Manitoba Committee Hansard — Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 3 (35th Legislature, 3rd Session)

35-3-ir3

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Third Session -T hirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 39-40 Elizabeth II Chairperson Mrs. Shirley Render Constituency of St. Vital VOL XLI No.3 • 7 p.m., MONDAY, JUNE 22,1992 Printed by llle Offlcs of llle a.-. Printer, Prov#I'ICB of Manitoba ISSN 0713-9608

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LA THLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osbome Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage Ia Prairie Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River PARTY.

Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

67 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Monday, June 22,1992 TIME-7p.m. LOCATION- Winnipeg, Manitoba CHA IRPERSON- Mr s . Shirley Render (S l VItal) ATTENDANCE · 10-QUORUM · 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Gilleshammer, Praznik, Hon. Mrs. Mcintosh Mr. Ashton, Ms. Barrett, Mrs. Carstairs, Mr. Martindale, Mrs. Render, Messrs.

Rose, Sveinson WITNESSES: Bill 85-The Labour Relations Amendment Act Susan Spratt, Canadian Auto Workers Peter Olf ert, Manitoba Government Employees Association Howard Raper, Commu nications and Electrical Workers of Canada Paul Mo ist, Canadian Union of Public Employe es - Local 500 Bill Sumerlus, Canadian Union of Public Employees - National Terry Clifford, Manitoba Teachers' Society Richard Orlandini, Choices Be rnar d Chr istophe, Un ited Food and Commercial Workers Roland Doucet, Private Citizen Bill 64- The Ch ild and Family Services Amendment Act Rob Grant, Manitoba Coalition on Children's Rights Jean Altmeyer, Choices Mike Bills, Knowles Centre, Inc.

Bill 70-The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Genny Funk-Unrau, Private Citizen Pat Woolley, St.

Ma tth ews-Maryland Communi ty Ministry Diane Sobie , Ma nitoba Anti-Pover ty Association Erika Wiebe, Winnipeg Child and Family Services - Central Area Shirley Lord, Choices Renate Bublick, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg Greg Selinger, Councillor for Tache Ward, City of Winnipeg WR ITTEN SUBM ISSIONS: Bill 85-The Labour Relations Amendment Act Ross Martin, Brandon & District Labour Councii, CLC James Cowan, Graphic Com mu nications International Union Neil Harden, The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada Sandy Hopkins, Winn ip eg Chamber of Commerce Grant Mitchell, Private Citizen Bill 64- The Ch ild and Family Se rvices Amendment Act Dennis Schellenberg, Chil d and Fami ly Services of Central Manitoba Jerry Ross, Private Citizen Gillian Colton, Private Citizen Gale Pearase, Director, The Street Kids and Youth Project MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 64- The Ch ild and Fam ily Se rvices Amendment Act Bill 70-The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Bill 85-The Labour Relations Amendment Act *** Madam Chairper son: I would like to call this comm ittee to order to resume presentations regarding Bill 85.

I would also like to advise committee members that I have received a fourth

68 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992 written presentati on. This is from the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. They were, as comm ittee members may remember, scheduled to appear in person, Sandy Hopkins representing the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. I would now like to call upon Roland Doucet, Private Citizen. I will then call upon Susan Spratt, Canadian Auto Workers union and there will be a presentation distributed. Would you like to go ahead? Bill 85- The Labour Relations Amendment Act Ms. Su san Spratt (Canadian Auto Worker s): Sure, thank you very much.

The CAW Canada represents working women and men in over 27 workplaces in Manitoba. Our members work in foundries, the aerospace industry, furniture ma nufactu ring, farm equipment manufac turing, the service industry, the public sector, auto parts and servicing industry workers, and workers in many other industries including the carmen in the railways. The proposed changes to The Labour Relations Act in Manitoba are, in most areas, a step backwards for working people in this province.

In the Labour mi nister's announcemen t of the proposed amendments to the act, he stated that the amendments are the result of a lengthy review of Manitoba's labour legislation and are designed to improve the operation of the current act, and that these amendments uphold the right of employees to join a union. Minister Praznik goes on to say that their purpose is to provide greater certainty in the certification process. Nothing, in our opinion, is further from the truth, and the minister's commen ts show a total lack of understanding of the real labour relations world in Manitoba.

The CAW Canada submits thatthe majority of the amendments as proposed are designed to thwart the union certification process and are in response to pressure from the business communi ty. There are no proposals in Bill 85 which are a direct request from the labour comm unity. The amendments to Bill 85 and

Section 8, 1 0 and 11, which have the appr oval of the Labour Management Review Committee, we are not in opposition to. The current provisions in the act under

Part 1 ,

Section 6, although not perfect, are working well and all parties involved, The Labour Relations Board, the business commu nity and labour all know the past pract ice, history and the working of these provisions. To change it, in the minister's opinion would be to bring Manitoba in line with ot her jurisdictions. The CAW str ongly protests the changing of this section. The proposal in Bill 85,

Section 3 which deals with subsection 6(1 ) , 6(2), 6(3), will make it easier for the employers to interfere in organizing drives and to circumvent the certification process by the use of fear tactics under the guise of reasonably held opinion. Employers will now be able to say, if these changes receive Royal Assent, almost anything to th eir workers in an att empt to deny the workers the opportunity to join a union of their choice by ca tering to the fears of their workers by making state ments so long as it may be even remotely reasonable.

These changes will only draw out the certification process and will, we submit, have the parties before the Labour Board on issues such as reasonably held state ments many more times, which only serves the interests of employers in an attempt to keep unions out of their workplace s. If it is not broke, do not fix it. The Bill 85 proposed amendments in

Section 6, dealing with sub

section 41 , is another step backward, in our opinion, with respect to the expansion of secret ballot vote on applications for certifica tion. The lowering of the limit to 40 percent is meaningless, since the majority of times unions rarely make appl ication with a low percentage of support. In the CAW-Canada's opinion, this is a change which is not required, but we will accept. On the oth er hand, increasing the percentage required from 55 percent to 65 percent to receive automatic certification makes the whole process more lengthy and will increase the amount of votes which have to be held.

It will also give employers more of an opportunity to intim idate their workers by drawing out the process. You are most certainly aware that unions operate with a great difficulty when organizing due to the fact that unions do not have access to the workplace , nor do unions have access to the names and addresses of the employees. If this government wishes to be progressive, we would submit that the present level of 55 percent be lowered to 50 percent, which is based on a simple majority of the total number of employees in the unit.

June 22, 19 92 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 69 This, we submit, would be more democratic . The amendments in

Section 7, regarding subsection 4S(4), vis-a-vis information on initiation fees and regular membership dues is, to say the least, a shock. This issue to our knowledge has never been discussed in the Labour Management Review Committee and the proposal comes right out of the wilderness. There is no other jurisdiction in Canada with even a remotely similar provision and this, once again, leaves the process of certifications to challenges, delays and lengthy hearings before th e board.

There is no need for this proposed change , nor was there even a request from the management interest on the committee; therefore, it would appear that nobody wants it, nor is it required. The CAW Canada fully endorses the brief which was previously sub mitted by the Manitoba Federation of Labour regarding Bill 85, and our submission deals only with the most contentious issues in this bill. We thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Thank you. Madam Chairper son: Thank you. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thomp son): By the way, I share your puzzlement about the

section in regard to initiation fees and membership dues. I think quite a few of us on the comm ittee are wondering where this was developed from, because it really has no history and seems to-probably a little more to, as I have said before, the feeling that some of the Conservatives have, that when workers say yes to a union, th ey do not really mean yes.

There seems to be an attitude in the bill, as expressed, that the bottom line is they either made a mistake or did not know what they were doing, that it can somehow be a fairly easy process of people signing union cards without any thought to the conse quences. I want to ask you, from your experience in the labour movement, is that the case? Is it the case that people make the decision to join a union lightly ? Do they not ask questions about the dues structure ? What is going to be involved? Do they sign their name without really meaning it? When they say yes to a union, are they really meaning maybe or no?

Or in your opinion, is the government perhaps misleading the public in terms of what actua lly happensinthat process ? Ms. Spratt: It has been my experience and the experience of our organizing department with the Canadian Auto Workers that the process to organize the workplace is very compl icated , and that if you go in to meet with workers, it is a very long, slow process. They ask many, ma ny qu esti ons. They want to know about the constitution of the union.

They wish to know questions in relationship to unionization. * (1 920) Many times you will go and tal k to workers, two, three or four times to specifically answer concerns that they have with respect to the union, and I think that the union movement takes the same position that the women's movement does. When a worker says no, it means no. If they require more informati on, th en that is what an organizing person is th ere to do is to give them that information.

I could not agree with you more that this is somet hing that, to our way of thinking, is quite bizarre because for anybody, and perhaps nobody on the side of the House who has actually gone to do organizing would realize, this is a very compli cated matter. Workers think many, many times before they sign a card. They have questions, and initiation fees and union dues are not an issue. Mr.

Ashton: Just one other question, as I know there are many presenters, and I would like to ask many more questions if time permits, but the oth er major concern that has come up about this bill is the opening up, as you pointed out in the brief, of the ability of employers to participate in the certification process by making it much easier for employers to saywhattheyfeel in the case of opinions reasonably held, which is the exact term used.

Now some people will say, well, that is freedom of speech, but I am wondering from your perspective and looking in an organizing situation if you can out line to members of the commi ttee who perhaps have not been in the situation of being a worker th inking about unionizing and worried about a lot of things, particularly-! would say from experience, that many workers have gone through in certifying drives-of losing their jobs if they happen to support a union, and that certification drive does not succeed. What really happens in that situa tion?

I notice from the brief, as many oth er labour representatives have said, the argument is that we should not in any way or shape be opening up. Can you perhaps explain to some of the members of the commi ttee

70 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANIT OBA June 22, 1992 who have never been th rough that or even remotely close to it, why in fact there should be protection against the ability of employers to becom e heavily involved in the certification process? Ms. Spratt: We take the view that this is a decision between the workers and the union if they wish to be in a union, and it is then up to the Labour Board to decide whether or not these workers should be unionized and who should be their certified bargaining agent.

Once the employer becomes involved in that process, a whole array of questions and things can be said in the workplace . I will give you a couple of examples from organizing drives that I have done myself. With the new language in the proposed act that says "reasonably held" there is nothing stopping an employer under this new act. It has happened in the past, an employer saying that if you unionize the plant will close immediatel y. The plant will relocate.

We can go to Alberta, we can go to Saskatc hewan, we can go wherever, but we are not going to open up here if there is a union, and if you have a certified bargaining agent, we are not going to do that. If there are immigrant workers, it has been held and has been argued before the Labour Board where intim idation has been found, where employers have said to imm igrant women that perhaps they may be deported or perhaps they will have visita tions from immigration officers if they think about organizing into unions.

