ever appeared before a Legislative Committee and voiced these critic isms ? Because I've never heard them before . MR.

JANTZ: Well, we 're expressing them within our co mmunity all the time. I'm not aware that there 's been a co mmittee which has provided the forum for that kind of an expression, so it may have, and I stand to be corrected on that. MR. JOHANNSON: What is the basis of your opposition to these character istics of both unions and management? What's the basis of the opposition within your co mmunity? MR. JANTZ: To the adversary system ? MR. JOHANNSON: Yes . MR. JANTZ: In the first plac e we might say that Christ has taught us to love our enemies.

To say that I have to look at an employer as an enemy or as an adversary simply does not co rresp ond with Christ teaching us how we ought to live with one another. Furthe rmore, we believe that both employees and employer s are acc ountable to God and that ought to make us partners rather than adversar ies . I see no reason why we ought not to work on a partnership concept rather than an adversary co ncept . MR. JOHANNSON: Okay . May I ask you a fu rther question along that line ? MR. JANTZ: Yes . MR.

JOHANNSON: You talked about living along the lines of partnership rather than along the lines of an adversary system . MR. JANTZ: Yes . MR. JOHANNSON: There is a sect ion in the Bible in Acts whic h deals with the teac hings of the early community of Ch ristians, and this is the basis I gather of the Huttarian Faith, the Hutterite Faith. MR. JANTZ: Yes . MR. JOHANNSON: Acts N 32 states: "But they had all things common ." And this was the fun damental teac hing of the early Christ ians . Has your churc h accep ted this ? MR. JANTZ: We accept it in some plac es in precisely those terms .

In other cases we believe that as a church co mmunity we form the kind of community where if someone has a need we will try to meet that need; whethe r it's through help when some one 's sick or if there 's a disaster that has struck someone we try to provide that kind of help . MR. JOHANNSON: But the early Christ ians believed far more fundamentally in it than that. You're talking about a kind of charity . They talked about all things com mon . No private ownership .

In fa ct there 's a story of one Ananias and Sapphira, his wife , who were struck dead because they failed to share with the other members of the early Christ ian com munity. So there is a very fund amental faith in co mmon ownership among the early Ch ristian community, not a question of ch arity to those who were poor. Now, you rej ect this do you as a chur ch ? MR. JANTZ: I'm not sure if you 're trying to say that the only

interpretation that one can give to the New Testament teachi ngs is that this ought to be pract ised as you've interpreted here . There seems to be plenty of evidence throughout the Book of Acts and later on that there were communities of Ch ristians in other plac es who had what you might call private property and still had a community of goods . In other words, they helped one another in their needs and yet had a ce rtain amount of private property . MR. JOHANNSON: So you are saying that there are possibilities of finding diff erent

interpretations in diff erent areas of the Bible which may conflict one with the oth er .

208 June 5, 1976 MR. JANTZ ? Oh, I'm sure . MR. JOHANNSON: There is also a

section in Isaiah which is very famous, "They shall not build and another inhabit, they shall not plant and anot her eat, for the days of a tree are the days of my people and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands ." This would seem to op pose the very basis of the private enterprise system where the worker does not enjoy the fruits of his labour but the employer certainly gets a part or more than a part of his labour . Do you reject that ? MR. JANTZ : I'm not sure of the precise passage that you're citing; I'm not sure that you're citing it in context even .

It may be that in that particular situation there was some situation which appeared to give advantage to one group against another . I don't think that that is very helpful really . MR. JOHANNSON: Okay, just one more question, Mr . Jantz . In your bottom of Page 2 you state that it should not be necessary to make a special provision to allow someone to keep on working if he opposes members hip in a union, paying dues to a union with which he is fundamentally opposed, and you say this is a shame to the government and our province .

Would you concede, if you want the right of an individual on the basis of individual conscience to reject or to be free of the obligation to join a union or to pay dues to it, would you also concede to the othe r workers who may work with this indi vi dual the right to refuse to work with him. if they in their conscience do not find that they want to work with him, that he is doing something which is fundamentally opposed to their individual conscience ? Will you give them that right ? MR.

JANTZ : Well I can think that if a group of employees felt that strongly about the person who wished to opt out of the union and wished to apply the dues else where, I think they should have that right certainly, and I think the person who really out of genuine conscience take s this position and then suffers this consequence, I think you won't have that person coming back and complaining . I think he 'll say that he 's will ing to accept that kind of penalty . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Axworthy . MR. AXWORTHY: Mr .

Chairman, I paus e because I don't have my own scripture here from which I can do an exegisis on, so I'll have to ask questions in fairly prosaic terms . Mr. Jantz , earlier in the day we had a repres entation from a group of people who objec ted to the repeal of this Act on the basis that their own religious beliefs didn't allow them to join any kind of secular organization or assoc iation whats oever . So it was a very personal mat ter, that it didn 't matter what the organization or assoc iation was they just personally could not involve it beca use of their beliefs .

