Manitoba Committee Hansard — 2 March 1990 (Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 16, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-ir16

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Friday, March 2, 1990. TIME - 2 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN - Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli) ATTENDANCE - 11 - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon . Messrs . Downey, Enns , Hon . Mrs . Hammond Messrs. Ashton, Herold Driedger , Ms. Gray, Messrs. Helwer, Plohman, Praznik , Rose , Wasylycia-Leis • Substituting for Mr. Herold Driedger , Mr. Paul Edwards at 4 p.m. WITNESSES: Mr. Andrew Smith, Westfair Foods Ltd. Mr. Patrick Joyce, Private Citizen APPEARING: Mr. Paul Edwards , MLA for St.

James MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill No. 31- The Labour Relations Amendment Act Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I call the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations to order. This afternoon the committee will resume hearing public presentations on Bill 31, The Labou r Relations Amendment Act. If there are any members who wish to check to see if they are registered to speak to the committee , the list of presenters is post ed outs ide of the committee room.

If members of the public would like to be added to the list , to give a presentation to the committee, they can contact the Clerk of the Committees , and she will see that they are adde d to the list. If we have any out-of-town presenters who are unab le to return for a subsequent meeting, please identify yourself to the Clerk of Committees, and she will see that your names are brought forward to the committee as soon as possible. Just prior to resuming public presentations, does the committee wish to indica te to members of the public how long the committee will be sitt ing this afternoon?

We have presently three presenters regist ered to speak. Mr. Ashton. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I would suggest we go no later th an 5, you know, if we are wrapped up at 4:30 - 317 Mr. Chairma~: Okay, I would like to call the first presenter then , Mr. Andy Smith, from Westfair Foods. Mr. Sm ith, do you have a written presentation? Oh, here we go. Fine, thank you . Mr. Andrew Smith (Westfair Foods Ltd.): First of all, I would like to very much thank the Honourable Minister- Mr. Chairman: Okay, please proceed , Mr. Smith. *

(1405) Mr. Smith: - and the Members of the committee in giving me this opportun ity to make this presentation today. My name is Andrew Smith, I am in charge of labour relations for Loblaw Companies Ltd ., and as such I am responsible for overseeing the labour relations activity throughout the family of Loblaw companies . This is made up of some 36,000 unionized employees under over 120 collective agreements, both here in Canada and in the United States.

Here in the Province of Manitoba, Loblaws is represented by its subsidiary company , Kelly Douglas and Westfair Foods Ltd ., which is a company I came up through starting out in Vancouver, and then I spent five years here in Winnipeg . Westfair is a wholesaler and retailer of food and of general merchandise products, and we trade under the names of Real Canadian Superstore, Econo-Mart, Shop Easy, and also at the wholesale level under the names of Western Grocers , and Sunspu n.

In our operations here in Manitoba , we employ approximately 2,000 employees , the vast majority of whom are unionized under seven collective agreements. However , by far our largest bargaining unit is our province-wide retail agreement with the MFCW Local 832 , and they represent about 1,700 people in our Superstores our Econo-Marts and our Shop Easy outlets . I would also point out that we also have similar operat ions . We have Real Canadian Superstores .

We have a large number of conventional stores in the Provinces of Saskatchewan , Alb erta and British Columbia , and all of th ose employees at the retail level are represented by locals of the United Food and Commercial Workers. In our new operations , our Real Canadian Superstores , the UFCW represents those workers through voluntary recognition . In other words, those were green field sites , and the employees were brought into the union with the recognit ion of the company. We have had considerable experience with FOS. We are unique in having collective agreements in

Friday, March 2, 1990 Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columb ia, which contain final offer selection provisions in lieu of strike lockout rights. These are agreements which I personally have negotiated myself since about'81. From'81 until'8 6 there was a similar provision in our Manitoba retail agreement. You will find an example of this pr ovision in a photocopy of our' 81 collective agreement covering our Manitoba Superstore operation attached as Exhibit A to this brief. lt is a bit of a misstatement there. What you will find are three pages photocopied which cover the language in question. lt starts with the expiration and renewal language in

Section 37 and goes on to the actual final offer selection language in

Section 38. I would like to point out that the final offer provisions found in this agreement were mutually arrived at through a process of collective bargaining and represented a convergence of interests between the two parties. Basically, to give you an idea of the thinking which underlined the FOS agreement we made, it is very straightforward. 1. We sought a lengthy period of time of assured labour peace in which to bu ild a Superstore network in Winnipeg. I think you would all understand it was a massive investment and we wanted to make that investment into as tranquil a situation as we could. * (1410) 2.

The union recognized that if it was to reap the benefit of increased membersh ip and enhanced job security, it was desirable to accede to Westfair's need for a peaceful labour environment in which to make this massive investment. 3. The parties both realized the wage improvements we required throughout this period, and we mutually agreed to adopt the settlements in the industry where appropriate, having emerged from a history of industry wide bargaining. 4. Where there was a dispute as to the appl ication of the industry agreement, the impasse would be resolved by FOS in lieu of strike-lockout.

What I am trying to indicate here is that we certainly have a lot of experience with final offer selection. We certainly do not need to have some knee-jerk reaction against methods in collective agreements to avoid strikes and lockouts. We have them in our major agreements and we are great supporters of them when they are mutually agreed to and collectively entered into. We make the statement here, neither party was in any way unilaterally forced to surrender its right to pursue its own self interest.

Now that agreement was renewed consensually in'83 and'8 6. ln'86 we also agreed to remove FOS from the colle ctive agree ment and revert to conv entio nal collective bargaining for' 87. The'87 agreement, which now is running to 19 90, includes once again an FOS provision with mediation to precede the final offer selection process.

To contrast what we have in our agreements and the experience that we have had, I looked at Bill No. 6 i. 318 The concerns I have with someone who makes his living and spends his life in the practice of industrial relations and the concluding of collective agreements is that by my lights Bill No. 61, there is no mutuality in that the union and only the union can bring it into effect. There is some reference to the employees, but strong trade unions such as we find in Manitoba, in fact the trade union movement in Canada, certainly is expressive of the wishes of the employees.

In most cases, the wishes of the employees are in fact the wishes of the union. There is no limit on the number of issues to be the subject of the selection.

This is in contrast to the way that we have found it to be effective, where in fact there are a variety of references that we make in the final offer selection process which restricts the ambit of issues available to the selector. lt is not exclusively used as an alternative to a work stoppage. lt seems to me that if we are going to have an intrusion into the rights of trade union members and employers to strike their own dea l, the only way I can possibly see that that makes sense as a trade-off is that it guarantees there is not going to be any labour dispute at all.

To have both the intrusion and the risk of a labour dispute seems to me to be a legislation which has been poorly thought out in terms of industrial relations practice. lt also cannot be invoked within 30 days of the expiry of the previous agreement. I think most negotiators will tell you that very few agreements are negotiated, or even serious negotiations really take place 30 days prior to an expiry. This really puts you in a position of having to negotiate the agreement or come to an impasse unrealistically early in the process.

Point 5, I have already covered , in that there is no strict bar on labour stoppages whatsoever if FOS is invoked. I do not understand that. lt does not make sense to me. Mediation of course is not exp ressly made part of this process. The bulk of experience with FOS, in North America at least, has been in the United States. There are approximately, at last count, 11 states which, in whether you not grant the right to strike to public service employees, have FOS legislation.

The experience out of the American context, which I am not particularly happy in transferring holus-bolus into Canada, but certainly the literature there states quite clearly that there is felt to be a need, and in fact legislation has been updated to provide specifically for a mediative interval prior to final offer selection taking place. * (1415 ) My major concern with Bill No. 61 has to do with my feelings, my thoughts and my experience with collective bargaining. If you will bear with me I would like to share with you some of my thoughts on the impact of FOS and collective bargaining.

I would also like it to be known to you that everything I am saying here is also reflected in the literature. Should the committee desire, I could have the various excerpts and articles which I have canvassed over the last number of years which refer to some of the effects that I am referring to here.

Frid ay, Mar ch 2, 1990 I guess one of my concerns, in reading some of the presentations that have been made to this committee, is it focuses very much on strikes and very much on lockouts, and it seems to focus a little less on the fruitful and proper conduct of collective bargaining. My feeling is, it is not a great analogy. lt seems almost as if you are trying to enhance the institution of marriage by focusing on new and innovative ways of divorce, because there is a lot to say about the analogy between marriage and a collective agreement.

Collective bargaining is a process of issue resolution in which the parties come together at the expiry of the agreement to do a number of things. They want to advance their long-term objectives, better working cond itions for emp loyees and better opera ting conditions for management. So when they come to the table most intelligent bargainers on the union side and on the company side are looking a long way down the road , are looking out five, 10 years in terms of objectives. They want to resolve difficulties or disputes arising from the application of the collective bargaining agreement during its term.

Within the very recent past what problems have we had? The y want to resolve issues arising from external factors during the term of the collective agreement. There may have been plant closures. A new competitor may have entered the marketplace. New methods may be suggested for the workplace. All these things form part of the toss of issues that you are attempting to come to terms with across the table. Even more importantly there is a process which takes place to reiterate either explicitly or implicitly the matrix of understandings and

interpretations which exist as a halo around the cold wording of any collective agreement. This is known as past practice. Essentially when you look at a collective agreement, it not only is a document; it also is a living representation of the ongoing relationship on the shop floor or in the retail store or warehouse. Any agreement always has with it this cloud of understandings, of ways of doing things, of ways of applyi ng the agreement. Most things have to be renewed and recommitted to by the parties every time the agreement is renewed.