There have been other issues around issues of equity in the workplace and the whole question of misinforming workers on the true intent of a union in the workplace and telling workers that have 25 or 30 years seniority : Well, the union does not want you; they will get rid of you and protect somebody younger. These are the kind of comme nts. I find it ludicrous that we are having taken away the right to electioneer on the day of an election , but right up to the day of the vote and right up to the day of any balloting an employer can interfere with the whole process under this new act.

So those are the things that do happen in Manitoba. Those are things that do happen on an ongoing basis in organizing drives. Mr.

Ashton: As I said, I wish we had the opportunity to get into more depth on that, but I thank you for outlining those kind of experiences to members of the committee, and I am hoping that at least some members of the government caucus will think about what is happening with this particular bill and the opening up, really, of the floodgates in terms of ability of employers to engage in the kind of activity you are talking about, which to my mind I think is absolut ely unacceptable in Manitoba In the 19 90s. So, thanks again for an excellent presentati on. Mr s.

Sharon Car stalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Yes, in your pr esentation you focused on a number of things, but there are two and maybe it is not possible for you to choose between the two-but which do you find the most offensive? The increase from 55 to 65 percent, or the right for the employer to become involved by being able to say, in essence, what they will to the employee and potential union member? Ms. Spratt: I find both equally distasteful to be perfectly blun t. In my mind, they are both undemocrat ic.

You know, you are moving the vote up to 65 percent, the employer is becoming involved in somet hing. Then, on the other hand, the question as to whether the employer can interfere or speak to employees, I take the view it really has nothing to do with the employer. It is a decision that is made by the workers to be in a union. They are both distast eful. Madam Chairper son: Are there any further questions? Thank you very much. Ms. Spratt: Thank you. Madam Chairper son: I now would like to call upon Peter Olfert, Manitoba Government Employees Association. Mr. Olfert, do you have a written submission? Mr.

Peter Olfert (Manitoba Governm ent Employees As sociation): I just have one copy. Madam Chairperson: Okay, thank you. Mr . OHert: Madam Chairperson, members of the commi ttee, good evening. I am here representing the Manitoba Government Employees Associati on. Our union represents some 25,000 workers in the publi c sector in this prov ince . The people I represent work in personal care homes, universities, commu nity colleges, government offices, hospitals. They are the backbone of all services Manitobans enjoy and are entitled to receive from their government.

Lately, however, the pride of public sector workers and the services they deliver have been

June 22, 19 92 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 71 assaulted by this government. Time after time, through regulation, legislation and administrative whim, people working in the public sector have been subjected to arbitrary layoffs, wage freezes, the loss of collec tive bargaining rights, privatizati on, contracti ng out, and the list is very extensive. While these attacks were underway, many of our members and, indeed, many hundreds of people throughout the public sector, had their personal lives shatt ered. How does a 55-year-old find work in today's economy?

How does a single parent whose income has dropped by 20 percent keep her family togethe r? What about families suffering because of the job stress placed on one parent or another? There is then a litt le-known or understood human side to what has been happening. Yet, in spite of the cruelty of these changes, watc hing the news coverage of this process over the last couple of years especial ly, I am continually amazed by the language governments use to explain what is being done.

This government's public persona, if you will, is that of a consult ative , middle-of-the-road, moderate and caring government I am here today to bear witness to the radical and reactionary agenda which is being foisted on this province. Let us look at the reality. Is it moderate to arbitr arily freeze the wages of 50,000 workers? Should they be singled out to bear a disproportionate share of the so-called war on the deficit as they were under Bill 70? Is it mi ddle -of-the- road to change Workers Compensation to an experience-rating system which rewards the bad employers and punishes the workers?

Is it caring to destroy final offer selec tion, a process which gave Manitoba the fewest days lost to strikes in this country? The answer to all these questions is, no. The sorry fact of the matter is that the government says one thing and does another. It is a matter of trust. The latest piece of labour legislation, Bill 85, is no exception. The minister said that this legislation is a result of consult ati ons.

I want the record to show that for my part as president of the MGEA there was no time when we felt that the so called consultations were anything more than a polite ritual on the part of this government. This was a one-way process only. After even the most cursory review of the bill, it is abundantly clear that the Chamber of Commerce got an awful lot more than the polite hearing we receiv ed. So let me serve notice to you, the members of the committee and to every member of this government, we in the labour movement will expose this strategy at every opportunity. How can we take

part in any more consultations which only serve as window dressing for this antilabour legislation? How can we co-ope rate with you if you conti nue to attack workers that we represent in this province? I would like to turn for a moment to several specific aspects of Bill 85 to illustrate exactly why we cannot accept this legislation. First, the amendments on ce rtification votes propose that the range be changed from 45 percent and 55 percent for a mandatory certification vote to between 40 percent and 65 percent.

Our position is that if more than 50 percent of the unit have signed cards, there is no need for a mandatory certification vote. A majority is a majority is a majority, and in this case it is more than 50 percent, not the 42 percent who elected our Premier (Mr. Filmon) in Tuxedo. By raising the upper limit, however, it is quite clear that the opportunities for employers to intim idate their workers before a vote is held will be substantially increased. * (1 930) Amendment 7(1 ) is also destructive. What it is saying is that the union must explain its dues structure before a worker signs a union card.

First, I can see from this clause that the minister probably has never been involved in an organizing drive. During any drive the first questions asked by workers are, what benefits can the union provide for me, what are the dues or initiation fees? This amendment is also highly insulting and paternalistic. Unions are not in the business of conning people to join. Workers who ch oose to join a union know very well why unions are needed and they do not need you to protect them from us. Finally, this amendment is yet another tool for management to undermine legitima te organizing drives.

I can just see it now, managers will only have to find a few antiunion employees to sign cards and then testify that the due structure was not explained to them, even if it had been. Conceiv ably, the certification process could be entirely derailed because a clause lik e this, qu ite si mp ly, is impossible to monitor.

Section 8 is a counterpunch to

Section 7 amendments. This

section restricts activities by managers and unions on the day of the certification vote . The restriction talks about, other activity, and again a loosely worded, wide open, catch- all phrase

72 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 19 92 designed to provide management with a tool to entrap legitima te union activity to delay certification . When taken in its entirety, it is evident that the government is saying that fairness does not matt er. Each of the changes gives management a bigger club, a bigger lever to use against their employees. It is obvious to everyone in the labour movement that the Chamber of Commerce has lobbied hard to have their agenda paramount in the drafting of this legislati on.

This bill smacks of the whole philosophy so often espoused by the Fraser Institute , the Business Council on National Issues, and others of their ilk. When taken as a whole, these changes illustrate that for the government to claim that this bill came out of a consu ltative process is patently absurd. It is not compromise or consensus at all. It is quite simply another direct attack on workers and their collective rights as trade unionists . When taken as a package , there is clearly a common theme linking each amendment, each bill aff ecting labour, each decision taken by this government.

This government does not want workers to organize, to gain reasonable benefits, or to be treated fairly by their employers. In fact, this legislation states unequivocally that there shall be no fairness for workers; there shall, however, be more and more ways to reward employers. Thank you very much. Mr. Ashton: I just want to ask one question, but an important one.

As I have said before, I really believe many members of this comm ittee not only have not been through organizing situations as you have said; have not faced that choice ; have not ever been a member of a union so perhaps do not even understand how unions operate in term s of the due structure, et cetera. I want to giv e you the opportunity to address, not so much those who might come upfront, and maybe some government members in this committee, and say the real purpose of this bill is to prevent people from unionizing, because I suspect that is part of it.

It is a deliberate atte mpt to make it more difficult, to prevent employees from unionizing, but there may be some, as I said before, who perhaps do not come out and say that direc tly, who perhaps thinks, as I said before, that when someone says, yes to a union, they do not really mean, yes, they m ean, mayb e or no; they were either mistaken or hoodwinked or coerced or whatever to sign a union card. We have already heard some pretty clear testi mony from people today , and again tonight, pointing to how difficult a decision it is for people to make.

I just want to ask you, with your experience in the labour movement, to give perhaps to those on this commit tee who might have someth ing of an open mind on this, how you would explain to them how that decision is. Is it an easy decision? Is it a flippant decision ? Is It a diffi cult decision? When someone signs a union card, do they really mean it? Mr. OH ert: I can certainly vouch for the fact that it is certainly a long process. It is not something that you can go in and organize generally in a matter of days or weeks.

Many times it is months before you get to a point where you may be in a position to apply for a certificati on. In speaking to people, there is no question that it is one of the biggest decisions of their lives. Because in today's-and especially in today's economy, when jobs are tough, there are not very many jobs out there to begin with, and people are certainly fearful for their jobs. So they view this as a very big risk for them to take, to put their job on the line in te rms of signing a membership card. It is not an easy decision , a long process.

There is no question that when you get a group of employees together they want to know everything about your union, what kind of services they can provide to you, what services you can offer to th em. They always ask what the dues-and we are very upfront about the dues question and initiation fees. Many of those things are discussed with them and, generally speaking, many meetings have to be held with groups of individuals, and people have to be told over and over that the union is there to fight on their behalf. So it is a long process and one that people do not take lightly. Mr.

Ashton: I appreciate the information to the members of the committee, and I do hope that at least some of the government members on the comm ittee will listen to the advice of people such as yourself and others who know what the process is and how it is a serious process and how much this bill will damage the ability of workers to freely choose to say yes to a union. So thank you very much. Madam Chairper son: Are there any further questions? If not, thank you very much.

June 22, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 73 I would now like to call upon-now, I am not too sure about the spelling here and the pronunciation Howard Raper. Mr. Howard Ra per (Communica tion s and Electrical Worker s of Canada): Thank you. It is pronounced Raper. Madam Chairper son: Thank you very much, Mr. Raper. When you are ready, please proceed. You have a written presentation, and I believe everybody has a copy of it. Mr. Raper: I would like to thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. I am here representing the Com munications and Electrical Workers of Canada.

This is a union of approximately 40,000 members across Canada, some 2,000 of whom reside in Manitoba. All of our Manitoba members have the same employer, the Manitoba Telephone System. In other provinces, a large percentage of our members are employed in the manu factu ring and servicing of elec trical and electronic products. We are proud of our reputation as a union that works to build a positive relationship with the employer, in which both parties act to expand and improve the business in order to enhance the working condition and employment security of our mem bers.

We bel ieve that labour relations legislation should reinforce the concept of the partn ership of labour, busi ness and the government. In our view, Bill 85 fails miserably in this respect. It reinforces an adversarial relationship between labour, business and, indeed, with the government. We have reviewed the sugg ested changes contained in Bill 85 and would like to address a few of the issues in this legislation.

Because I have been directly impacted by the current Labour Relations Act, I feel well qualified to provide some constructive criticism on some of the proposed revisions. • (1 940) The first issue I would like to address is the repeal of

Section 6(2) and the addition of

Section 32(1 ). We see this as a change that could make organizing in this province next to impossible. We have already had occasion to see first-hand the effect this kind of intimi dation would have. During a recent organizing campaign, employees in the plant were told to atte nd a meeting during working time on the employer's premises. At this meeting, an antiunion petition was circulated and, of course, anyone refusing to sign was immediat ely cate gorized as a union sympathizer. The person who organized this meeting was a so-called independent object or.