Now I believe that is not the case with the Mennonite Brethren, that there is no inhibition about joining ass ociations or organizations but you are object ing to this particular class or group of organizations on political, social or economic grounds . Is that a fair statement ? MR. JANTZ : Yes. We have many people who join a wide variety of asso cia tions and in many cases, perhaps in most cases without any serious problems .

We 've increasingly had difficulties with membership in unions against which there is no church regulation in my particular conscience within the Mennonites, but we 've increasingly had problems because of the stanc e that unions have taken, the kind of philosophy which has permeated the whole union movement. MR. AXWORTHY: So really in effect the object ion that you're raising is not one that is nec essa rily ground in the personal religious beliefs but in the position that the church is taking in relation to certain social and ec onomic developments in this organiza tion or of society as a whole . MR.

JANTZ : No, I should say our church es, the Mennonite Church or its conferences have a very strong predominant theme in terms of a peace position, in terms of trying to implement the practice of love in our working situations, in the various situa tions in which we find ourselves . But the problem is really a personal problem beca use the individual has to try to find what is the Christ ian response within his individual situa tion, his personal situation .

So it still is a personal matter and you won't hear from any of our pulpits , unless I'm mistaken, but I think it would be very few pulpits where one would hear someone saying from the pulpit you shouldn't join a union, you are not to be long to a union. But we'll have teachings saying Christ teaches us to love our enemies, Christ teaches us to work as partners with one another . and then the individual trying

June 5, 1976 209 (MR. JANTZ cont'd) • • . • • to find his way within his work situation and encountering perhaps a very militant union and saying I cannot identify with this kind of practice and then asking for the opportunity to opt out of that association. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, could I ask Mr. Jantz this though, under the legislation you are not required necessarily to belong to the union but simply to transfer your dues . Now the people who have appeared before us said they considered that to be tantamount to belonging.

Now the argument we 've heard from the union side is simply that people are getting the benefits in effect of union bargaining and in representation for them in the workplace. Would the kind of position that you 're representing object to the question of just being able to opt out of the union? Can they not exercise their sense of indignation or reaction simply by saying I will not be part of that but at the same time be prepared to pay the dues and such because • • . I think one of the union representa tives said they pay for services all the time .

They pay for school teachers to teach although they may object to education the way it's taught, and so forth . MR. JA NTZ: I think some have perhaps been willing to accept that, others have not been willing to accept it because they felt that to have to pay the dues even though one is not a member is still in a sense, and in a very material, very real sense, being forced to provide support to this organization with which he is quite fundamentally opposed .

And I'd like to just respond to that a little fu rther by saying that those who have not been willing to pay dues to a union have still been willing to pay the equivalent of those dues to a charity . In other words it has not been a matter of trying to get this extra money for themselves . So they've been willing and I think if there was a fine that was imposed on those who wouldn't pay dues to the union I think they would be willing to pay the fine .

If you had wanted to make it double the dues, I'm sure that they would be willing to pay a fine that was double the dues because they are fundamentally opposed to paying this material support. But I think one should also say that while we 're quite content to pay our taxes we feel that this isn't the same as the tax.

If the union move ment would be willing to allow, at least from our standpoint, if the union movement would be willing to allow the organization of multiplicity of unions which would reflect the varying philosophies or ideologies of workers within that workplace then we 'd be quite happy to pay our dues to the union with which we would choose to identify . This is what is happening in some other countries . But here we 're imposing a single union on these working people .

In our country we at least have the choice of voting for the politi cal party with which we might want to identify, not all of course who are here today would do even that, but we would be quite prepared to vote for the party of our choice, but here we don't have that choice . Here we have one organization which is imposed upon us which often takes a stance with which we cannot identify . MR. AXW ORTHY: Mr.

Chairman, we could go off in several directions, but when you say you're concerned about the question of choice, is it not true though that within the union shop you have a choice of electing the kind of union leadership that would represent diff erent points of view, there is theoretically that pluralism within the union movement itself in terms of offering those kind of choices as there is theoretically in government to offe r those kind of choices, although the theory never really quite is exemplified in practice ? Well I'll tell you, Mr.

Jantz , what my problem is: I have a very strong feel ing about trying to protect the rights of individuals who happen to practise a belief that is different or unusual compared to the normal stream, and I believe that in some of the representations that have come before us that position has been held, that they just feel that they cannot belong to any association. In yours I'm having a little more trouble because in effect you're saying you don't want to belong really because you don't like what unions are doing, which is a very different thing.