Once you have been through that process, then you have some bureaucratic functions, which are to put the agreements you have made into plain English, develop your premium structures, wage scales, benefit levels, finally canvass management as to its acceptance of the memorandum, and then have the trade union involved put the offer or the memorandum to a vote of membership for its acceptance. So it is a long and complicated process, and it is one in which there are, under classic theory, at least two sets of objectives.

There are unitary objectives where the interests of the union and the interests of the company are common, and there are adversarial objectives where their interests are diverge. They are common and they both want a healthy business and they may diverge on how much the company wishes to pay its employees for the work performed. Generally, within the constraints of the respective mandates, both parties seek agreement. This road to 319 agreement is strewn with many imp edi ments and obstacles.

The collective will to reach agreement is enh anced by the aversion of both parties to the immense costs of failure, and that is the occurrence of a work stoppage. When you look at the hundreds of collective agreements that are settled in this province every year , you should never under est ima te the enormous amount of work that has gone into producing these agreements. A large part of that work is done by people from the bargaining unit, from the shop floor, who are not skilled practitioners.

They are people who wish simply to resolve issues of their own workplace. * (1 420) My concern is the commitment of both sides to this process, and my experience is proportional to the control over that process. If the context of collective bargaining is distorted by the intrusion of ill-conceived regulation, such as this legislation, there is an erosion, in my view, of the strategic, tactical, and psychological commi tment to the pr ocess.

People will beh ave differently across that table at two in the morning in the smoky hotel room if they believe they do not have to get there and get an agreement or they are going to have a strike. If they believe that they can toss off that responsibility to some third party who is going to have a crap game with it, they will do it. lt is tough business; it is hard on people striking agreements in the middle of the night. If we remove, in my belief, the fear of the employer and the employee of being involved in the work stoppage, you are going to undermine that process.

Again this is documented in the literature as the "narcotic" or chilling effect. I think these are somewhat melodramatic terms myself, but that is what they use. I stress to you that this disabling effect should not be underestimated. As an experienced negotiator, I can assure you that the positions taken by both parties in the proc ess of negotiation pr eced ing the FOS mechanism in this legislation would be qualitatively dif ferent from the positions taken in conventional collective bargaining.

Instead of working towards a true final position, reflective of the needs of both parties, a negotiator will attempt to position hi mself in anticipation of the vagaries of FOS.

To quote from the brie f of CAIMA W to the Sta nding Commit tee on Industrial Rela tions here in Manitoba in June 1987: "FOS introduces a crap shoot mentality into collective bargaining which will encourage both parties to move away from negotiations based on their relative strengths and gamble on a winner-take-all fling with a selector." In any event the position selected by the selector by defi nition will be one rejected by the other party.

Over time, you are going to have a steady accretion of one sided outcomes which can only result in a contract which is migrating away from a "collective agreement." The collectivity begins to be undermined over time. Now in some of the comments made to this committee by various presenters there seems to be an acceptance or a thought that everything is great because we have had it for two years and nothing seems to have gone wrong. Col lective bargaining is not a process of two years. Two years is essentially the standard for one agreement

Frid ay, March 2, 1990 and collective bargaining. To me, if you are going to look at an effect of FOS and its deleterious effects, it is a longer-term proposition. The literature, and there is a lot of it, and there is literature and there is research coming out of the Canadian context which indicates statistically that there is adverse effect on the conduct of collective bargaining through FOS.

By way of closing, I would say that the successful conclusion of collective bargaining is made more difficult unde r cer tain ec onomic conditions, for ex ample recession, which we in the west up to a couple of years ago had lots of exper ience with. The temptation to use FOS would be greatest at the very time the parties need a collective agreement truly expressive of their mutual needs. Recession bargaining involves generally a delicate trade- off between confl icti ng de mands for cost reduction in terms of the employer and enhanced job security in terms of the union.

The selector who chooses one or the other, as he must, is doing no one any favours. For the foregoing reasons, Westfair Foods Ltd. recommends the repea l of FOS as proposed in Bill No. 31, but also recommends there be some protection for those parties to collective agreements which have been concluded since Bill No. 61 was enacted which include reference to the statutory FOS scheme. Thank you very much. *

(1425) Mr. Ashton: I would like to ask a number of questions. First of all, in regard to Westfair Foods, approximately how many stores do you have in Manitoba under any of the particular companies- Mr. Chairman: Could you speak into the mike, please, Mr. Ashton? We cannot hear you . Mr. Ashton: I am asking, Mr. Chairper son, how many stores there are in Manitoba under the- Mr. Smith: Twelve. Mr. Ashton: Twelve, I believe. You are talking about Loblaws in this particular case, or- Mr. Smith: I am talking about stores trading under the name- Mr. Chairm an: Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith: Are you hearing me? Mr.

Chairman: I wonder if we can try to keep this orderly and ask questions and I will give you an opportunity to answer them, Mr. Smith, but I have to recognize you in order to get the mikes turned on. Mr. Smith: I am sorry. Mr. Chairman: Okay. Mr. Ashton, do you have a question? Mr. Ashtc:m: You were saying there were 12 stores including stores that trade under the name of Shop Easy, Western Grocers, Superstores, and Econo-Mart. 320 Mr. Smith: No. Mr. Ashton: What I am asking is, how many are under any of those trade names. Mr. Smith: None trade under the name Western Grocers.

There are 12 that trade under the names Superstore, Econo-Mart and Loblaw- excuse me, and Shop Easy. Mr. Ashton: I want to take you back to the events of 1987, because we have heard from many presenters here, this committee, who went through that strike situation. I ask you first of all, how many of the Westfair stores continued to operate during that strike period? Mr. Smith: I think we had all the Superstores open and I think we had five of the conventional stores open-f our or five. Mr.

Ashton: So even though there was a strike during that period, you continued to operate the majority of stores owned by Westfair during the period of the strike? Mr. Smith: Yes. Mr. Ashton: In reviewing the- Mr. Smith: I might point out to you, Mr. Ashton, that that operation was carried on at the exp ressed wishes not only of our customers, but also at the outset of the strike, some 500 of our employees. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chair person, is it not also true that you were hiring replacement workers even prior to the beginning of the strike? Mr. Smith: That is not true. Mr.

Ashton: I would suggest perhaps that you check with Mr. Ryzebol, because I checked the files and ther e are newspaper reports prior to the beginning of the strike indicating that people had been interviewed and that Westfair was in the process of hiring replacement workers even prior to the beginning of the strike. Are you suggesting Mr. Ryzebol was misleading the media at that time, or are you suggesting that the med ia themselves did not provide accurate reports? Mr. Smith: I would suggest the latter. If you would like me to elaborate, Mr.

Ashton, you may be referring to a set of advertisements we ran in the paper I believe in March and April offering a program of training to people to come into our business. We did this, but you should also know that we also did it in those centres where we did not and have not and hopefully will not have strikes. We offered the same program in the other centres, that is Edmonton, Regina, and Sa skatoon. • ( 1430) Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashton, I wonder if you could keep your questioning pertaining to the brief and try not to get off-

Friday, March 2, 1990 Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, this is, I think , very relevant to the brief. I am trying to get the other side. I am trying to get a view of Westfair, what happened in 1987. We have had many presenters before this committee who went through the strike situation , and I think it is very relevant to the brief because one of the arguments which has been made for maintaining final offer selection is, for example, that many contracts are coming up this year, including with Westfair, and it would provide an alternative to what happened. I am trying to get a picture of what happened.

I think that is particularly relevant to the committee. Essentially, and the reason I am raising this by the way, and it is unfortunate perhaps , Mr. Ryzebol is not here. I know he had originally indicated he would be here, but I have checked the clippings. He was directly quoted at the time, and there was very littl e secret made by Mr. Ryzebol at the time that these people were being interviewed and this training was being provid ed th at these peop le would be put into place if there was a strike situation . This was prior to the strike , by the way, it was not into the strike.

You are suggesting that people were not recruited to act as poten tial strikebr eakers ? Mr. Smith: What I am saying , Mr. Ashton , is that we recruit people and run recruitment programs virtually all the time, and shoµld we need those people because of heightened levels of attrition as we anticipate every summer or use them because we have unexpected vacating of our premises by some 1,200 of our pfilople we still attempt to hire people in anticipation of our needs. Ours is a high turnover business .

We have a tremendous amount of attrition because of the nature of our work force, so we are always in the business of trying to have at any point of time a very substantial inventory of hirees. Mr. AshtQ11; Once again , I am quoting from !\llr. Ryzebol and what appeared in the media at the time . In fact, I will show you the press clipping later if you would lil~e. At the time he made very little secret of the fact that with the strike coming up that these people would potentially be lif:lP.Ointed 1;1s strikebrea~ers. Mr, $mitt): I am rtQI !'1enying tha!, Mr.

Ashton, th11t th~re would be-people we hacj hired l'!fior to the strike occurring would have enhaneed jgb opportunit ies a$ a result of the large number of vacancies oecurring . But what I am trying to indicate to you is that we n,1n t he same p rogram everywhere whether we are anticipating a strike or not . Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that these people were after the strike put into place to work in jobs that were the jobs of the people who were on strike at that point in time . Mr.