Management claimed they had no knowledge of the meeting and had not authorized it. No action was taken against the independent objector, of course , even though she had supposedly taken people off the production line during working time without authoriza tion. I wonder what would have happened if an employee who was a supporter of the union held such a meeting under the same circumstances. We, of course , sought legal counsel to see if it was possible to successfully file an unfair labour pract ice.

We were informed that unless we could prove that the employer had initiated the meeting we would be unsuccessful before the Labour Board. Imagine what the impact would be if employers could freely campaign in the workplace . We already have a flood of consultants eager to collect exorbitant fees from employers for showing them how to stop organizing campaigns. Now labour lawyers will be making a lot of money arguing what defines a state ment of fact or an opinion reasonably held with respect to the emplo yer's business.

The proposed changes to Sections 6 and 32 constitute an open invitation to emplo yers to intimidate their employees. This would extinguish the principle of an employee's right to freely decide without coercion or intim idation by the union or the employer whether or not they wish to join or to work in a unionized workplace . I would like to say that in talking about having people sign cards, and I heard Sid Green earlier say that the workers in Manitoba are not easily intim idated. Well, let me tell you that they are very easily intimidated.

Certainly, there are a core of fighters who are willing to risk their job to join a union, but those are in a very small minority in any workplace , where you have a core group that feels so intense about the thing that, yes, they are willing to put their job on the line . My experience is that the first thing that you tell somebody when you are asking them if they would like to join a union is you assure them that the only people that will know that they have signed a card are yourself and usually there is one other person with you.

You assure them that nobody else in the plant will be aware that they have signed a card , and that is for the simple reason that they are concerned that somebody in that workplace is going to tell the

74 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 22, 1992 employer that they have signed a card and then they are really concerned about their continued livelihood. So we make it a practice to assure them of the privacy of the act of their signing a card . They are very easily intim idated, and it is certainly one of the most popular tactics by employers. I experienced it in the union drive that I am just talking about where managers tell employees, well, if a union comes in here the employer is going to move out of this location and everyone is going to lose their job.

When you approach an employee who has been told this you say, I have heard that you were told this. Is this true? Yes, it is true. Are you willing to testify to that effect? No, I am not. They will not testify before the Labour Board that the employer has intim idated them, because they, again, are fearful of their continued livelihood . The next revision I would like to address is

Section 45(3.1 ). Our union is recognized for the wide powers given to members to make decisions. One of the decisions made by local members in our union is the amount of dues that they pay. Members of newly formed locals decide by majority vote how much is required to operate the local. This is usually done at a membership meeting held shortly after they have become certified by the Labour Board. There are no specific dues set for members of a newly created local. Our two locals in Manitoba now pay a different percentage of their wages in union dues.

This is because the members of these two locals have made different decisions on how much is required to operate their local organizati on. In our organization, the dues are set by the members and a lot of the differences in the dues that members pay depend on their organization. If it is a local representing people that are all under one roof in one plant and they are all, say, located in Winnipeg, their dues can be set quite lower than the dues of a local such as we operate now in Manitoba. We have two locals that represent telephone workers right across the province.

To have meetings we have to fly representatives from Thompson, The Pas and Ain Aon to Winnipeg so that they have a voice in the affairs of the local . That is a very expensive local to operate . However, under other circumstances, like I say, if the plant is all under one roof, the dues can be much lower because the local does not require as much dues to operate . People recognize the fact that an organization requires funding in order to provide services. They should be given the right to decide what is an appropriate dues structu re.

This revision of the act would take away the right to make that decision from our new members. The decision would be taken out of the hands of our members and placed in the hands of the officers of the national union. This is contrary to the democratic principles on which our union was founded. We would have to set some rate that we thought would be appropriate and tell the people we were organizing that this is going to be your union dues. They would not have that right to decide for themselves. The changes to the percentage figures in

Section 40(1) are another example of how this government wants to make it more difficult for employees to freely associate in an organization. To give the outward appearance of fairness, the percentage to trigger a vote in the workplace was lowered. I know of no union that has knowingly submitted cards to the Labour Board of less than 55 percent in order to have a vote in the workpl ace . Unless there is over 55 percent support, unions have no desire to have a vote conduct ed. The decrease in the percentage required to trigger a vote is meaningless. It will have no impact at all.

Union leaders realize that once their intention to organize is made public, employers will attempt to dissuade union membership and some of the initial support slips away. They also realize that stal ling tactics by employers to delay a vote will further erode support. The union movement has many study results indicating the longer a vote is delayed, the less likely the vote , when taken, will be in favour of the union. ..

(1950) The percentage of 65 percent required to trigger an automatic certification is tota lly unrealistic. How many provincial or federal governments can make claim to have the support of 65 percent of their constituents? Not many. This revision is an out-and-out attack on the labour movement of Manitoba and a concession to business interests who want to eliminate the labour movement from the picture in Manitoba. We propose that an indication by a majority of employees that they want to organize, as proven by a majority of bona fide cards signed by the employees, should result in automatic certification

June 22, 19 92 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 75 of the union. Only those appl ications which fall between 45 percent and 50 percent plus one, should initiate a vote to determine the wishes of the majority. I would now like to turn to the proposed new

Section 48.1 , regarding electioneering on voting day. It appears quite reasonable on the face of it, but I have seen enough of the message used by so-called independent objectors to be wary of this type of legislation. This

section puts no restriction on independent objectors. I suspect there will be many instances where Independent objectors, on the advice of high-priced lawyers, will be interfering with the free vote by the employees while thumbing their noses at the Labour Board. There have to be severe penalties levied on any individual who interferes with a free vote in the workplace. I exp erie nced firsthand how independent objectors operate .

Two or three individuals, who earn less than $10 an hour, somehow have the financial resources to ret ain legal counsel, an example of whom you saw earlier today, whose fees run well over $100 an hour. They somehow find the financial resources to rent meeting halls and distribute antiunion literature to all employees in the potential bargaining unit. Yet they can act with impunity and scoff at the Labour Board. There are no penalties that the Labour Board can impose on these individuals. There is no obligation put on these individuals to disclose the sources of their funding.

If this legislative committee really wants to make an honest attempt to ensure that employees have the right to decide about union representation without coercion from anyone, then make revisions making independent objectors responsible for their act ions. I ask you to consider changes to Bill 85 that would address this problem and to ensure that independent objectors are truly independent. Thank you. Madam Chairper son: Thank you very much. Mr.

Ashton: Madam Chairperson, I find your brief particularly interesti ng, because it focuses in on, I think, one consistent theme throughout this, which is the question of democracy. Presumably, the question of certification relates to the democratic will of the employees involved. I know when going through the bill, one of the concerns that many of us have had is the fact that this is a very undemocratic bill. It has provisions in here in terms of elections, which would never be found in any elections act. Your reference in terms of the numbers is quite accurate again.

I mean, this government does not have 65 percent of support never has, never will. £:ven in terms of the independent objectors, once again we have election regulations in terms of disclosure of campaign funding and limitat ions in that regard. Even in terms of the question of employer interference, to my mind, what is being proposed here would be equivalent to having the United States campaign in our elections, because they are affected by Canada-U.S. free trade . They have a stake in it, so why should they not they be able to come in here and explain their position to us?

I do not think too many people would expect anyone to think anything of that nature. I want to ask you that because you specifically pointed to a case of a so-called independent objector pulling people off the line during company time to circulate an antiunion petition-and that is even by current legislation, and it shows that there are limitations even in current legislation. I want to ask you to go one step further with this Bill 85. What do you think it is going to do in terms of organizing drives? You made some very strong state ments here. This would make organizing this province next to impossible.

How is it going to do that? What impact is Bill 85 going to have, given that some of this stuff is already going on? Mr. Raper: I believe that the example that I gave where a so-called independent objector called people off the line to circulate an antiunion petition and to ask people if they were supporters of the union or not-1 think that is going to be done, or similar kind of things, maybe not a petition , but certainly there are going to be meetings called by employers of the employees in a particular plant or whatever the employers' organization is going to be.

The employer is going to have a forced audience because they are on company time, they cannot choose whether they attend or not, and people are going to hear the employer's line as to why it is not in their interests to join a union. I think that is moving the line way into the employer's favour when it comes to a free decision without coercion and intimidation by an employer on employees. So it is just going to make it so that while we will have to encourage people to come to our meetings;

76 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 22, 19 92 they will be forced to attend the employer's meetings on company time and at company expense. Mr. Ashton: So essentially what this bill does is handcuff the ability of, not even just strictly the unions involved, but particularly the employees in tha t

part icular workplace who want to be represented by a union. I just want to take that further because one thing that I found again is that a lot of this bill seems to be coming more from the bias of the gov ernment than any particular rational reasoning. Some of the sections that have been pointed to already tonight as basic ally coming out of thin air do not exist In any of their jurisdiction, were not even asked for by the Chamber of Commerce, but are being pushed here. pnte�ection] Madam Chairperson, the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mrs.

Mcintosh) will have her opportunity in debate on third reading if she wishes to debate this or ask questions. I would be interested to know where the government came up with some of these brilliant ideas, quite frankly. But what I want to ask is, because once again you get these stereoty pical pictures put up by the Conservatives and by some people, not everyone, In the business comm unity that somehow big unions descend upon small employer uninvited, somehow bamboozle the employees, and then they join a union, can you perhaps explain to people on this comm ittee who do not understand how it works?

I mean, do unions go into areas-are they going to get very far if they are not wanted by the employees if there are not employees supporting having a union there? What is the process? What is organizing? Let us maybe go back to some of the basics, because I really sense some of the government members, apart from those that are just dead set against unions-there are probably a fair number in that category-there are some who just do not understand how someone signs a union card and the process that goes into it, and how an organizing drive begins and the role of the employees themselves in that process.

I am wondering if you can give some indication from your experience. Mr. Raper: Well, my experience in organizing is that a call is made to the union office by an employee in that work group who feels that there is a need for a union in the work group. From that you atte mpt to see if they have at least a small circle of friends who would be interested in helping you to organize that group. If you do, then you start talking to the people in the plant, usually in their own home.

Sometimes there are leaflets at the plant gate and that kind of thing, but what I found is the best way is to go to the person's home, ask to be invited in. If they slam the door in your face, that is the end of the story. I mean, you cannot force your way into someone's home. If they allow you in to discuss the issue, then you get asked-1 have heard earlier presenters go into what is asked. One of the few things that is asked is about the union dues.