And I think, as the previous lines of questioning point out, there doesn't seem to be the same reaction to business organiza tions or prof essional organizations or educational organizations, whichever they may be . And I'm really trying to say: Are you objecting to them really because they are unions, not simply because of what they're doing? MR. JA NTZ: I think the objection is to what they've been doing, the position that they've been taking, the stance that they've been takingJ that's largely, I would say, the place where the objection has come. In some cases I should say that the opposition

210 June 5, 1976 (MR. JANTZ cont'd) ••••• is more general, and there isn't one mind within the Mennonite community certainly, there are some who would be opposed to membership in any union, any kind of association, much like a position that 's been presented earlier here today. For others, the concern has been with particular associations which have reflected a stance, attitude, a philosophy, which is very fundamentally diff erent from the ldnd of stance we feel we as Christians could take, and so the opposition has developed on those grounds. MR. AXWORTHY: A final question, Mr. Chairman.

Do you suggest that really this position was taken because of the recent legal • • • decisions taken in the courts that have provided for some release from payment of union dues ? In a practical way, do you see that now becoming a much more widespread occurrence now that there's been a couple of cases won, so that in effect there would be a danger of brealdng apart union shops or union units if this became a much more common and frequent occurrence ? MR.

JANTZ : Well I really have no idea to what extent that might happen, though in Ontario, where the law has been interpreted much more generously than here in Manitoba, there has only been several hundred perhaps who have exercised that choice. I couldn't see that it could be a tremendous threat1 but on the other hand I would think that we would not ask that as the first question. I think we would ask: do we really want to respect the conscience of people ?

And if there is any basis for believing that a person wants to opt in or out, out of genuine conscience, then we ought to try by all means to respect that, whatever the price might be. And surely for a society as ours, which is already a very favoured society, that ought not to be too high a price to pay. MR. AXWORTHY: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Shafransky. MR. SHAFRANSKY: Mr.

Jantz, you indicated that you are opposed to the amendment which would allow for objectors on matters of conscience to have their union dues be paid into the unions, rather that they should be paid into a charity of their choice. Then you would also favour that any gains that were arrived at as a result of the collec tive bargaining, that the amounts of money gained by the union in negotiations should also be turned over to a charity , in fact, actually would be that they would be worldng at the minimum wage as established by the Province of Manitoba ? MR.

JANTZ: Well I would say in the first place the person is employed by the employer not by the union, and if the employer chooses to pay him the wage then he ought to accept it. It 's not the union that ought to decide. In the second place, I would say that if the union is really concerned about justice, as the unions generally say they are, then they ought not to be that worried about doing something for those who are the disadvantaged in that situation. What we 're hearing here all the time is that the unions really are not concenred about others, they 're concerned about themselves. MR.

SHAFRANSKY: Well that 's not my understanding. I understand unions are formed because the people within a plant are concerned about the working conditions, about the wages, and so on, and they get together to form a union and they elect a body that is going to be leading their affai rs, and therefore speak on their behalf to provide those type of services and the type of worldng conditions and the wages collectively which they could not do themselves individually.

Now it would seem to me that if that is the case, that a person who benefits by those people who are working together to try to improve their lot, then those other people who benefit should, if they are objecting to contributing to that union, then those benefits that were derived by the other people, those benefits should be turned over to charity the same as the union dues. MR.

JANTZ: Well I think I would agree with you that if there are benefits which are specifically the result of the activities of the union, or which in some way are tied directly to the union, I think that this person ought to be willing to forego those. MR. SHAFRAN SKY: I don't know of any situation where the benefits were arrived at just simply by the benevolence of the employer. It was simply because of the fact that people got together, employees got together and they asked and got the type of benefit. MR. JANTZ: I'd like to say this for our working people.

I think in most cases one would hear the employer say that they're earning their wage, whatever the wage is that they're being paid. I don't think that most of the people that we would repre sent would be people who would not be earning what they are being paid.

June 5, 19 76 MR. SHAFRANSKY: I'm not trying to deny anybody. 211 MR. CHA IRMAN: Any further questions ? Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Jantz. Mr . Paull ey. MR. PAULLEY: I'd just like to ask Mr. Jantz one or two questions . I fol lowed with a great deal of inte rest his exhortation and his desc ription of the Mennonite Church, and referen ce, of course, on numerous occasions to we Christians this and we Chri stians that, because we happen to belong to one denomination or the other that has made representation before this Committee this aftern oon.

I, too, conf ess, and it may be quite a confes sion for the Minister of Labour to make, I, too, consider myself, despite some of the enunciations that have come from the podium, I consider myself a Christian and also I consider myself a trade unionist, and I don't think the one debars me from being an adherent of the other . So I felt that just in order that we be on straight and forward ground at the offset of any remarks that I happen to make, that that should be clearly understood.