Smith: As a matter of fact, I believe that substantially fewer people were in fact offered opportunities for employment because of the very large number of people of course, some 500, who chose to continue to work . Mr. Ashton: But the fact is that people were hired over and above the existing employees who chose to cross 321 the picket lines, and this recruiting effort, whether it was ongoing or not , I am just quoting from Mr. Ryzebol again, I am not sure, there is perhaps a communication problem within Westfair, but he made no- An Honourable Member: There is none . Mr.

Ashton: Well, he made no bones about it, prior to the strike that people were being trained and they would be put into place if a strike occurre d. I just want to go further and ask, is that a policy of Westfair? I know there were some stores that did close down, Shop Easy in Thompson, for example , was not operational during the strike. In fact I would like to ask what your policy is during a strike situat ion . Obviousl y the majority of stores operated , some did not. What is your policy and how do you decide which stores opti n and whic h do not? Mr.

Smith : I think that we decided not to open the stores in some areas because there was not significant customer demand in those locations. Mr. Ashton: But it is still the policy of Westfair that if there is a strike, you will continue to operate stores , you will if necessary not only encourage people to cross picket lines , but you will hire replacement workers if necessary to continue their operation. Mr. Smith: That is not correct , Mr. Ashton . Mr. Ashton: I want to be fair here. What is not correct? You did continue to operate the stores , you did hire replaeement wprkers.

I would like IQ give you the chance to elaborate on what is not correct. Mr. Smith: It is not correct that 111/fil have a blanket policy to operate stores during labour cjisputes. Mr. Ashton: Bµt in 1987 you continued to operate most of them . You did have existing workers cross the picket lines . You did hire replac;ement workers to fill other positions that obviously were the jobs th4t would normally be the jobs of the workers who are Qn strike , Mr- Smith: Yes. Mr.

Ashton: We have heard a lot of stories from the people who were involved in that strike situation, the tensions that occurred between the strikers, the people crossing the picket lines , the eustomers. I would like to ask you if you-it lasted 125 days, as I understand feel that what happened during that strike was beneficial to Westfair Foods and its image in the community? I am talking about the fact that stores continued to operate . You hired replacement employees. There were a cons iderable number of incidents on the line. I think people came forward and indica ted that they really stem from all sides.

Do you really feel that was in the best interest of the image of Westfa ir Foods? Mr. Smith: Mr. Chairman , if I may, could I ask that I be given one question at a time? I find it difficult to

Friday , March 2, 1990 respond to sort of serial questions. But I will attempt to respond. First of all, I think the proof of the general public's response to our conduct during that strike is the fact that our sales essentially returned to prestrike levels very rapidly at the conclusion of that strike. In terms of the image of Westfair, I do not think anyone in corporate life is going to think that participating in work stoppage is going to be an image-enhancing exercise.

But the people of Manitoba, the consumers of Winnipeg certainly have voted with their feet in terms of their opinion of our conduct and our tr eatment of our employees during that dispute. 1\/ir. Ashton: You are suggesting though that during the strike your sales did drop. Is that correct? 1\/ir. Smi th: I made no statement about sales during the strike, Mr. Ashton. I referred to sales before and after the strike. During the strike, our sales dropped precipitously. Mr. Ashton: I was taking that from your point that they recovered to prestrike levels.

So a significant number of people in Manitoba who would normally have shopped at Superstore or any of the other stores in the Westfair chain chose not to do so during the strike situation. · Mr. Smith: Well, our impression was that we would have had a much larger of people coming to shop us during the strike had the customers not been subjected to being spat on, sworn at, jostled, et cetera, which of course necessitated us to then involve the judicial system in Manitoba, at considerable expense to it and us, simply to protect the rights of Manitoba citizens to shop where they please. Mr.

Ashton: Are you also not aware, however, that there were many incidents involving harassment of individuals who were on legal strike by customers and by other individuals? I believe there was also an incident in which a supervisor at one of the stores shot an individual who he mis takenly thought was tampering with his car. Are you not aware that there were a significant number of incidents also affecting the strikers themselves? Mr.

Sm ith: I would have to say that the number of incidents involving picketers, because of the limited number of picketers, our estimate was that it ran usually around 100 to 120 people being cycled on four to five hour shifts throughout the day at our various stores. So there were not that many picketers except for a couple of festivals that were held. In fact there was more insulting of customers rather than insulting of picketers on an absolute basis.

And as far as the incident involving the shooting, I think an examination of the facts of that shooting, tragic as it was, are perhaps more correctly dealt with in a discussion about gun laws and gun control rather than about labour relations. Mr. Ashton: I do not mean to personalize discussion here, but I am just wondering, because I have asked 322 people in terms of bringing another perspective to this comm ittee, have you ever been through a strike situation yourself? Mr. Smith: Yes, I have. Mr.

Ashton: Were you in a strike situation where people took your job, in which you had to sit out and watch other people go in and take your job during the period of the strike? -in the case of Westfair it was 12 5-day strike. Have you ever had to go through that? Mr. Smith: No, I have not. * ( 14 40) Mr. Ashton: The reason I am asking that is because we have talked to a lot of people who have expressed a fair amount of frustration. I have been through a strike where strikebreakers were not hired , and I could understand the frustration to a certain level.

I really believe that the frustration of seeing one's jobs taken away during that period is probably the ultima te frustration in any strike situation. I want to go a bit further. How would you classify the labour relations climate at Westfair currently? Mr. Smith: Well, I think Westfair has generally good labour rela tions. Our rec ord, as far as involving ourselves on a voluntary basis with trade unions, is probably second to none. We voluntarily recognized the trade union for our Superstore in Regina and put 450 to 500 jobs into the Local 1400 of the UF CW of Saskatchewan.

We did not have to do that; we could have run nonunion. We put something app roaching 1, 750 jobs into the Local40i of the UFCW of Edmonton. We did not have to do that; we could have gone nonunion, as do the department stores. We put currently something appro aching 1,500 jobs into Local 777 of the UF CW of Vancouver, and when we have finished our expansion project there, we will have put some 3,000 jobs into a local of the CFCW in Vancouver, which we did not have to do. So our posture towards trade unions is not one of belligerence, is not one of any kind of anti-union stance.

I personally believe that free trade unions and free collective bargaining is part of any democratic state that can call itself a democracy. Generally, our labour relations is not bad. Mr. Ashton: I am somewhat surprised , because we have had people here who worked at Westfair. They have said that since the strike there are still people who do not talk to each other, that it has divided the employees. We have had people come here and talk about how even some of the people who crossed the pick et lines ha ve been ill- treated by Westfair su bseque ntly.

We have had people come to this committee, saying there is continuing concern about erosion of number of hours. Long-ferm employees who are not receiving anywhere near the type of hours they received previously were concerned their jobs were being replaced by individuals who were working for a far less period of time. Are you saying they are wrong,

Frid ay, Mar ch 2, 1990 or are you perhaps not picking up those same types of concerns? lt is surprising that you would suggest that the labour relations climate is positive there, because everybody that we have talked to says it is very, very strained. Mr. Smi th: Well, I can only assume that you are talking to the wrong people, Mr. Ashton. I think one indication as to how people feel about a company and how they feel about each other is a final institution known as a Chr istmas party, and you might be interested to know that the Christmas party held last Christmas was the best ever, biggest turnout, best party.

That is one small indicator. Curr ently out of a bargaining unit of some 1700 pe ople, we have ap prox ima tely 20 gr ievanc es outstanding, which is an infinitesimal number for a bargaining unit of that many people. Our productivity levels are high. Our customer research is showing that we are gradually making some progress in our customer service perception, which means our employees are being nicer and nicer and making an effort with our customers. Objectively, factually, I can tell you that indicates signs of good health in the bargaining unit.

There are always going to be individuals, there will be individuals who will carry to their grave hurt feelings, shattered hopes, stepped on toes about the 1987 strike. The vast majority have put them behind it and are working together to produce one of the finest retail vehicles I believe in western Canada. Mr. Ashton: I am not sure a well-attended Chris tmas party would exactly rate as being an objective measure of one's labour relations climate. I just want to put it in another comparison. We have had people come to this committee from Safeway.

Safeway did have a strike, 1978 I believe. lt has been 12 years since there has been a strike. We have had people come here who work for Safeway indicating that there is generally a better labour relations climate than there is at Westfair. We have had people from Westfair, and I have talked to people from Westfair by the way-1 am not just talking about people at this committee. There is a Westfair owned store in my own constituency and I have talked to people from the Safeway store. We have two stores in my constituency, and you almost do not have to ask people wh ere they work.

You ask them how things are at work and what the labour relations climate is. If it is a more negative response you can usually guarantee that they work for the Westfair store, and if it is a usually more positive reaction you can guarantee they work for Safeway, particularly long-term employees. So I would like to ask you, do you honestly believe in comparison for example to Safeway, where there has been no strike in 12 years and where people are saying that, that you have a good labour relations climate in comparison to Safeway, which is your major competitor in this province? Mr. Smi th: Well, Mr.