One of the things that we, because we have been asked so many times in the past, say right upfront and usually at the start is that if you decide that you would like to sign a union card there is an initiation fee. We tell them what the initiation fee is, and we tell them a range of dues that are quite likely to happen in their instance, but we inform them that is their decision to make once they get an idea of the union structu re. *

(2000) The most important thing we find to tell them is that if they sign the card , no one other than the two people that they are talking to at that time will know that they signed a card. If we do not do that, we found that we had very limited success because they are very concerned that their intention is not made known to their co-workers, some of whom they may not trust to keep their mouth shut in front of the employer and some of whom they might not trust to just have it slip out somewhere where it does not belong. So we ensure the secrecy of that card and we collect the initiation fee.

As someone said earlier, usually it takes two or three visits to really answer all the questions that they have. In fact, I have made it a practice of my own not to sign up somebody on that first visit, to give them time to think about it, look through some of our literature that we have given them, and make an Informed decision when I retu rn. My big concern is that the whole independent objector thing is the one thing that has plagued unions throughout. These are people who supposedly are acting on their own behalf with no interference from the employer, but I strongly suspect that most of them are.

I have seen the actions before, during and after an organizing campaign, and it has convinced me that few if any of these independent objectors could really meet the test of being independent. I really feel that an em pi oyer using the so-called independent objectors to defeat the campaign should not happen anywhere. I think an employer has the same right to determine whether their

June 22, 19 92 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 77 employees should be unionized as the employees have the right to determine whether that employer joins an organ ization like the Chamber of Commerce or some other employer associa tion. Neither unions nor employees should be able to determine that, and I do not believe employers have any right to determine whether their employees belong to a union organization or not. Mr. Ashton: Madam Chairperson, I would just like to thank the presenter.

I cannot help but be struck by the similarities between what happens in this case where workers are democratically deciding who represents them and what happens in an election where we face the same react ion. I mean, some people close the door and then some people invite you in; some people want you to come back two or three times. In each and every case , you do not get anywhere unless you are wanted. You do not get nominate d, you do not get elected unless there is a core group of people out there that believe that you have something to offer.

I really cannot be struck by anything more than what you have said, which is the same thing with people saying yes or no, their choice as to whether they join a union. Unfortunate ly, the government with Bill 85 seems to be saying that what is good for politicians and elections at a political level does not apply in the workplace. So, thanks again for giving us some real insight. Madam Chairperson: Are there any further questions? If not, thank you very much, and I would like to call upon Rob Hilliard, private cit izen. Rob Hilliard? The next presenter, Rob deGroot, private citi zen. Rob deGroot?

Next person, actu ally two people, Bill Sumerlus and Paul Moist, CUPE National and Local 500. Their written presentation is just being distributed right now. Whenever you are ready, please, gentlemen? Mr . Paul Moist (Canadian Union of Pu blic Employees-Local500): Madam Chairperson and com mittee members, my name is Paul Moist and I work as a nati onal representative for CUPE in Manitoba. With me is Bill Sumerlus, our legal and legislative rep, who will take you through our brief in a moment.

I will just say at the outset that CUPE represents some 20,000 workers in Manitoba, largely in the health care, education and municipal sectors as well as some Crown corpora tions. We were created just down the street, 29 years ago, at the Hotel Fort Garry in 19 63. At that time we were 79,000 strong. We are now 430,000 members across the country , and I say that not to talk about our bigness, but to advise you that 80 percent of those employees are employed in units of 50 or under.

Unlike the previous presenter before you broke at six o'clock, we are not part of that 25 percent of the work force that was organized prior to these rules being put into place; CU PE's membership has been organized almost entirely since 19 63. Most of the units , as I said, are not big, large strong units, they are under 50 employees in size. With those preliminary comments, I will turn it over to Bill Sumerlus and we will both field questions afterwards. Mr . Bill Sumerlus (Canadian Union of Pu blic Employees - National): Thank you.

Madam Chairperson, comm ittee members, honourable minister, I am just going through the brief, you will note I have noted the

preamble to The Labour Relations Act of Manitoba at the outset in the brief. It reads: 'WHE REAS it is in the public interest of the Province of Manitoba to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by enc ourag ing the practice and procedure of collec tive bargaining between employers and unions as the freely designated representative of employees." That is the

preamble to our labour legislati on. I would submit that the practice and procedure of collective bargaining will not be encouraged by Bill 85. Rather, the amendments to The Labour Relations Act contained in the bill will work to delay the certification process with needless and costly litigation for both sides. The certification process is designed, actually, to be a quick and clean one, in which the employer really has no business.

Now I apprecia te that there may be some members of the comm ittee who may not consider that to be accurate in terms of an employer's business and whether or not a union comes into his plant. I can tell you, however, that really it is a decision which is made by the employees for the employees. That is properly where it is left. It is up to the employees to decide whether or not they want to unionize. One effect of Bill 85 is the potential for greater employer involvement in the certification process. Due to the vagueness and uncertainty of ot her

78 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992 provisions of Bill 85, another potential effect, as I indi cated earlier, is increased litigation. The invitation to increase litigation will only serve to get the process of collective bargaining off to a bad start. The animo sity which is engendered-and I am familiar with this on a personal level, in terms of my practice of law-the anim osity engendered by a hearing before the Manitoba Labour Board may do serious damage to labour relations and the labour rela tions clima te in any en ter pris e .

The amendments contained in Bill 85 will work to a certain extent to increase the likeliho od of such hearings. Changes to certificati on, in totality, suggest, I would submit, an American-style sort of campaign appr oach to unioni zation which has been demonstrated to imp act negatively on unions. I would submit with respect that the legisla tion generally is biased agai nst uni oni zation . Decreases in unionization in the United States show why these approaches should not be followed . Public policy in this province and across our country is in supp ort of union ization and collec tive bargaining.

Proposed changes, I would submit, are not consistent with this broad policy. I read something by the Mini ster of Labour (Mr. Prazn.ik) which indicated that the purpose of the amendments was to provide greater certainty in the certification process, to elimi nate the misuse of the first contract provisions and to provide for some general housekeeping of the act. I would submit again with respect that the amendments will slow down, comp lic ate and delay the certification process, while at the same time enabling greater em ployer interference in a process which the employer really has no business in at all.

Section 5(1 ) of our Labour Relations Act reads that every employee has the right to be a member of a union, to participate in the activities of a union, and to participate in the organization of a union. In a labour law text which is often used before the Manitoba Labour Board, George Adams notes that "The certification process is at the heart of our system of colle ctive bargaining and has a fundamental imp act on labour relations . . . .

Modern collective bargaining laws were enacted to elimi nate recognition conflicts." I would submit that the amendments to The Labour Relations Act contained in Bill 85 will serve to increase recognition conflicts and negatively im pact on labour relations in the province. The enactment of the Wagner Act in the United States almost 50 years ago resulted in an end to strikes for recognition. By allowing greater em plo yer interference in the certification process, this legislation represents, I would submit, a step backward in labour relations philo sophy.

It is particularly im portant in these tough economic times that government, business and labour work together to build Manitoba's economy in an effort to regain lost jobs. I would submit that legislation of this nature will only further divide and create mor e areas for confrontation in the certification process, which is really an effort to sort of get labour and management together in collective bargaining. * (201 0) Dealing firstly with the amendments, the first

section which I would bring to your attention is

Section 3(3)(

g) dealing with employers' statements to em ployees during organizing drives. This amendment, which you have heard a considerable amount about, expands the state ments that employers or supervisors-that is, a person in a managemen t-related capacity -can mak e to employees during an organizing drive to include statements of fact or a "reasonably" held opinion. I think it is quite clear that this amendment is likely to generate a wealth of hearings before the Manitoba Labour Board to determine whether the statements made were fact or opinions which were reasonably held.

In its current form, The Labour Relations Act is clear in this regard. Both parties know what is permissible and what is prohibited in the course of an organizing drive. The amendments in

Section 3(3)(

g) of Bi11 85 introduce, I would submit, a greater vagueness into the process . The time of the Manitoba Labour Board would be better spent dealing with other serious issues which come before it, rather than determining whether an opinion, expressed by an employer or a manager, was "reasonably" held in the ci rcumstances of the particular case. In the Adams' text, which I quoted to you earlier, on page 529, it is noted: All Canadian labour relations statutes afford employees the freedom to join and participate in the activities of the trade union of their choice.

Reflecting the high value placed on this right, legislation generally prohibits employer interference with or participation in the formation or admi nis tration of a trade union, and mo re

June 22, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 79 specifically forbids threats or other coercive or intimida tory beha viour which migh t compel someone to become, refrain from becoming or con tinuing to be or ceasing to be a member of a trade union. Underlying these provisions is the belief that an employer's superior economic position and control inherently lends significant import to the views expressed by it in the context of collective bargaining.

I would submit, members of the committ ee, that this legisla tion will simply further enable an employer to exert its superior economic control in terms of expr essing its opinions on the appropriateness of the fact of certifi cati on. Reducing the limitations on an employer's right to make commen ts to employees concerning the effect of organization will only increase their ability to chill organizing drives, and, therefo re, interfere with the rights of employees to become members of a union and bargain collectiv ely. This amendment will clearly interfere with an employee's right of freedom of associati on.

It is interference which is enacted under the guise of the right to free speech . I mean, it is often said: Well, why should an employer not be able to say what he wants to, when he wants to? It is a free country. Why can I not say what I want to. It is enshrined in our Charter of Rights. The right to free speech is not a totally unfettered right, as I am sure you will hear in the news dealing with that case that is going on right now, with the Ku Klux Klan case.

It is not an unfettered right, and the right to participate or become a member of a union and bargain col lec tive ly without em ployer interference is a reasonable limitati on, I would submit, on the right to employer free speech. The secti on I have noted in the Canadian Charter of Rights indicates: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits as prescribed by law and as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democr atic society .

I would submit that the right to free speech is lim ited reasonably by an emplo yee's right to organize, pursuant to

Section 5(1) of our Labour Relations Act. In the American Airlines Inc., Toronto, Ontario and Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and St eamship Clerks' decision which is a decision from the Ontario Labour Board, noted on page 5 of my submission, I have taken a quote from the Ontario Board at page 1 04 of that decision. It reads: We cannot stress enough the unique relati onship that exists between an employer and his employees and the privileged position it puts the employer In to influence those employees.

From this unique relati onship, the employee perceives the awesome power of the employer to fire him or her at any time, in other words, the power over life and death. Any involvement by the employer in the exercise by the employee of his or her basic right to join a union puts unfair pressure on the employee. An employee joining a union must not be put in a situation of a second-class citiz en who is adhering to a secret society and being ashamed of it. Either the right is recognized or it is not. If it is, it must be exercised in full light and without fear.

In that same decision the board also notes, it is quoted at page 6 of my presentati on: The exercise by its employees of their fundamental right to freely join a union, which consists essentially in the exp ression of their desir e to change their relationship, that from individual bargaining to collective bargaining, almost invariably brings a negative reaction from the employer, to what degree depends on each individual employer. That reaction ste ms from the employer's views that it is contrary to its interests that its employees do become unionized.