I do not hold myself above anybody else simply because I happen to either be a trade unionist, a Christian, an Anglican, a member of the Plymouth Brethren or the Mennonite Church or any other denomination. Now as I listened to you, Mr . Jantz, did I gather from your desc ription of the components or the make-up of the Mennonite Church that within that Mennonite Church that there are a number of divisions , that there are a number of dif feren ces of opinion between pastors connected with the church.

There are some of those who have pastoral charges that have within those charges members, parishioners who are members of trade unions and regularly make their contributions .

Also within the whole make-up, as I understand it, there are those segments - to use that term broadly - within the fraternity - to use that term broadly - who disapprove of the assoc iation of their membership with trade unions . · I have follow ed, and I am sure you are aware of it, I followed very very close ly the court cases of recent months dealing with inte rpretations or misinterpretations, take it whichever way you will or whichever way I will, of our present legislation. We've had representations here today by the Plymouth Brethren in good faith asking this com mittee to leave the present

section of the Act as it is because they have protection. We have others who have asked us to change to the present suggested changes in legislation for their protection . If I also heard you right, Mr . Jantz, I thought you said that within the heirarchy or the higher echelons of your church. there is a group that decide on the general approach of your congregation insofar as their attitude toward s their participation in a trade union movement or otherwise . This is contingent on the type of make-up or the possi bility of the type of election of the Board of Directors of the particular church or

section of the church. I gathered that impressi on from some of the statements that you made before the committee . So --(Interjection)-- Pardon ? MR. JANTZ: I was just going to respond to that last if I might. If I gave the impression that there was a board or some, as you call it, group within the higher echelons of our church which is really a foreign concept to us, I should correct that immediately. There is no suc h body which is making that kind of decis ion for the Mennonite Churches . MR. PAULLEY: Do I take it then, Mr .

Jantz, that you are here this af ternoon representing all of the different segments or sections of the Mennonite Church in either the Manitoba or the Greater Winnipeg area, some by whom or through your own admission do not disc ourage and may even go so far as to encourage their parishioners to become and to belong to trade unions in their own interest ? MR . JANTZ : Last fall there was a meeting of the Mennonite Central Committee (Manitoba) to which delegates from virtually all the Mennonite groups in Manitoba came.

Within Manitoba there are - I couldn't even say offhand how many groups - there might be half a dozen or eight separate conferenc es all of whom are entitled to send delegates to this representative meeting. At that meeting there was strong expression of concern precisely on the issues that were raised in this paper today . Mennonite Central Commit tee as an organization was given a mandate at that time to make this issue a special mat ter of concern and to make representations where necessary or to help people who might have problems where necessary .

212 June 5, 1976 MR. PAULL EY: But was there any general consensus by any appreciable major ity at the conference of eight that you make referenc e to as to what direction ••• MR. JANTZ: Yes, there was. MR. PAULL EY: You say, Mr . Jantz, that there was.

Could you give any general indication insofar as the number of persons in the total picture that were inclined to - just to use the phrase - non-unionism as to that of being favourably inclined to band themselves together to extract - to use the term mildly - more from their employer than they were receiving as the result of the gratuitous, beneficial approach of their employ ers ? MR. JANTZ: Well I couldn't give precise figures.

The delegate meetings of Mennonite Central Committee (M 'lnitoba) which are held once a year generally draw an attendance of perhaps 400, 500 people and this decision at that meeting reflected the over whelming majority if not virtually unanimous votes within that body. So that there was a very strong expression of concern at that meeting and that would be the best indicator that we would have of the strength of this kind of a statement. MR. PAU LLEY: How many was that again, Mr. Jantz? MR. JANTZ: I would say there could have been 400, 500 people who came as delegates.

Each church is entitled to send a certain number of delegates based on the membership of that church. MR. PAULL EY: Could you give me any idea of what the total number of ad herents to the denomination may be ? MR. JANTZ: Approximately 25, 000 . MR. PAULLEY: About 25, 000 Mennonites of which there are eight diff erent groups ? MR. JANTZ: Eight groups. MR. PAULLEY: So we have 25, 000, eight conf erences, there would be about 3, 000 in each. MR. JANTZ: No, they vary considerably in size. MR. PAULL EY: Well we take averages. So there is no real united concentra tion in opposition to unionism ? MR.

JANTZ: Well I would have to say you are quite correct, there is no united stand in opposition to unionism because we don't take that position. In fact many of us would say, and I've argued in the past too, it would be good to have a union or an association in a certain particular workplace and I favour that principle. I do not favour, and I think this is what many of our fellow church people would say, we do not favour the kind of philosophy which now pervades many unions, the kind of tactics which are employed by them. They go counter to the position that

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-3-ir7
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 3rd hansardpdf ir7.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	44d4683c2218ceb2b79b24de9eba95c6097abfed

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