Ashton, I do not know what your method of canvassing th ese kinds of opinions is, but generally you know if you are in the retail business and 323 you run a sweatshop and people do not like to work for you and they think badly of you, they do not shop you. I think if you want a good indication of what the people of Winnipeg-w e employ about 15 00 people here. They all have 10 or 20 friends. There are a lot of people out there who know what it is lik e to work for us. You stand in our parking lot on a Friday night or Saturday and you tell me what the people of Winnipeg think of our stores. Mr. Ashton: Well, Mr.

Chair person, I have been telling you what many of your employees think of the labour relations climate, and they are not very pleased with it. I just wanted to ask you a bit further in terms of your employees-p eople have been coming to this committee saying in terms of this particular Bill that it is not just the people that walked the picket line who are saying they want final offer selection maintained. They want Bill No. 31 defeated. lt is also the people that crossed the picket lines.

They are saying they want the final offer selection legislation kept in place because it provides an alternative to what happened in 1987 . Are you not aware of that fact as well in terms of the employees themselves? People on various different sides of the strike in 1987 are now saying they would like to see the legislation that you oppose kept in place. Mr. Sm ith: Mr. Ashton, I am not here to do anything other than to offer my view of this legislation and attempt to share with this committee some of the experience I have had over the la st 15 years in the industrial relations game.

I would say, however, that in trying to come to a conclusion about the long-term impact of some rather complex and sophisticated labour relations legislation, the first place I would go for an informed opinion would not be a meat cutter, a cashier or a grocery clerk. We are not talking about whether people want to strike or do not want to strike. No idiot wants a strike. Anybody who has been through one would like to avoid one as much as possible. That is a no-brainer. We are talking about legislation. We are talking about the framework in which business functions in this province. lt is a little different. Mr.

Ashton: I have talked to a lot of meat cutters and a lot of cashiers, and I can tell you the y have a lot more common sense sometimes than- someti mes when people feel that, they for whatever reasons can speak more to the point. They are the ones who have to go through strikes or make pretty tough decisions. I would disagree with you on that. By the way, I have studied this as well, too, and I was puzzled by your comment in the brief when you talked about the narcotic or chilling effect.

Any studies I have seen on arbitration say that is the case with arbitration, conventional arbitration, but final offer selection, according to all the literature-a nd I have studied this; my background, by the way, is also in terms of labour economics-is that final offer selection has the absolute opposite effect. The statistics in Manitoba are five out of 72 cases where final offer selection has been applied for have

Friday, March 2, 1990 not been settled. Would you not perhaps wish to correct your statement in the brief that really what you are talking about is conventional arbitration, not final offer selection? Mr. Smi th: No, I would not Mr. Ashton: I would appreciate it perhaps if you could refer me to any literature where this is the case, and I have discussed this by the way with people, including the Member for Radisson {Mr. Patterson)-tha t is his background. He is the first one to indicate all the literature has indicated final offer selection brings people together.

I want to focus on something else you said too, and I do not believe it was in the brief. I believe it was an additional comment. You said one of your concerns with final offer selection was that it removed the fear of a work stoppage, and that was essential for the collective bargaining process. Do you not !eel that in some, way, shape, or form perhaps there is not some advantage in some cases to providing an alternative to the-1 am not saying taking away the right to strike.

Obviously the current legislation does not do that, but do you really believe that is the only way we can have effective collective bargaining is when there is a fear of a work stoppage? Mr. Smith: I would say th at ef fective collective bargaining occurs best where there is a right to strike and a right to lockout. Mr. Ashton: A right to strike, a right to lockout, and a right to continue the operation of the plant on behalf of the employers during the period of the strike? Mr. Smith: Yes. Mr. Ashton: Obviously we would have a disagreement on that. I do not believe that provides a balanced situation.

Obviously employees cannot guarantee the operation of their jobs during a strike situation and maintain the strike, but employers do have the double option. I just want to ask you-you have a contract coming up this year, May of 19 90. We have had many people come before this committee and say they would like to ha ve that option there. One has to recognize what happens under the current legislation if one invokes final offer selec tion. One does, as an emp loyee, give up the right to stri ke for that contr act pe ri od.

Negotiations continue. .. ( 1450) In most cases, as we have seen, negotiations have been successful, but would you sa y from whatever perspect ive, whether it is Westfair or your position in terms of labour relations, that you would rather not see the employees have that alternative to the right to strike in May of this year or whenever the contract negotiations are completed? Are you saying you would rather go through 1987 again potentially? I am not trying to deal with a hypothetical situation. Obviously 324 there may be a resolution; hopefully there is.

Would you say that would be better for your company, for the commun ity, if those emplo yees did not have tha t alternative and potentially end up with a situation of either accepting the contract or going on strike? Mr. Smith: As I think I indicated to you, Mr. Ashton, we have already put a mutually agreed FOS

section in our agreement to look after this renewal. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chair person, I am quite aware of the

section in terms of the previous collective agreements which were attached. You know, they were previously included in the process. I want to ask you though- ! mean, this is what puzzles me with final offer selection. You said you would rather have !he fear of work stoppage or- in this case you said a strike or a lockout, that is why it is used in collective bargaining. Are you suggesting that in the 72 cases in Manitoba where final offer selection has been invoked under this legislation, not in terms of the col lective agreement, that that has not resulted in good collective agreements in this province? Mr.

Smith: I think my point was that over time it would not. Mr. Ashton: I am not quite sure ! "over time." could elaborate on that. "''"'""!"" ' " why you are saying, Mr. Smith: My belief is that the conduct of industrial relations within !he final offer selection legislative framework would deteriorate over time. Mr. Ashion: In what would it deteriorate"' i said, we have had 72 applications under the current legislation. Only five of them have gone to the point of a final selector's decision. The vast majority of them were settled through collective anyway.

The fact that there is not a chilling effect is of the fact, as the literature shows-and I can show you the literature I am referring to; I am not trying to hide anything-it brings people together. Are you suggesting in those cases that somehow there is going to be a deterioration in terms of collective bargaining eve n though the y reac hed a collective agreement without going to the final selector stage? Mr. Smith: )Nhat you are telling me is that there were 70- odd applications to FOS.

What you are saying is that out of the 77 only live selections were made, so that the re is a power ful disi ncentive to have the settlement rendered by virtue of FOS. I would say that it is not my concern about the individuals who chose not to go through with FOS; my co ncern is the five contracts that were renewed under FOS. My concern would be the impact over time of those contracts which are repeated ly renewed through FOS. That is my concern.

I mean those contracts where people say, I do not want to have a strike, therefore I am going to make a deal, or I do not want to go to FOS, therefore I am going to make a deal. I do not think they are a matter of much concern to me.

Frid ay, March 2, 1990 Mr. Ashton: I am somewhat puzzled, because you have talked before, your theory of labour relations is tha t to get a good collective agreement, you need the fear of a lockout or strike. Under those circumstances it was just traditional collective bargaining, obviously people making contract decisions based on the fear. Now you are saying in this particular instance there might be a fear of FOS that might lead people to come to what is on the surface a mutually agreed upon contract. I am not sure I understand.

You are saying there is still a problem with final offer selection even if both parties have come out with a mutually agreed settlement even though it has not gone to the selector stage? Mr. Smit h: Well, I am not sure that one can distinguish between the nature ol collective agreements done because of fear of strike and the nature of collective agreements done because of fear of FOS. My concern is units and companies who go through the process of FOS. Mr.

Ashton: So you feel there is something wrong with the process itself that has people sitting down, even while the process has been opted for, and negotiating, that that is not going to result in good agreements over time? Mr. Sm ith: I do not believe there is going to be a qualitative difference between an agreement which is negotiated because of fear of FOS and an agreement which is negotiated because of fear of a strike. What I am saying is that my concern is agreements that are created through the process of there being a final offer selection.

The fact that in Manitoba we have five such examples to look at in my view tells us nothing. Mr. Ashton: I am still somewhat puzzled , but I would like to move along. I noticed in your brief you quoted from a union that made presentation to the committee that had dealt with final offer selection when il was first introduced in 1987. Are you aware that many of the unions that originally expr essed concern about final offer selection have now come out in support of it?

Last night we had the president of the Manitoba Council of the Canad ian Fede ration of Labour for exam ple who was very adamant in stating that he was opposed to final offer selection in 1987 and supports it now because it works. We have had individuals from various unions including UF CW, for example, one of the locals here in Manitoba that opposed final offer selection. Are you aware that most of the unions in Manitoba currently supp ort final offer selection? Mr. Smith: I am not aware that there has been a vote or straw tally of the presidents or the memberships of the trade unions in Manitoba.

I would not be surprised to hear-it is my impression there has been a lot of changes of opinion by the trade union movement on that issue. Mr. Ashton: Are you also aware that many unions expr essed concerns such as the one you have outlined 325 in the brief and have now changed their view based on their experience in the first two years? The particular quote that you have quotes the concern that it will encourage parties to move away from negotiations based on their relative strengths and gamble on a winner-take-all thing with the selector.

Many unions that we have seen here, including a number that opposed final offer selection to begin with, have said that has not been the case in practice. Mr. Smith: You have had five contracts renewed through FOS. I do not know what you draw from that. Mr. Ashton: We have had 72 applications and five have gone to the final selector stage. The literature that you refer to in a general sense has said that final offer sele ction encour ages people to continue to negotiate. lt has the exact opposite of the chilling effect.