It is recognized by employers, as a fact of life, that additional financial benefits are obtained by union representation but, most important, that the possible Mure collective relation will mean a significant Joss of their management flexibility. The imp ortance, I would submit, of keeping employers out of organizing drives is readily seen in decisions such as this. The amendments in

Section 3(3)(

g) of the bill will only serve to increase the possibility of that involvement and consequently of further hearing before the Manitoba labour Board. The next secti on,

Section 6, is the one I would ask you to consider now. It is the

section increasing to 65 percent of support necessary for automatic certification. It changes the parameters from between 45 and 55 to between 40 and 65. I would submit again, to a certain extent this represents an unwarranted interference with the employees' right to organize. It is essentially, I would submit, unfair to unions. It undermines the principle of majority determi nation which is basic to our democratic system.

80 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA June 22, 19 92 Once it is agreed that a simple majority of support is sufficient to det ermine the issue of certificati on, then I would submit there is no valid justification for increasing the support required from 4 percent to 14 percent, rather than a simple majority for automatic certificati on. I would also bring to your atte ntion the sections of The Labour Relations Act which currently exist. I have included them at the back of my submission for your easy reference.

Section 45 of The Labour Relations Act, and specifically

Section 45(2), (3), ( 4) and (5) contain clear and unequivocal restrictions on mem bersh ip requireme nts and proof of membership in a union, as well as provisions dealing with intim idation, fraud , coercion or threa tened penalty by the union in the solicitation of memberships. Pursuant as well to

Section 45 of the current act, the board may examine records, make other inquiries and hold hearings for the purpose of determining whether employees in a unit, on the date of a certification application, were members in a union. These built-in safeguards more than adequately ensure the accuracy in ascertaining membership in a union for the purposes of an application for ce rtifi ca tion. Therefore, I would submit there is no need to increase the amount of support required for aut omatic certification to 65 percent.

Something else I might indicate to the commi ttee, although not includ ed in my brief, is that it is plainly not fair. Why move up 10 percent to 65 percent and not move down 10 perce nt, but only move down 5 percent? I would submit that clearly that indicates a bias against certification and the certification process. •

(2020) Dealing with

Section 7, the next amendment included In Bill 85 is the information to be provided to the emp loye e on an appl ic at ion . The amendment, as indicated earlier before this commi ttee , is unique in Canadian labour legislat ion. I will submit again that it will only serve to delay appl ications for certifi cation by increasing the likelihood of excessive litigation at the Manitoba Labour Board concerning what information has and has not been provided to an employee at the time the employee is solicited in support of an application for certification.

As indicat ed, no other jurisdiction in Canada, including the federal government, has seen any merit in legislation of this nature. The potential for abuse obviously outweighs any benefits which might be provided by this secti on. As noted earlier, The Labour Relations Act already contains provisions for the protection of employees in terms of the information provided them by a union in an organizing drive.

Further, pursuant to Sections 49 and 50, which are also included at the back of this submission, the act provides and makes provisions for applications by dissatisfied employees to cancel or term inate the certification of bargaining rights of a union. This amendment, I would subm it, in that respect is therefore unnecessary and, as I indica ted, will result in further and unneeded delay, potentially expensive not only for unions but for management as well.

If the will of the government is to proceed with this amendment notwithsta nding the appurtenant problems, there should at least be a provision includ ed in the act, and ther e shoul d be consideration made whereby a signature on a card cont aining information required by this

section is deemed sufficient com pliance with the

section in absence of evidence to the contra ry. Going on to

Section 8, the electioneering provisions, the amendment restricts activities by unions and employers on the day workers vote on certifica tion. It creates an unfair labour practice for anyone who distributes printed material or engages in electioneering or engages in any other activity for the purpose of influencing the vote on the day of the vote . Along with the other amendments mentioned above, it is clear that this amendment will only fuel more pote ntially lengthy and really unnecessary litigation before the Labour Board .

The issue of what amounts to any other activity for the purpose of influencing the vote is, I would submit, vague and ambiguous. It will have to be continuously defined and redefined by the Labour Board. Emp loyers obviously have an unfair advantage already in connection with votes of this natur e. The fact that it takes place on the employer's premises where management is easily aware of who votes and who does not vote is in itself, I would submit, a detri ment or deterrent to ascertaining the true wishes of employees. This amendment will only further adversely affect unions in applying for certificati on.

June 22, 19 92 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 81 Further, one point that is not contained in my brief, but I would ask you to consider, is the fact that it makes reference to unions, it makes reference to management, but it makes no reference at all to objecting employees. You heard a very strenuous advocate before six o'clock on behalf of objecting em ploy ees. This

section com pletely om its objecting emplo yees, completely omits restrictions on anything that is done by objecting emp loyees bef ore, afte r, during, in the course of, on the election day, or anything like that. I would submit that it should, and some consideration should be given to restricting what is done by objecting emp loyees as well. Really, again, memb ers of the com mi ttee, employers do not have anything to do with the issue of certification in any event.

If the issue of the num bers is determined, that is to say in an application for automatic certification, an employer really does not gain very much by intimidating, or the possibility of Intimidating his employees, but if there is a vote, clearly there is more incentive on the em ployer's part to do something in terms of intimidating emp loyees, and I would ask that the committee consider that In terms of this particular amendment. The final

section which I would ask you to consider is

Section 9, which is a report to the board regarding the first collective agreement. This amendm ent, I would submit, appears to be incongruous with

Section 68(3) of The Labour Relations Act and

Section 11 of The Department of Labour Act. It makes the opinion of the conciliation officer that the parties have made reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement and are not likely to conclude a collective agreement a mandatory step in the

Section 87 Labour Board settlement of a collective agreement. But if either side wishes to challenge the opinion of the conciliation offi cer, according to

Section 68(3), which has been included at the end of my submission, as well as

Section 11 of The Department of Labour Act, the officer is neither a competent nor compellable witness and conciliation reports are inadmis sable in any proceedings. While I do not have any quarrel with the question or the principle of noncompellability in relation to conciliation offi cers, I would submit that it certainly does present a problem, when considered in the context of the amendments of

Section 9 of Bill 85. Before I conclude, I would also ask to bring to your attention, or I would ask you to consider, the amendment which deals with the removal of the provision which says that supervisors essentially can become members of unions. I would submit that this Is something that should be considered by this committee. It is really unfair to supervisors, because the act before was clear. Supervisors were entitled to become mem bers of unions. I would submit that the repeal of that

section will only serve to again exclude people from the right to collective bargaining who formerly had that right and make more difficult the process by now having to go to the Labour Board again to determine whether or not this supervisor is really em ployed in a managerial or confidential capacity. So I would ask the committee to consider that as well. Again, in conclusion, it should remain clear that an employer has no legitimate interest in whether its employees join a union or not.

The interest in employers in applications for certification should be restricted to the description of the bargaining unit and not the issue of certification itself. Employers have no business in the decision of emplo yees to bargain collectively. That is the reason for the longstanding legislated restrictions on employer practices which could interfere with this decision. The amendme nts again contained In Bill 85 enable increased interference and delay an emp loyee's ability to organize and legally participate in what happen s to them at their place of em ployment.

These amendments will help to preserve emplo yer monopoly of control in the workplace contrary, I would submit, to the aims and goals as noted in the

preamble of The Labour Rela tions Act stated at the outset of this presentation. It is therefore submitted that this committee should recommend the withdrawal of this legislation or at least its return for further study and refi nement. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Mr. Ashton: Madam Chairperson, I appreciat& while I missed part of the presentation, I had the opportunity to read through here-the detail in which CUPE has gone in terms of providing an insight on the legislation. I particularly just want to focus on one aspect of the bill.

You have gone into quite some det ail in the brief, noting some decisions, Ontario Labour Board decisions, particularly dealing with the question of free speech, freedom of speech,

82 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992 because this is one of the flags that I know the Conservatives have been raising on Bill 85, that somehow this is to give employers freedom of speech. I note from previous presenters that some people pointed to some other areas where obviously we have some limits in terms of freedom of speech.

Sexual harassment is getting a lot of attention, which it should, in the workplace, and obviously that is a question of balancing off the emplo yers or anybody in a position of authority's ability to say something, freedom to say it, vis-a-vis the power and influence and to the degree of harassment that can create for the empl oyee. I just want to focus on this, because once again I do not think a lot of the people on the government side understand what they are doing with this bill. I think some of them do. They want to stop unions from being able to certify.

They want to stop empl oyees from being able to say yes to a union, but in case there are any of them who are a bit more open-minded, can you perhaps explain to them the concern that is being expressed here as to why it is reasonable to say that an emp loyer who has ability to hire, fire or promote should have restrictions, some pretty severe restrictions over a decision that is essentially not the empl oyer's decision anyway, it is the· employees?

Can you perhaps give anyone with an open mind on the government side some indication why they should not be opening up the floodgate as they are with Bill 85 by allowing empl oyers to have much more latitude to interfere in the process? Mr. Sumerlus: I can just advise that I think it is quite clear that an emplo yer is obviously in a very superior position and an-well, I will not say unfair, but in a very, very more powerful position in an application for certification than the emp loyees who are generally scurrying around hiding and afraid that anybody is going to see them.

Once you allow-and the provisions of the previous act were quite clear in terms of comments which were made by people in management, people who would likely have some influence over an emp loyee or who could even be perceived to have some in fluence over an employee , about the very careful restrictions on comments which are made by those individuals at the time of an applica tion or at the time of an organizing drive. By allowing this amendment, dealing particularly with the right of free speech, it is not really enabling free speech.

It is like saying, well, you are entitled to spread all sorts of hate, and you are entitled to make any kinds of comments you want simply because you have the right to free speech. This is a right. The right to organize is recognized by our labour legislation. It is not something that is not unrecognized by our very statute in Manitoba. So that I would submit, dealing with any sort of opening or any reduction of that right is only going to increase the already, I would submit, unfair advantage that an empl oyer has in an applic ation for certification and in an organizing drive. *

(2030) Mr. Ashton: Madam Chairperson, I would just like to thank the presenters, and I can indicate that we will be introducing a whole series of amendments covering many of the sections that you have identifi ed. While you understand, obviously, that our position is one of strong opposition to the bill, we concur with many of your observations that the bill takes a bad principle and applies it in an even worse way. So we will be paying very close attention to some of the very good suggestions about the weaknesses of this bill. Thank you very much. Madam Chairperson: Mr.

Sumerlus, did you wish to say anything in response? Mr. Sumerlus: No. Mrs. Carstalrs: Yes, I would like to just ask you a little bit more detail about your concerns about

Section 7(1 ), subsection 45(3). That is with regard-you have proposed the idea of a signature on a card, indicating the information with respect to there having been given information about what dues would be and whatthe initial initiation fee might be. Would you anticipate such a change in the bill or in the regulations with respect to the bill? Mr. Sumerlus: I would expect that either way that change came about, the significance of the change should be that that be considered prima facie evidence of compliance in absence of evidence to the contrary.