Based on the literature, one would have assumed that one would have ended up in this current situation, which is only five would have gone to that period of time because there was still a major incentive on both parties to negotiate. Regardless of what conclusions we draw, I am just asking if you are not aware that many unions have changed their view based on their experience over the two-year period? Mr. Smith: I would still say that the experience is a total of five contracts that have been the subject actually to FOS. Mr. Ashton: I am some what confus ed by your statement on page 4.

You state that FOS will have a negative impact under certain economic conditions essentially and particularly in terms of recession. I believe we are headed into a recession. I am just wondering if you can elaborate a bit. You talk about a trade off between conflicting demands for cost reduction and enhanced job security. Are you suggesting that essentially final offer selection inhibits the ability of a company for example to roll back wages because of a recession, seek other sorts of concessions in terms of reductions in either benefits or working hours, is that your concern? Mr.

Smith: No, my concern would be that if you are involved in a company or a bargaining unit that is being affected by recession that what you would hope to do in collective bargaining, it would seem to me, speaking hypothetically, is come up with an agreement that managed to do both things at once. In other words, reduce costs or make the business more recession proof, and at the same time perhaps provide some job security enhancement.

The nature of the FOS game, it is my belief, would tend to force the company to put forward a recession proofing exercise, perhaps without the same concern for the job security enhancement that would otherwise be hammered out at the table. Mr. Ashton: Are you aware of the particular criteria that are taken into examination in terms of final offer selection specifically in the Act? Mr. Smith: Yes.

Friday, March 2, 19 90 * (15 00) llllr. Ashton: I am just wondering what your concern is, based on the fact that those criteria include a number of factors such as the cost of living obviously, but also the ability to pay of the company. I am just wondering what your concerns is with final offer selection when, for example, the ability to pay and the specific reference to a selector if necessary picking the most reasonable offer-w hat do you find so concerning from Westfair's position with the provision that to my mind and certainly in terms of the criteria in the Act would appear to be fairly balanced? Mr.

Smi th: Which provision? Mr. Ashton: The criteria of which selections are made. I can obtain the specific

section in the Act and read it to you if you wish. Mr. Smith: I have it here in front of me. I am just wondering which one you are referring to? Mr. AsMon: I am just asking what your concern is, given the fact that the criteria for final offer selection are fairly specific in terms of for selectors be able to look at a number of factors !n terms of determining decisions which include looking at most reasonable offer, which is a term, looking at factors such as the cost of and the ability to pay. Mr.

Smith: Well, I would say as far as the cost of which is I think in the legislation referred to as the very often you will find that when a recession hits in fact that CPI is spiking up. There may be a downturn later but those two things often hand in hamt especially if there has been a rapid in interest rates. As far as the ability to pay one of !he concerns about final offer selection finding people around who can act as selectors. In in Canada, good arbi trators are overworked, they are hard to get, it takes you months to get them.

We are now going to add another burden, or have added another burden to this process. Generally speaking arbitrators come out of the industrial relations ranks. Some of them are lawyers, professors, et cetera. I think the chances of you finding someone who knows his away around the industrial relations game, who also is a skilled financial analyst and is able to make pred ictions and evaluations about the economic health of the company based on whatever data is brought forward by the company and the union, I think you are just dreaming. Those people do not exist.

A lot of your comments- I grant that there certainly are people. I am coming here as a practical person who has been involved in the practical conduct of industrial relations, and I am exp ressing what I believe to be practical concerns. If you think you can find out there some guy who is going to be able to somehow in his mind figure out the CPI and the right to and the ability to pay some company offer, I just do not think it is going to happ en. it may. There may be a new and special breed of arbitrator coming around the bend that I am not aware of, but I just do not see it happening. 326 Mr.

Ashton: Your concern is more with the selectors than final offer selection in terms of what you are saying in this way. I look at the experience in Manitoba. I do not believe it has proven to be that difficult, but you are suggesting there is a new breed of selectors to make mechanisms such as final offer selection work. llllr. Smith: Well, I was staying at the Sheraton. I walked up to the notice board, and lo and behold there was a name Vincent Reddy (phonetic). Mr. Red dy is a labour arbitrator. He lives in Vancouver. Why is he here in Manitoba?

Because there is a shortage of skilled arbitrators and mediators in Manitoba. You have had five FOS selections. Mr. Ashton: Is not part of what we are dea!lng with the fact that in Canada traditionally we have had a very adv ers arial rela tionship in te rms of labour relations? I said this to the committee yesterday. We have the second per capita strike rate in the world. We have had that. lt has not really budged from that, we are second only to Italy.

Do you not feel the way that we are seen in other countries holds out some possibilities in Canada as If we are going be competitive with other countries� \Me need move from adversar ia!, the complete adversariai situation talking about, because yourself talked earlier about your concern. I respect That is your personal view and the view o! Westfair, that need the fear of a strike or a lockout to get good agreements.

Do you not believe there are some other mechanisms that perhaps could deal with that, that could provide an alternative to the to strike, unless you just take right Then again there would be some who wou!d suggest, take away the to hire replacement workers to even the balance. it is a mul!idimensiona! argument.

Would you rather see, am not sure if my comments are having an impact in terms of taking the right to hire strikebreakers. did not mean to cause you that much concern, I can teil you quite frankly, I would love to see legislation the same provisions they have in Quebec which wo uld I believe balance the legislation here in Manitoba far more substantially. We are dealing with final offer selection. Do you really believe that is the bottom line, that there has to be the fear of a strike or lockout or else everything is going to collapse on our collective bargaining situation? Mr.

Smith: I am a strong believer in free trade unions. I find that those countries where there are restrictions put on the rights of companies and unions to freely enter into collective agreements tend to evolve toward those kinds of countries that I would no! like to live in. I believe that, speaking for Westfair foods, speaking for myself, we do not have an adversarial position with our trade unions. The impression of Westfair, very unfortunately, is coloured by the dispute that took place here in 1987.

I would point out to you, however, there was another great big dispute in the food industry in 1978-79 involving Safeway. The common thread there

Frid ay, March 2, 1990 is the trade union involved, not the company involved. Strikes in our company are few and far between. We have found the UF CW at the international level, we have found the UF CW at the Canadian directors level, we have found the UF CW certainly in the locals in Ontario, in Saskatchewan, in Alberta and British Columbia to be as nice a bunch of fellows to deal with as you would want to find in the trade union movement. We had our problems here, but I do not think that the people of Manitoba are well-served by this legislation.

I do not think that the notion of the adversarial tenor of labour relations is an accurate one. We have a lot of strikes in Canada because Canad ians like to stand up for what they believe in. Maybe we have a lot of strikes in Canada because we have tough union leaders who lead their people in a pro-active way to gain some of the wages and benefits they enjoy. People who work in our stores, full-time people, they make a lot of money, they make $30,0 00 a year. That is not because they had weak union leadership.

We pay equal types of pay as does Safeway across the West because we dealt with a tough bunch of guys in the trade union movement. We have good agreements. I do not think this is anything that someone living in western Canada should be ashamed of or think there is a problem or regulate it because it is there. Mr. Ashton: You talk about free trade unions and respecting unions you deal with, but I have here an advertisement from Thursday, August 6, 1987. lt is from the Superstores. My understanding was that the strike was based on a vote-the democratic process; it reflected the will of the workers involved.

But I just want to quote you what your company-! am not suggesting you did this- but this is what Westfair put out. I would like to ask you a question following it it says, was it the employees -it is titled-who wanted it tha t way? Probably not. Out of 1, 600 employees, over 600 crossed the picket line and came to work. Over 800 have stayed home uninvolved in this dispute. Only a small minority of approximately 15 0 are on the picket line. Most of them have endured financial hardship, and many will not have jobs to return to, should Su perstore fail to reg ain its pre-s trike business.

This was based on a vote of the membership. That does not appear anywhere in here. If I was to read this, an average citizen, I would say that quite frankly you were misleading the public at that time about what had happened. There was no mention of the fact there was a vote of the membership. Regardless of what the facts were or were not in this particular case, I would assume from that you had a pretty adversarial relationship.

You are questioning the democratic decision of the people who decided to vote and go out on strike. * (1510 ) How can you say that you have a good labour relations climate and you respect the unions when you put out advertisements? I realize it is during a strike and it is a heated situation, but this is under the company signature. How can you say that you really 327 respect the unions, when in this par ticu lar case democ rat ic vote of the mem ber ship was being questioned by the company itself in paid advertis,�ments in the local media? Mr. Sm ith: Well, as you say, it was a strike.

I think we had been at it then on the parking lot for what, a couple of months? I do not think that Westfair ever had to give Mr. Christophe any assistance in publicizing his point of view as far as that strike went on, or publicizing who voted for what. When I say that we have a nonadversarial policy, I am not saying we have a nonadversarial policy for all unions at all times. We co-operate with people who seek to co-operate with us. lt is interesting that Mr.

Christophe has managed to get out of the Su perstore agreements the worst Superstore agreement, in terms of rates of pay, and in some cases, terms and conditions of employment. What it took Mr. Christophe some three months on the pa rking lot to figure out, Mr. Stewart in Saskatchewan figured out in about 20 minutes and wrung out of us a higher wage settlement. Mr. Ashton: I think we are getting a bit of a clearer picture. If the union, quote, co-operates, does it your way, you are suggesting they are going to get a better deal than if, in this particular case, they stood up for their rights democratically.

The membership voted to go out on strike. By the way, I did not quote the rest of the advert isement, which sai d, was it Bern ie Chr istophe of the MFCW?-and I will just quote it, perhaps, so you realize what was being said. I realize you did not probably draft this advertisement, but it says: Why no t? Strike pay is provided through the American-based international union in Washington, D.C. Also, new members will be gained from the new busine ss being done by Sa feway Incorpora ted 's Canadian subsidiary, which will make up for job and membership losses at Superstore.

Are you suggesting that the people who voted to go on strike, in any way, shape or form, reasonably-! mean I am just asking you to put aside, this is a couple of years ago-in any way, shape or form, voted to go on strike, because this was going to benefit Safeway and benefit their union in some other way, shape or form? Are you suggesting anything other than the fact that what I think is the obvious situation? They had a contract offer they felt was not fair. They exercised their right to strike. Mr. Smith: Can you read me the ad again? Mr.

Ashion: I can give it to you if you want; I realize you may not have seen it. I am not trying to misquote anything. lt is directly quoted, but I am looking at the situation. Perhaps it was because you were into a strike situation, but that is one of the reasons so many people have been coming to this committee saying that if there is another way, and in this case, FOS, that this is a better way. lt is an alternative. That is why I am raising these issues in this committee, because I am trying to get-1 have asked strikers who have been here, I have asked people who have worked

Frid ay, March 2, 1990 for companies, other compan ies, who have been affected in strikes, their opinion. They are saying final offer select ion would be a better alterna tive. You suggested to this committee you feel it is wrong because it takes away the fear of the right to strike and lock out, and I am pointing to what happens in a strike, how a company, which, as you said, pride s itself on its public image, can put out what I feel was a pretty vicious atta ck. I am sure Mr.

Chris tophe did not take it personally; although it was very personally intended , but it was a pretty vicious attack on the employees themselves. Nowhere in tha t adver tis ement did you ever acknowledge the fact that they had taken a democratic decision, a legal decision to go on strike. I am jus t wondering why. I am not suggesting you put that out. I realize that is not your part of Westfair, but how could an advertisement like that be placed by a company, a large company that obviously is going to have some concern for its public image? Mr.

Smith: Well, I think that I do not find anything offensive in this ad myself and also, as I suppose everyone here is aware, statements that companies make about unions are subject to the labour legislation of this province and if they are thought to be interfering with the internal affairs of a union or are thought to be an unfair labour practice, then the trade union can take the employer to the Labour Relations Board. If it is thought to be in some way libelous or slanderous, then the union can take the company to court.

I will tell you that we were not taken to court over this ad, and we were not taken to the board over this ad. Our sense of it was that the employees who voted for that strike d i d so-it was our impression, now we may be wrong, but when 91 percent of the people, I think that was the vote, vote for strike, then you have 500 or 600 of them come to work, that tells you there is something ..vrong with the vote. Does it not? Does that not tell you there is something haywire somewhere? That is when we say, was it the employees -p robably not.

Out of 1, 600 employees, over 600 cross the picket line and came back to work. If the vote had been 91 percent, and only 9 percent came back to work, we probably would not ask the question, who wanted it that way? lt was a bit of a dilemma. Mr. Ashton: Are you suggesting the vote was fixed, it was not a legitimate vote? I am puzzled by your defence of the ad. Are you suggesting it was not a legitimate vote? Mr. Smith: I am suggesting that its legitimacy was probably, in terms of its legal legitimacy, I am sure everything was done according to the letter of the law.

As an expression of what these people wanted, I have to say, I do not think it was. Mr. Ashton: Would you not think that perhaps one of the reasons people crossed the picket line is not because they did not vote for the strike or supported the strike, but the fact they were faced with a loss of 328 income? They were faced with the loss of their jobs. They saw people daily, people that you had hired specifically for that, and others who decided, right from the start, to cross the picket line.

Do you not think that has probably more to do with it than any other factor, the economic pressures, the family pressures, the personal pressures of day in, day out seeing people cross the picket line? lt is not just customers, but the people hired by your company to repla ce their jobs. Mr. Smith: I would say no. I do not think that was the case at all. There were a lot of people who, amongst these 600, told us what they thought. They thought the thing was stupid. They thought the company's offer was fine. The reason they crossed was because they thought the union was inept.

They were not going to pay with their salaries for the ineptitude of their union. I do not think we had 600 people back in the stores within the first few days of the strike, because it took us I think two or three weeks to get all the stores open again, but certainly there were very significant numbers of people, on the order of 300 or 400 people, willing to come back to work as soon as we were open. In fact there was a lot of pressure from our employees to open more stores so they could come back to work.

This is the only strike that I have ever been involved in, not that I have been involved in that many, where this has happened. Gene rally, you have a strike and everybody disappears and that is it. They are outside the building. What kind of strike do you have when you have a strike and you have 300 or 400 of them phoning up wanting to come in. That is when I say, and that is one of the rea sons, and perhaps in retrospect, we ran the ad, who wanted it that way.

I just think that strike was not expressive of what those people wanted or maybe they were misinformed or they were not listening, but it seemed to me a little odd-the numbers. Mr. Ashton: Well, I perhaps give them more cred it, and it is not unusual. I have seen many situations, a strike situation, where people under the financial pressures, you know, support the strike after they have seen what can happen, will end up in a position where they feel they have no alternative but to cross the picket line themselves. I do not believe that is unusual. By the way, I have other advertisements here.

Come hell or high water we will be open; this is the real Canad ian Superstore-various ads. You went on a unprecedented attempt during that period of time to provide customer discounts. I think we fairly, in some cases here, talked about what you would offer. That I thought would be a more legitimate approa ch, but I still cannot see your earlier statement when you came here, how SuperValu has, to use your code, a good labour relations climate. lt just does not add up.

Any company to my mind that puts out ads attacking the very legitimacy of the unions and the members, and I believe insulting their intelligence and their democratic right to a decision, I believe is bound to end up with difficult labour relations. • (15 20)

Fri day, March 2, 1990 I would just like to ask you, do you not really believe there has to be a better way? Do you really believe, for example-1 mentioned about Safeway. I am just talking from personal experience. I know Safeway employees and I know Westfair employees. You know, you walk into a Safeway store and you actually see some people there who have some decent hours, some older people. You walk into a Superstore nowadays and it seems that all the people who have been there for any length of time are working for a fraction of the hours they did before. We have had people come to this committee say that.

They worked at SuperValu and every year they end up with less and less hours. That is, by the way, going to be an issue in the bargaining, they have told us, in 19 90. Is that the way to treat people fairly? Do you not believe there is a better way? Do you not believe final offer selection provides a better chance for companies such as yours to have the kind of labour relations that, I believe you personally probably really want, but cer tainly has not been obje ctively the case with Weslfair? Mr.

Smith: I am not sure I remember the beginning of your set of serial questions, but I would go back to this notion that we had 20 grievances outstanding. You know, the Ch ristmas party may not indicate a lot to you, but it indicates a lot to us. I have had Ch ristmas parties at companies where no one came, so it is an indic ator. We ha ve good pr oduc tiv ity. Okay. Our numbers in terms of our customers service, which are numbers which plummet if you have a problem with your employees, are good. All the objective measures we have are good.

We are able to hire people easily which means we have a reputation out there amongst !he people who are looking for jobs. We are a decent employer. All these things are objective indications that we are a decent employer. Now, you know, any time you have a company with 1,7 00 employees that went through a lengthy labour dispute, if you do not think you are going to be able to find a significant number of people who do not like Westfair and never will like Westfair, those people are out there.

Those people undoubtedly will take the time to come down here and maybe express some views about it, especially if they were encouraged to, but obje ctiv ely, in this city we are-w e started up a Superstore program in Saskatoon with a 45 ,000 square foot store. We sort of figured we had something that was going to work, that was going to essentially resuscitate the fortunes at Westfair Foods, and we started in Winnipeg. We have some very strong feelings about this town. We have done well here. We have developed the way we are. We developed here in Winnipeg.

You know as well as I do, Safeway would never run ads like we do. They do not run ads like we do. No one runs ads like we do. To wring our hands over some hurt feelings of two or three years ago in the face of, in my view, objective factual evidence-the things were just fine at Westfair. What is it in aid of? Is it in aid of you and I debating FOS? lt is not in aid of anything. The people, the employees of Westfair to a large extent in my view have put that strike behind them.

There are 329 a number of people who were on that picket, who were terribly upset with our company, who have now been offered and accepted supervisory positions. They are now part of management for us. We accepted they had a right to express their point of view, their right to picket us and the right to be angry at us, but then they came back to work, worked well and are now part of the management group. I mean, this is the real world. We are a decent company; we know what we are doing. To construe and misconstrue what Westfair is about, what are employer relations about-1 mean, what is it in aid of?

If you want to know about Westfair employee relations, you know, after this is over, when I am back in town, come on over. We will go through it; we will go around the stores. Let us not try and fool each other that there is some major festering sore, because there just is not. Mr. Ashton: Well, I have taken the time, and I suggest perhaps you talk to some of the people in your own stores. You said yourself before, Safeway would not run ads like these. They also have not had a strike for 12 years; they are also not appearing before this committee arguing that we should take away final offer selection.