It seems to me that right now there could very well be problems if it was enacted as the minister indicated earlier, in terms of what was needed and what was wanted or what was necessary. That is one of the problems that I have with the legislation, in that it just sort of opens the door for greater and greater litigation and more and more problems in terms of

interpretation of what is actually required and what is actually needed.

June 22, 19 92 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 83 So whether it be by regulation or whether it be in the act itself-! mean perhaps it might be easier in the regulations-but I think it is something that should be considered if the will of the government is to proceed with this. Again, I am not trying to indicate my support for it. I am only indicating that if it is the will of the government to proceed, consideration be given to something like this which will hopefully expedite the process for both sides.

Mrs.Carstalrs: Would you envision something, for example, and I do not have a union card in front of me, but I am interested in joining the union. I have been informed of the union dues, etcetera, and then the signature. Mr. Sumerlus: Something along those lines. Yes. Mrs. Carstalrs: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Sumerlus. Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Yes, I would just like to point out to Mr. Sumerlus, he made reference to the repeal of

Section 2(2) of the act, that that provision was a unanimous recommendation of the Labour Management Review Comm ittee, in which Mr. Kostyra, your union, is a representative on that committee, and I just wanted to pointthat out for your information. Mr. Sumerlus: Thank you. I will be speaking to Mr. Kostyra about that. Madam Chairperson: Are there any further questions? Thank you very much. I would now like to call upon Donna Poitras and Dennis Ceiko, spokespersons, Commun ication and Electrical Workers of Canada Local No. 7. I would now like to call upon Terry Clifford, Manitoba Teachers' Society.

We have our written presentation from Mr. Clifford, which is being distributed right now. When you are ready please, Mr. Clifford . Mr. Terry Clifford (Manitoba Teachers' Society): Thank you, Madam Chairperson, on behalf of 13 ,000 public school teachers in Manitoba, for the opportunity to present at this committee. Public school teachers in Manitoba are not presently covered by The Labour Relations Act. They derive their right to bargain from the provisions of

Part 8 of The Public Schools Act. However, it has long been the position of the Manitoba Teachers' Society that

Part 8 of The Public Schools Act, which has not been substantially amended since 19 57, is out of date. The society is seeking and will continue to seek to have legislation enacted to provide teachers with rights similar to those provided to other empl oyees under The Labour Relations Act. As a result, the society is legitimately concerned whenever any attempt is made to reduce the rights enjoyed by employees under The Labour Relations Act.

Indeed, even if the society were not seeking im provement of collected bargaining rights of teachers, we would be concerned with any attempt to lessen the rights of employees in general to unionize themselves in order to bargain collectively. At present, The Labour Relations Act prevents an em ployer from making statemen ts that might intimidate employees into not joining a union, and requires that a union be certified without a vote if 55 percent or more of the emp loyees have signed union cards.

The amendments proposed by Bill85 significantly weaken employees' power to organize themselves and strengthen an employer's ability to defeat an organization drive. The present requirement that a union can be certified without a vote if 55 percent of employees have signed union cards more than satisfies the requirements of democracy.

The proposed requirement that would increase this number to 65 percent makes it even easier for a minority of empl oyees to thwart the wishes of the majority and provides all the more opportunity for the employer to become aware of the unionization drives e'1CI institute countermeasures. It removes the definition of what constitutes interference in the formation of a union. Under the present act, an employer is expressly forbidden from indicating to employees that he or she objects to unions or prefers one union over another or that the emp loyer's attitude will change if the union is certified.

The proposed amendment removes this express prohibition and adds a new right to the employer, the right to communi cate to an empl oyee a fact or an opinion reasonably held with respect to the empl oyer's business. This opens the door to legal arguments over what constitutes interference and what constitutes reasonable opinion. An employer might be able to threaten emp loyees that the for mation of a union could lead to plant closure and defend him or herself by arguing that it was a reasonable opinion. It certainly allows an em ployer to debate with the emplo yees the advantages and disa dvantages of becoming

84 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 19 92 unionized. This is not a question of the right of freedom of speech nor a question of free political debate. The current Labour Relations Act guarantees employers freedom of speech as long as they do not use intimidation, threats or undue influence against the formation of a union. However, the expression of a fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the emplo yer's business may be difficult to distinguish from an attempt to unduly influence employees against fo rming a union. *

(2040) The fact is that the parties to the question are not equal and, regardless of labour legislation, never have been. The em ployer always has the employee in his or her power and debate between them can never be between equals. In the words of the learned Judge Hand: Language may serve to enlighten a hearer, though it also betrays the speaker's fee lings and desires; but the light It sheds will be in some degree clouded if the hearer Is in his power.

Arguments by an employer directed to his employees have such an ambivalent character ... the privilege of free speech protects them; but so far as they also disclose his wishes, as they generally do, they have the force independent of persuasion . . . . Words are not pebbles in allen juxtaposition ... but all in their aggregate take their purport from the setting in which they are used, of which the relation between the speaker and the hearer is perhaps the most important.

What to an outsider will be no more than the vigorous presentation of a conviction, to an em ployee ma y be a man ifestation of a determination which it is not safe to thwart. In its attempts to shift the balance of power in the emplo yer/employee relationships further towards the employer, 811185 contradicts almost 50 years of Canadian public policy which has supp orted unionization and collective bargaining as the most desirable method of mitigating industrial conflict.

Previousl y, when the force of law has unequiv ocably arrayed against unionization, Canadian society was racked by debili tating industrial confl ict. The legitimation of collective bargaining and statutory support for the rights of workers to organize has institutionalized industrial conflict and stabilized our society as a whole. The Manitoba Teachers' Society opposes 811185 insofar as it reduces employees' rights to organize themselves for free collective bargaining and turns the clock back towards a meaner era of industrial malevolence. Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Cliff ord. Mr.

Ashton: I appreciate the perspective of The Man itoba Teachers' Society organization, not directly affected by The Labour Relations Act, but obviously affected in the sense that any collective organization is affected . I have always looked at what has happened in Bill 85 and other bills as not being that far from what might be another step which has been talked about, the right-to-work legislation, another misnomer, but essentially a direct attack on the ability of any organization to collect dues, to operate as an organization. I appreciate the perspective.

I just want to focus on one point and ask one specific question because I think it bears emphasizing.

What you are saying, as I understand it from the brief, and I found the quotation to be quite useful in that sanse, is that essentially what has to be looked at here when we are talking about suppo sed freedom of speech or the employers, is not so much what is said or what not is said, but the impact-partly the intent, but even with or without intent-the impact of what is said given the fact that an employer obviously hires, fires, promotes, demotes, and what an employer says to an employee in the exact same words may have absolutely no meaning outside of the workplace, but may have extreme meaning if you are an emplo yee and you are concerned about being laid off, demoted or, I suppose on the other side, perhaps getting some advantage in terms of promotion.

So is that basically what you are saying, that this opens up the ability for comments to really be made which use this position of power to exert undue influence on the empl oyees? Mr. Clifford: The debate has got to be among equals and an emp loyer-employee relationship is not. I would be quite happy to debate with an associate various factors of this; I would be a lot more cautious if I were debating the same concept with my superintendent. Mr. Ashton : Thank s agai n. I think that perspective is important to the members of this committee. I appreciate the views of the MTS. Thanks very much.

Madam Chairperson: Are there any further questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Clifford.

June 22, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 85 I would now like to call Richard Orlandi ni, Choices. Mr. Orlandini, do you have a written submission that has been circulated, that can be? Mr. Richard Orlandlnl (Choices): No, I do not. In the way of an explanatory note, I do not have a written submission because I was informed that I would be appearing before this committee this morning, and it really did not afford me the time to do a comprehensive submission.

As a background, however, to what I want to say, a year ago I had the opportunity to be one of the people who helped co-ordinate the fight back against Bill 70. In the course of that hearing, I watched with dismay what I considered to be an abrogation of democratic rights. It will remain in my mind forever that 4:30-in-the-morning sitting, when the Chair read 500 names into the record on a Sunday morning, and 500 people were refused their partici pation in this hearing because of that essentially antidemocratic behaviour.

I had hoped in coming before this committee that you would have learned something out of that experience. The phone call this morning that informed me that I would be appearing today dissuaded me of that hope. It brings to mind what a French republican once said of Louis XVIII, that he had surrounded hims elf by men who had forgotten nothing and learned nothing.

I come before you today not to deal with the specifics of Bill 85, because the trade union representatives, I think, have been more than eloquent in their protestation as to what that bill entails, but I would like to deal with something that is more general in nature but yet specific to Bill 85. We in Choices view this particular piece of legislation as reactionary, regressive, part of a continuing erosion of workers' democratic rights. We asked ourselves, why might they be doing this, aside from the ideological considerations that that is to be expected from the Tories?

I hear ministers of the Progressive Conservative government constantly prattling on about meeting a level playing field to go into the negotiations for the North American Free Trade Agreement, and I think that is the crux of the issue here. I think you are trying to erode workers' democratic and trade union rights so that you can establish what you consider to be a level playing field, and in your toadying to your federal counterparts, you are hurting the people of Manitoba.

In looking for a level playing field, you are trying to take our labour legislation down to the level of the right-to-work states in the United States. That is an injustice to the workers of Manitoba. I had an opportunity to see those right-to-work states in action before they were called right-to-work states. In 19 65 I was a civil rights worker in Alabama for Martin Luther King, and we saw what that government was prepared to do to people's rights; and, flowing out of those battles, we see what they are prepared to do to workers' rights in terms of right-to-work legislation.

This legislation, if enacted, is the goose step back into the 19 30s. This legislation, if enacted, will be part of an erosion that if you carry to its ultimate you will not only be eroding workers' rights-but why do you not take it to full course? Why do you not in your level playing field institute voter literacy tests, for instance? You will be on a par with Manitoba. In your right-to-work legislation, and that is what we are talking about here, in levelling that playing field, you can take the workers of Manitoba to the same level that child labour is in the United States.

Yesterday's edition of the New York Times on the front page carried a very interesting

article about the right-to-work states, and that is where you are taking it. More children are employed, often perilously, and they are talking right-to-work here. On the job they suffer amputations, burns, deep cuts and electrocutions. At least several hundred a year are killed. Child labour-1 4- to 16-year-olds. Is that the kind of !9vel playing field that you want to enact? Because that is the direction you are taking with this kind of legislation, this kind of erosion of the hard fought rights that workers have achieved over a period of time in this province. *

(2050) It is appal ling really to watch the direction you are going. If this government had any guts at all, rather than bringing in this kind of reactionary bill, you would be fighting a North American Free Trade Agreement and then you would not have to worry about this bloody level playing field. As it is, you are taking us down a long and rocky road, hardly a worthy one of any government in Canada. Rnally, in dealing with some of the specifics of Bill 85, I noticed that you are calling for changing automatic certification from 55 to 65 percent. An interesting, if not antidemocratic concept.

Perhaps we should apply the same measure to election of a Legislature. Sixty-five percent, I would hazard a guess that most if not all of you at this table would

86 LEGISLA TIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 19 92 not be here. Given that, maybe the measures do have some merit. Given a 65 percent majority, maybe the measure does have some merit. The legislation is working. It ain't broke; you do not have to fix it. In fixing it you are only going along with, in my view, repressive legislation that is coming forth on the international scale for the North American Free Trade Agreement. We do not need it. The workers do not need it. This government would be doing ltseH proud to withdraw it. Thank you. Mr.

Ashton: I, first of all, want to Indicate that I remember 4:30 in the morning last year, last July, quite well, and I can indic ate that you are right, it was not democratic and I can assure you that it will not be forgotte n, not just in terms of the incident but the hopes, to my mind, that our comm ittee hearing process will never sink that low again. I really thank you for that state ment again, that reminder to members of the comm ittee and other members of the public about what happened last year.

Just one question, because I appreciated the perspective you applied in te rms of right-to-work state s, and what is happening in the United States because quite frankly, I have expressed concern for a number of years, going back to sta tements made by members of this government, then in opposition by the way. A little less fettered in te rms of what they say or what they do not say when the Conservative caucus then said they supp orted right-to-work legislat ion.

I really believ e that the only thing that is preventing us from slipping into that sort of situation-end it is a misnomer, right to work is not right to work, it is right to destroy any collective organizati on, including unions. The only thing that is keeping it from that, I think, is the efforts of people such as your self, people within the labour movement, the public of Manitoba who would just not accept that, because I really believe that, given the chance, many of the Conservatives would introduce that.

But I want to just ask you one very specific question in regard to that and in regard to the comments you made about the North American Free Trade Agreement. Is it your opinion that, from what you are saying, this bill is being driven not just by the local Chamber of Commerce having some election IOUs to the Conservative Party, but by a broader agenda, and that is levelling the playing field, presumably not only with the United States but with Mexico? Do you think It is part of a bigger agenda? Mr. Orlandlnl: Oh, l believe It is. I believe that It is certainly part of a bigger agenda.

I think the worst elements of this bill are even beyond the scope and imagination of some of the troglodytes in the Chamber of Commerce. It is very, very distressing legislati on. I could offer some unsolicited advice , that if the bill does pass, It not be sent in the federal mail. There is antipornography legislation in place and I would suggest to you that this bill is both obscene and has no socially redeeming values. Mr. Ashton: You have no disagreement from our caucus on that. Thanks once again. I note that last year you did not get a chance to present at comm itt ee.

I am sure it must have been awful tempting at times. It was quite an educational process, I think, for all of us in te .rms of some of the concerns expressed. Similarly, with this, I really welcome your comments and your participation in this comm itt ee. Thanks very much. Madam Chairperson: Are there any further questions? Thank you very much. I would now like to call upon Bernard Christop he, United Food and Comm ercial Workers. I think all comm ittee members have the written submission in front of them. Mr. Bernard Chris tophe (United Food and Commercial Workers): Tory blue? Oh, my God.

Perhaps this is to appeal to their senses, you see, perhaps to have some greater interest in what I am going to present. Madam Chairperson, members of the comm ittee , my name is Bernard Christophe, and I represent the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 832, which represents 14, 000 members in the province of Manitoba. We are the largest private sector union in Canada and Manitoba. We negotiate collec tive bargaining agreements for some 14 5 different barga ining units . Some coll ect iv e agreemen ts co ver two or th ree employees, and others 4,000 employees.

First of all, I am not so sure I want to give any credence to one person who spoke before six o'clock, but he mentioned my name and I did not have a chance to rebut. I want to do it now. I do not want you to think for a moment that we sued a defenceless little girl for a million dollars, and did it deliberately so, without the oth er side of the story, which was: We had a strike against Westfair,

June 22, 1992 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 87 which you are all too familiar with, and certainly I was. A strike vote had been taken. The majority had voted in favour of. She decided to exercise her right and cross a picket line, and was, with the help of management, inside the store circulating false informati on about the position that the union had taken.

As a result of that, we filed alleged unfair labour practices, and alleged that the other 1 ,400 members whose majority has decided to vote in favour of strike action, that this employer, and we named 1 0 other management representatives, was assisting that person in weakening the effect of the strike and passing false information. We said that their right was affect ed, and all of them were affect ed, and we multiplied 1 ,400 by 2,000, which is the maximum penalty under the act, and that obviously amounted to millions of dol lars, but I should tell you that it had the necessary effect.

Our application was withdrawn. She never lost her job even afte r the strike was ended. So I just wanted to correct the record. There is one thing I want to make clear too. There was a sad incident which, I think, during the strike-a tragic one-which illustrates why there should be labour legislation, and even then the labour legislation we were seeking at the time was not in place, and I am talking with the final offer selection. One produce manager went home. He was working in the store during the strike. He had chosen to cross the picket line and he had the right to do that.

Sometime during the evening he heard a noise at his back yard, he took his revolver, and believing that somebody was tampering with his car, shot the person, which happene d to be his neighbour, who had nothing to do with Super Valu. The tragedy is, and the moral of the story is, if there were other means to resolve labour disputes than by strikes, when the employer decides to continue to operate, some unfortunately ugly incidents take place.

We were suggesting at the time another humane way to resolve the dispute, other than the labour dispu te-and final offer selection was such an event-this tragedy may never have occurred. During that strike, too, the legal profe ssion was involved drawing lines on the pavement as to where people should picket. One learned judge who was of, I think, the Jewish faith , went as far as saying he had a problem with not identifying picketers and perhaps what they should do is paint a number on them so that they could be identifi ed.

Of course, our legal counsel happened to be of the same Jewish faith , and said, hey, wait a minute, do you not remember in Germany they used to have numbers too on them? I think he abandoned this idea. But I would like to tell you, of all the time spent, the money spent, the aggravation, the tragedy, which labour legislation in Canada and Manitoba, fortunately, had brought within perspective-and we no longer have to do, as they did 60 years ago, to overturn buses and go to prison-to have the right to represent workers.

I surely do not have to tell you the contribution the labour movement has made to this province and this country over the years. I think this has been recognized, I am happy to say, by most governments. However, when it comes to amendment to 811185, we believe that it will tilt the delicate balance between management and labour In favour of management. There are no facts or evidence that exists to justify these changes or amendments.

The Manitoba business community has not suffered or gone out of business or had difficulty in operating its business because of the existing Manitoba labour Relations Act. • (210 0) We believe the amen dmen t as a political commitment made by the present government to the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. The changes will make it easier for some employer to take advantage of Manitobans earning minimum wage and will make it more difficult for employees to be represented by a union.

I want to make two points here: I am not suggesting that the Chamber of Commerce does not fulfill a role among employers, but when it comes to labour relations, they have always, in my opinion, been living in the past. They always believe that-and I have a quote later on from an employer, not in Manitoba but in Ontario, who illustrates the knee-jerk reaction of emp loyers who are not yet unionized about the coming of trade unions. The Chamber of Comm erce in Manitoba, in particular, has always believed that if trade unions come into their establishment, that will be the end of their business.

I do not know of one single trade union or this union when organizing or representing their empl oyees who has wanted to put them out of business, or, in fact, which resulted in them going out of business after they sign a mu tually satisfactory collective bargaining agreement, or

88 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA June 22, 19 92 even one that was imposed by a first agreement, by the way. So I just wanted to say that in regard to some of their requests, it is not justified. The amendment in the present form might be a recipe to stop unions from being certified. Businesses which do not do well in Manitoba, do not locate in Manitoba, do so because of the recession or free trade and not because of existing Manitoba Labour Relations Act.

These amendments, we believe, are antiunion following two successiv e years of antiunion amendments, specifi cally the removal of the final offer selection, and I can tell you that it worked because it acted very often as a deterrent by both, with the union and the employer not to have the selector select for them. It compelled the party to reach an agreement that was acceptable to both sides.

Although many applications have been made and I tell you, I am very proud and happy to identify myseH or ourselves as one of those two unions who have made frequent use of the right under The Labour Relations Act, but we do so because we are in the private sector. We do so because it does not say, you shall only use the act twice a year. We do so because we have planned to deliver for the membership we represent. They do not want to wait three years and when it comes, for example, to expedite arbitration, they want their grievance settled and settle them quickly without going to arbitra tion.

Because we accept anybody who wants to join our union, being small or large, and because many of the employers in the private sector do not want a union, do not even want to make the effort to negotiate a fair collective agreement, we are ofte n left with no alternative to apply for first contract legislation or go expedite at arbitratio n. But I want to tell you this, that from the many applic ations we made, and the record will show, only about four or five, for example, a very few, ac tually go all the way to the arbitrator having to make the decision , or even in expediti ng arbitra tion, the same happened.

In 70 or 80 percent of instances, grievances are settled without going to arbitration through the assistance of a concil iation officer, who do an outst anding job, by the way, to bring parties toget her. So I just want to say I make no apology for utilizing it because I think it is there for the benefit of employees who are citizens of this province. In regard to

Section 2.2, our view is also that the repeal of this

section is clearly intended to deny employees the benefit of being represented by a labour union in the same bargaining unit as other employ ees, even though they may have a communi ty of interest. Before the minister reminds me that I am on labour relations comm ittee , he is right, I do not know if It was jointly accept ed, and if it was, then the employer must have been very persuasive, I did not atte nd one of those meetings. But anyway, I just wanted to say that to you.

The next point has to do with the amendment 3, if you will, in st riking out the word "Every" and substituting "Subject to subsection 32(1) .... " We have no objection per se to this amendment. In regard to the repeal of subsection 6(2). The repeal of subsection 6(2) removes the onus on the employer not to interfere in the formation of a trade union. This removal very clearly, in our view, clears the way for employers to do everything possible to stop their employees from forming a trade union.

The only persons who will benefit are the employers who, in some instances, may continue to pay their employees minimum wage and treat them unfairly and unjustly. The reason I mention that is because these often are the reasons why people join trade unions, obviously. I am not going to suggest for a moment that all employers are tr eating their employees in that way, even those who are nonunion. I am saying that there are many who, when doing so, may deny these employees who need the representation of a union the opportunity to be represented by th em.

A further amendment to The Labour Relations Act later on in fact clarifies this intent and that disturbs us. In regard to items (

a) to (

f) of the same

Section 3, we have no objection to these amendments, which we consider cosmetic; however, the new subsection (

f) gives licence to an employer to say whatever he or she wants to stop an employee from joining a union. The words "communi cates to an employee a statemen t of fact or an opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business" disturbs us gr eatly. Clearly, this could mean that the employer's "reasonably held opinion," is that if the union, although democratically chosen by its employees, comes in, he will hold the opinion that he will go out of business because he will not be able to pay the wages and benefits, without often the

June 22, 19 92 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 89 benefit of collective bargaining or even looking at the proposals that the union might make. Many employers in this province who are nonunion hold that view. In a recent sta tement in The Globe & Mail as related to the province of Ontario, by the way, some employers were recorded as saying, if the union comes in the front door, I will close up business and move out through the back door. I believe some employers in Manitoba and in the Chamber of Commerce hold that view with out justificati on, but this is the myth or the image they have of trade unions.