I use that comparison because I also talked to people at Safeway, and they say the labour relations are fairly decent. We have had people come to this committee from Safeway, and we have had people come from Westfair saying quite the opposite. lt is the same union, two different companies. Safeway is not here. You are proposing we get rid of final offer selection. I am trying to get at the root of that, because we have had plenty of people here who have been stating that is quite the case.

By the way, I have been able to track down some of the reports-the one I was talking about earlier, in terms of the hiring of strikebreakers. There is one clip I do not have, which quoted Mr. Ryzebol, but there is another clipping I have here from part of 1987 where it was made very clear by a spokesperson for the company that the people involved in this training program, he says-a regular program-t hat in effect a thousand would-be applicants had been obtained at that time. lt was made clear that they would be placed on a priority list for hiring when workers were needed in case of the current strike.

That was prior to the strike, by the way. So I just wanted to make sure I provided you with the facts on that, as I did previously, in terms of the ad. Now, I just want to get down to the bottom line then, because you said to this committee you want final offer selec tion to be ter mina ted. I take it, the recommendation of Westfair be terminated immediately. I will just perhaps ask you that so we have it fairly clear, you are suggesting that the Act should be repealed as soon as possible? Mr. Smith: Yes, my view is that the Act should be repealed as soon as possible.

I think there has to be some attention paid to fact there are agreements, including our own, which were cast in that, when there was final offer selection in legislation extent. I do not think it would make a lot of sense for companies which have entered into agreements, which may be affected

Frid ay, March 2, 1990 by the repeal of it, to have a negative im pact on their labour rela tions, but I think tha t we would certainly be governed by the decision of the Leg isla ture in the matter. Mr. Ashton: So you would like to see it repealed prior to the next contract , which is coming up on May 15 , I belie ve, in terms of Westfair? Mr. Smi th: I think we have al ready received proposals from the trade union here in Man itoba.

Actually , we would want to seek advice on this matter, but I think our feeling wou ld be-l do not think it would be the intention of the Le gisla tu re th at had colle ctive agreements been entered in to, which reflected the legisla tive environment at the time, if tha t envi ronment was to be abruptly chan ged , tha t ther e would be any negat ive fal lout for parties to such agreem ents. Mr. Ashton: Ju st going from tha t, are you sugges ting th at perhaps final offer selection not be repealed prior to the contr act ? Perhaps I misunde rstood it.

Are you sugges ting that it might be better in Westfair's case if the repeal took-a ssumin g the re is a repeal and some of us on the comm ittee hope there is not- but if there was a repeal, it took pla ce after the current set of negotia tions? Mr. Sm ith: No, I think it should be repealed imm edia tely. When a lot of legislation either laps es or is repealed, provi sions are made, gran dfathered or whatever, so tha t arrangements which have been made under one environment, that people and institutions are not harmed because there has been a change in the legisla tive environment. Mr.

Ashton: So Westfair's position to this commit tee is you would like the im med iate repeal prior , obvious ly, to the current contract. You would not like to see any particular pr ovisions in pl ace to have a transition period . There is a simil ar transition period in the proposed repeal. I do not belie ve it wou ld im pact on your current situa tion. You wou ld rather see as a compa ny, labour rela tions that reflect, what you sai d, colle ctive bargai ning based on the fear of a strike or a lockout.

You do not want to see something such as final offer select ion available as an alterna tive to the emplo yees to the strike weapon. You would rather see- some of us could cla ssify it as the law of the jungle, but I do not mean in this particular case to put any value-laden terms on it. I jus t want to put it to you di rectly. You wou ld rather see this fear rather than final offer selection. Mr.

Smith: Wha t I would like to see is that no more colle ctive agreements be entered into under a legis lat ive framework of FOS, but there be some atte ntion paid to col lectiv e agreements which are currently extant and have yet to exp ire which may have in them, such as ours does, FOS provisions. I do not think we want to thr ow the baby out with the bath water here. There was a radical change in the legisla tive environment with the in troduction of Bill 61. Some attention, in my view, should be paid to the change in the environment when you take it out. That is al l. 330 One thing, Mr.

Ashton, if I may, I have a flight at 4:30. My feeling is that I should try and get out of here by a minimum of about 15 minu tes. * (15 30) Mr. Ashton: I am just concluding my questioning here. (i nterject ion) - Pard on me? Hold up the plane, tha t is right. You have been pretty blunt. I will gi ve you credit. You have come forward and you have expressed Westfai r's position fai rly clearly , the view of Westfair in terms of labour rela tions. I do not think you pulled any punch es even in terms of the ads.

I think you said tha t other compan ies may not have done it, but th at is the type of thing tha t Super Valu does. That is their approa ch. We may have a di sagreement, by the way, on the condition of labour relations. I really believe, and I know you are not from Winnip eg, but I really belie ve that Westfair might want to look at what was said by some of the emp loyees tha t came here earl ier.

We have had presentations from people who came here, some who were involved in the strike, but we have heard people come here and say the only thing that has brought people together at Su pervalu since the strike has been final offer selection. The people who have crossed the pick et li nes who would not speak to people who were on the pick et li nes, have not spoken for two and a half years, are finally talking. The emp loyees in that compa ny, your comp any, are saying th ey want final offer select ion avail able as an option to them.

We have had people come here who were on the strike who said the y ident ified , they could und ers tand. Th ey did not ag ree with what the stri kebr eakers did, but they und erstood the situation. That is pretty well what has been happ ening on the other side too, tha t people are coming together saying tha t final offer select ion provide s an alterna tive. We put it in for five years as an exper iment. lt is an inno vative measure. We bel ieve, some of us, that it has not been really given a chance, but I guess we have a fundamental difference in opinion on that.

Your company belie ves tha t we are better off with fear, fear of a strike and lockout. Those of us who bel ieve final offer selection has a role, and the emplo yees themselves who went through tha t strike on both sides are saying they feel th at we need an environment in which fear is not the onl y factor, an environment tha t reflects the rights of each party, but where there is a better way.

I wanted to gi ve you the fulle st oppor tuni ty to put you r views on the record, but I really hope you will take the opportu nity to talk to people here in Manitoba about their experience with final offer selection, your own emplo yees. As I said , I really belie ve you will find and l-i t may still not change Westfair's posit ion. You may still feel you have an advanta ge without final offer selection, in terms of bargai ning in a recession situa tion. I would hope you would take the time to talk to the people and li sten to some of the presentations we heard.

Wha t a lot of people are saying is, there has got to be another way. Su perValu, Westfair should not have to go through what happened in 1987 , and final offer

Friday, March 2, 1990 selection is tha t way. That is why, by the way, some of us have been fighting so hard for final offer selection, and so many people are here. I appr eciate your coming here, but I really would encourage you to talk to your emplo yees and find out their experiences. I really do belie ve tha t people are looking for an alterna tive and especially with a cont ract coming up, we are hearing a lot of talk about that. I will tell you the bigge st fear people have. The big gest fear they have right now is tha t the cont ract is going to be up in Ma y of 19 90 and his tory will repeat itself.

You know, I am sure, the saying that those who forget hi story ess entia l ly, do not learn from his tor y, are condem ned to repeat it. People are saying, let us learn from histor y and let us find a better way. That is essentially what the dis cussion is all about. I appr eciate your views, but I think we will have to agree to di sag ree on how we app roach labour relations. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Edward s, you have a question? 11.1r. Paul Edwards (St Jl'!mes): Yes. Mr. Smith, I want to pick up on what my frien d, Mr. Ashtor1, has been talking about.

I recogn ize your time constraints, so I will try and be brief. But the lnd ication lrom Mr. Ashton, in speak ing with you, tha t there may inde ed be a strike coming up in May. Mr. Christophe was here a couple of ni ghts ago, and he was raising tha t spectre with us as wel l as the spectre of the effect it may have on our electoral success in an election, which is coming up this year . The y were hardly veile d th reats by Mr . Christophe on both of th ose accounts. I do not think he is known for subtle ty anyway, so it did not surp rise us.

Can I jus t ask you to clarif y what you are saying about the colle ctive agreement you have now? Are you saying that in fact you and Mr. Chris tophe, or Westfair and UF CW, negoti ated a final offer select ion provision which will be governing this cont ract coming up this year? If so, how many years is that provision going to be effective? Mr. Smith: One renewal . When we came to the end ol the road in '87, neither one of us wanted to do it again real soon. So we reinstalled or reinitia ted an FOS resolution of the di spute, if ther e is one for this round of bargai ning. Mr. Edwards: So when Mr. Ashton and Mr.

Christophe sugg ested there may be a repeat of 1987 in the upcoming negotia tions, they are in fact false? Mr. Smith: Yes. Mr. Edwards: I hear Mr. Ashton saying no. An Honour able Member: Could be, I am saying. Mr. Edwards: I am ask ing you , Mr. Smith, to clear it because the Member for Thom pson (Mr. Ashton) seems to be sugge sting tha t we could have another strike lik e we had in 'S?.

Gi ven tha t you have agreed in 19 87, under your col lectiv e agreement, to do final offer 331 selection this time- perhaps I am unclear- but th at will in fact be what is used this year, will it not, the final offer select ion as set out in you r colle ctiv e agreement, not the statute? Mr. Smith: What we have in our col lectiv e agreement, we have a reference to the statute with our FOS lan guage. We also ha ve an un dertak ing from the Canad ian di rector.