That amendment will give them an opportunity to say that. I should tell you that although under the present leg isla ti on, they are barred to empl oyers' interference, I ca n, right off the top of my head, give you three recent ones that we are in the process of organizing, and the Manitoba Labour Board record will substantiate what I have to say. One with Northern Meat, which we organized, and two employees were fired for, we alleged, union activ ities.

We went to the Labour Board, the Labour Board agreed with us, had them ordered reinstat ed, the employer still refused to reinstate them, and I think finally they gave in. In another instance, the Thunderbird truck drivers, which are a native group who drive, I think, handicapped people around. One of these employees was also fired during the organizing drive. We have no doubt whatsoever that the intent was to intim idate the other employees. The matte r, I think, is before the Labour Board, has been dealt with. I am not so sure of the outcome at that point.

In another organizing drive we are in the process of being involved in, one employee has been fired. I cannot name the employer at this time, but it is a case where the firing of an employee has frozen in their track the will of the oth er employees, obviously to join the union. What I want this com mittee to know is intimidati on, in spite of what is in the present act, st ill happens.

If you allow an employer to have that position of telling their employee an opinion that they reasonably held-once again some hold the opinion, reasonably, that if the union comes In, that is the end of them, they might as well fold their doors and go out of business. We will commun icate this to their employee.

That, in my opinion, would obviously discourage the employee to join the union. * (21 10 ) The emplo yer, remember, has already an immense influential power over its employees because the employer pays the wages, hires the employee, fires the people and any words or indication of displeasure will be interpreted by the employee as detrimental to them, even though the opinions, reasonably held, are sometimes false and baseless. We personally have no objection for an employer to commun icate to an employee any state ment of facts dealing with its business as long as It is factual .

This, however, as long as it is not designed to discourage employees and intimidate them and as long as again it is factual . We propose, therefore, that the words •or an opin ion reasonably held with respect to an emplo yer's busines sB be deleted from the legislati on. If this state ment stays, the employer has a captive audience. A stat ement made by the employer will not be rebutted , particularly when the trade union may not be given such inf ormation, or the sta tement that the employer had given. In addition, we propose that if this government keeps subsecti on (

f) in The Labour Relations Act, or introduces it, that a sta tement of facts be made in writing to employees and said sta tement be given to the trade union on request. In this fashion, if the employer stat ement is false or incorrect, then a prospective bar gaining agent will have an opportunity to rebut them. Furth&;, in amendment No. 7, the union organizer is required to explain the union's restructure before the workers sign a union card.

If that is so, and if these simil arly should be required to give its employee a stat ement of fact and give a copy to the trade union, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. In regard to the removal of the words ,hreat, B "intim idationB or "coercionB from the titles, the removal of the heading here simply removes the emphasis that threats, intim idation and coercion are not acceptable and we believe should be ret ained. We ob ject to the incr ease for automatic certification to have 65 percent or more instead of 55 percent.

This once again clearly is designed to make it more difficult for an employee to join a union and gives greater opportunity to the employer, with the previous amendment, to threaten or intim idate Its employee from joining a trade union. Governments in Manitoba are elec ted , or can be elected for the whole province with a 35 percent

90 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 19 92 vote . If it were to be equal, then trade unions should be able to represent all employees and bargain for them with only 35 percent support. Instead, this proposed amendment makes the percentage needed more difficult and again clearly casts this government as antiunion as they make it more difficult. Again there was no basis and factual evidence to show that employees who have indicated more than 55 percent support of their own free will did not want a trade union. Therefore, the increase by 10 percent is unfair and undemocratic. The 55 percent should remain.

Let me tell you that most organizing drives do not happen within a few minutes. We do not sign all the cards instantly. There have been instances where, from the time we began the organizing drive and began signing people, some people have chosen of their own free will to cancel their cards. They can do so now. They have done so; of course, we have respected that and taken their card out and, in fact, have not, naturally, utilized their card. In some instances, we have not applied for certification because of those happening.

So the opportunity is there if they want to send back the vacuum cleaner, as somebody indicated. Again, no orga11izing drive takes place in the middle of the night while nobody is looking, and the next morning everybody is signed up. It just does not happen that way. Sometimes it takes several months, and during that period of time, if they wish to change their mind, they obviously can do so and have done so. Insofar as lowering of the 45 percent to 40 percent to obt ain a vote , I can only repeat what some of my colleagues have said, this Is tota lly meaningless.

My experience has been that 40 percent or more of the employees support unions. Unless there is management interference, a vote will not change the result-40 percent support is 40 percent support. It does not translate to 55 percent or 65 percent. Now, dealing with the provision of 7(1 ), this in itself is not an unreasonable request and is an ite m that is routinely provided by union organizers. When I say it is not unreasonable, it is because we do it all the time, and I really object, too, that this be in fact legislated . The most disturbing aspect of it is what follows.

Amendment 7(2), however, changes the real intent of 45(3.1 ) by allowing the Manitoba Labour Board to dismiss, emphasis, the applic ation for certification if a union or a person acting on behalf of a union fails to provide this information to a single employee as out of perhaps a unit of 1 ,000. This is clearly an antiunion amendment and engineered deliberate ly to make employees who want a union fail.

It is imp ossible during an organizing drive when you organize hundreds of people to necessarily absolut ely guarantee that each and every employee will be given that information, although they are very often asked for it. It will make it easy for persons acting on behalf of the employer to have this applica tion or certification fail. While I was sitting there and hearing other people making presentati ons, and the same caveat that my colleague made, although I am not in favour of it, if the words "dismiss the application," if this wording was removed, and, to answer Mrs.

Carstairs, some state ment in the legislation, not in the regulation, to this effect, would be made part of the act: if a sta tement signed by an employee who has signed a union card indic ates that she has been given information in regard to what he or she will be expected to pay or reasonably to pay in regard to union dues, or the procedure that the union intends to utHize to arrive at union dues, this shall constitute proof and compli ance with

Section 45(3). I think this is something that perhaps under the circumstances could be acceptable. The reason I said to add the words or the procedure to arrive at union dues, because I think Mr. Raper made a very good point. He said that in his union structure they may form a local union with this new bargaining unit and the employees democrati cally will decide how much their union dues are going to be. He would never be in the position to be able to tell them what they will be because the workers themselves would decide what it would be.

So, if you had words, again, indicating that if they sign a stat ement and if they have signed a union card, that indicates they have been given that information or the procedure to arrive at the dues, that shall constitute proof of compliance. In my opinion, that would be more accepta ble than, for example, the proposition that any employee who alleged that his card will be removed, the only problem with that is that we would not accept that necessarily. We would want evidence of that. We would have to go before the Manitoba Labour Board.

Then how is the board going to decide when a union organizer meets an employee alone somewhere and this organizer explains the

June 22, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 91 due structure to him, and then maybe because he wants to change his mind or whatever, then he will say, no, it was never explained to me? It is going to be very difficult to induce evidence and would create delay or the Labour Board to have to decide who is telling the truth. To have that in, I think might-althoug h I am not in favour of it, would be something that probably we could, if it has to be in the act, then we could perhaps deal with it that way.

In regard to amendment No. 8, the electioneering on voting day, I realize one of my colleagues makes a point to eliminate the part dealing with other acts and so on, which I really agree. But basic ally, I have no objection to this amendment as such. I think basical ly employees in most instances have made up their minds before the voting date which way they are going to vote , probably the same as when they elect politicians. The last day may not necessarily be the day that they are going to make up their minds.

So in that instance, and I think at the Labour Management Review Committ ee, I think we had some agreement in regard to that issue. In regard to item No. 9, we are opposed to these changes which will destroy-this is where the conciliation officer now becomes involved in judging whether the parties have made reasonable effort to conclude an agreement. We are opposed to these changes which would destroy the neutrality of conciliation officers who have trad itionally played an impartial role in trying to bring both parties to reach an agreement.

It will destroy their neutrality because it will have to determine or make a judgment that the parties have made a reasonable effort or not made a reasonable effort to conclude an agreement. One person's opinion may differ from another in regard to what reasonable effort means. Besides, that conciliation officer does not want to be placed in the position of being an arbitrator, a judge or a labour board. This has potential for a delay in the bargaining process. If this

section were to remain, there should be a maximum number of days such as 30 or 60 days from the date the conciliation officer has been appointed. Ot herwise, if the conciliation officer is too busy with other cases and cannot meet, this could drag on for a very long time, which in my view would be unfair to both management and labour. • (21 20) Perhaps, if you were to add another (

c) part to the 68(3)-egain, I do not think it should be ther&-but if you had a (

c) part that would read •or 30 or 60 calendar days has elapsed since the appointment of the concl6ation officer and a collective agreement has not been reached , then the conciliation off icer shall, for the purpose of 7(1) notify the board and the party in writing that, afte r making reasonable effort, no first agreement has been concluded ." We have no problem at all in making an effort to reach an agreement before the Labour Board deals with the question of imposing a first coll ective agreement. We have no problem with that at all. I think it should be there.

Concilia tion offi cer now, by the way, it is mandatory , either accor ding to the rules of the board or the legislatio n, that before the board deals with a first contract applica tion, a conciliation officer be appointed. I have no problem with that, but it should not be open ended. Again, I think the conciliation officer would feel much more comfortabl e to indeed assist the party to reach an agreement providing that on their shoulder they do not have the weight of deciding who has made the reasonable effort and who has not.

As I said, they have been, I think, overall very successful in Manitoba, are respected by both labour and management and now they are going to take sides. I do not think many of them feel very comfortable with that, but if there was a time limit, I think that probably would be more accepta ble. Item 1 0, although th is

section was not a mandatory

section , it nevertheless was a clear indication which both sides could look at during collective bargaining and should have stayed as is in the present legislation. Number 11 , again this is a follow-up on the conciliation offi cer, and we are opposed to the conciliation officer becom ing a judge or substituting for the Labour Board. We have made a suggestion for that. In regard to amendment 11 (2) to 11 (6), we have no objection to the party selecting an arbitrator to settle their first contract. If both feel comfortable that it should be the case, then I think it is worthwhile to perhaps have.

Item 11 (2) to (6) , I think is a repetition of what I said. Item 12 , we are opposed to the removal of subsection 13 0(6) beca use a vice-chairperson of

92 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA June 22, 19 92 the Manitoba Labour Board should have the opportunity

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-3-ir3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 3rd hansardpdf ir3.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	595d13a3799b6d50abe29b8bed70cab7ce77800e

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