So I would say tha t in terms-could there be a legal challenge to the FOS langua ge in our colle ctive agreement, should the enabling legislation be repealed -! would say the re could be. Whether it wou ld be successful or not, I do not think so. In addition to that, we have a letter from the national dir ector of the UFCW stating that in the event of impa sse we would in fact go to a fina l offer select ion process with mediation beforehand. What I am sayi ng here is tha t I would lik e there to be a 10 0 percent certai nty tha t we are not going to have a labour dispu te this year. I think Mr.

Christophe has the same feeli ngs. That is why I say that what Westfair would lik e to see, and I think we speak on behalf of perhaps some unkno wn compan ies out there who have negotiated agreements similar to ours with some reference to the legisla tion, but let us not pull the rug out from un der the feet of the se agreements when the legislation is repealed . it is a legisla ti ve commonpla ce, I understand, to have gr andfat hering cla uses or run-out claus es for certain types of legisla tion. That is what I am sayi ng. Mr. Edwar ds: Presumably it was that desir e between you rself and Mr.

Christophe not to have 19 87 repeated which lead to you mutually agreeing to put in some final offer provisions into your col lective agreement. Mr. Smith: Exact ly. Mr. IEdwards: With respect to your speaking about the development of your compa ny in western Canada and your coming to Winnip eg, a lot has been made by the Chamb er of Comm erce with respect to the disi ncentiv e this particular provi sion gives to investors com ing into Mani toba. You represent a company tha t has made sign ificant investments in this provi nce, al beit I assume most of them prior to final offer selection coming into pla ce.

As an outside viewer on Manitoba, what are your tho ug hts on that spectre raised by the Cham ber of Com merce? Mr. Smith: I would say tha t peo ple who make investments in Canada cover a wide range of financial sophis tication, but they even cover an even wider range of soph istica tion when it comes to look ing at the im pact of certain types of legisla tion. I bel ieve tha t the type of legis lation that you have here which most emplo yers see as being terri bly one side d is in fact a disinc entiv e to in vestment. I do not like to say that but I do believe that. * (1 540) Mr. Edwar ds: Jus t to clarif y.

I have now had a chance to look at the existing colle ctive agreement I believe, yes, it goes till Ma y 5, 19 90. Just so I am perfectly

Friday, March 2, 1990 clear from your brief, you had a freestanding final offer select ion agre ement in pla ce prior to the 19 87 agreement. lt appears from this 1987 agreement that you selected and put into the collective agreement the selector but you did refer to the Manitoba Labour Relations Act as being the guiding principle for final offer selection. Now you have also said though that you have a letter from UF CW that in the event this Act is repealed, final offer selection will still be used because it was mutually agreed to in 1987 . Mr. Smith: That is correct.

The best prevention of a strike of course is a mutual-t o avoid one at all costs. We have no interest in revisiting the parking lots of 1987 . Mr. Edwards: Ju st one more question. The New Democratic Party in many respects has hung its case on this particular dispute and your relationship with the UF CW. Of course you know that in terms of timing of this Bill, it coincided , at least when it was first introduced, with your strike starting, of the strike starting at Westfair Foods. You made some comments about the second window, the window after a 60-day strike.

Much has been made of the fact that there is no way that 60-day window, that second window, would in any way constitute an invitation to strike or be any kind of an incentive to go on strike had you missed the first window. Now you have said that in your experience, bargaining often does not start until past the first window. What are your views on that position, whether or not that second window has any effect on the likelihood of a strike? Mr. Smith: Yes. I think it does.

I think what would happen, if ! were a trade union leader and maybe one day I will be after I do the whole thing, the other side of it- An Honour able Member: Stranger things ha ve happ ened . Mr. Smith: Stranger things have happened. But what I would do, is I would figure this: I would say that my biggest downside risk is 60 days, because I can get out in 60 days. Okay. So all I would do is if I am going to take the people out, you know, then I take a reading on them around day 55.

If every body is solid, if I have my strike pay in line with the international, I am doing okay as far as the picket line goes, I have not picked up any injunctions, everything is working well, well, then what the hell. But I always have -a t the 60-day point, I have the opportunity to bail out and push it into FOS. Mr. Edwards: Surely you are not suggesting that a union leader would lightly send people out for a 60- day strike. We have heard all kinds of evidence -! do not think it needs to be repeated -t hat any two days of a strike can be very detrimental to workers.

I will let you respond to that, but as well I would like you to consider from a company's point of view what does the effect of a 60-day strike have? Is there some point at which the company either knuckles under or settles in for a long strike, and if 332 so, when in your experience does that critical point come where you either meet the demands of the union or basically say, we are in this for the long haul? Mr. Smith: First of all, my remarks about the 60-day strike were really to-w here the assumption or the decision to take a strike had already been made and voted on by the membership.

I am certainly not inferring, I do not mean to infer that presidents of trade unions lightly take their members out on strike. Most presidents of trade unions, who go through strikes, everybody puts on about 10 years. lt is no fun for anybody and I hope I did not suggest that. As far as whether there is a magic number, there is not. I think that the point at which someone settles into a dispute, the only number I have ever heard with any kind of freq uency is two weeks. Basically, if they are out for two weeks then you might be out three months.

But if you are going to have the short, sharp shock of, oh, my God , we are down and the employees, oh, my God, I am out here, if that is going to have some effect, it is usually-wha t I have heard -tha t is going to manifest itself in that first couple of weeks. After that, people get used to it; people get used to anything and you are into it. I do not know if that answers your question or not. An Honourable Mem ber: Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rose, you had a question. Mr. Bob Rose (S t. Vit al): Mr.

Chairman, I have a number of questions here but being that it is Friday and we have had a long presentation here, I think I will hold them tor now. I would not like to see Mr. Smith on a Friday, with all the hold up at the airport, miss his plane. I just want to thank you for coming. I appreciated your presentation. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashton, you had one- Mr. Ashton: Yes, just briefly on the final offer selection provision because as Mr. Edwards pointed out, when I provided him with information, the original clause was a free-standing clause, a current provision to reverse The Labour Relations Act.

Is Westfair saying that even if the Act is repealed, the provisions of The Manitoba Labour Relations Act that regard the Government final offer selection will still be honoured in the current and upcoming contracts? Mr. Smith: As I mentioned on that one I have a legal opinion saying that it will prevail. I also have a letter from the Canadian director saying it is their intention if there is impasse to go into FOS. The problem is of course is that there is a lot of things in life you take a 90 percent certainty on, but I have some plans for this summer and they do not include a strike in Winnipeg.

I would very much and I think our employees, the ones that you are concerned about, would very much like there to be a 10 0 percent certainty. That is why I am urging this committee and the Legislature that when the FOS is repealed, there be a provision to protect those in those agreements such

Friday, March 2, 1990 as ours from being inadvertently negated. I am certain that our employees' inten tion when they ratified that agreement- and it was thei r intent ion to pro tec t themselve s from the possibil ity of gett ing involved in a strike again, as it was ours. We both had that intent. We did not know the legisl ation was going to be repeale d. It answe red praye rs, I guess , but at this point I think it would be wise of this Chamber to cons ider prot ection for compa nies such as ours which have prov isio ns such as those. Mr.

Ashton: Apart from the legal side , obviousl y if Westfair accepts the current provisions of the Act whether they are repealed or not for the upcoming contract is not a problem. You are saying that Westfair and the upcoming negotiations will follow the current procedures in terms of The Labour Relations Act regardless of whether they are repealed or not? I mean , that is the easiest solution. If you agree to it and the union agrees to acknowledge the Act as it is, really you do not get into any legal disputes. Mr. Smith: There is only one problem, and that is the legislation allows for a 60-day strike.

That is one of the problems of this legislation. That agreement is attempting to avoid a strike, and the mutual intent of the parties was not to have a strike. The mutual intent of the parties in fact was to have kind of a zipless renewal. Mr. Ashton: I am just trying to get it clear though , because the

section here states quite clearly that the parties agree if either party invokes final offer selection on the appointment of the selectors-you mentioned Mr. Reddy, he is one of them, and Mr. Donald Munroe it really does not do anything in terms of final offer selection that is in the legislation. What I am trying to get quite clear is that I am sure it would be good news in terms of the employees .

Is it Westfair's position that May 15, regardless of whether the Bill is in plac e or not, you will follow final offer selection as it currently exists in The Manitoba Labour Relations Act, whether or not it has been repealed by the Legislature, because you can do that? If you do that, I think it clears-there is not uncertainty this way. *

(1550) Mr. Smith: We are committed to renewing that agreement . In fact, Mr. Cliff Evans, the Canadian director's letter refers to the fact that we are committed, and he agrees we are committed, to renewing the agreement by a final offer selection method . Really what happened was this bloody legislation complicated our lives. I should tell you something , and that is, in my view that dispute would have resolved probably around August 12 of'87 rather than October 3 of'87 if we were not all squirming arou nd with that legislation. Mr.

Ashton: I am tryin g to raise this so we can perhaps avoid any problems in the future. I am just asking if it is Westfair's position-and I realize you are late, but I think it would probably resolve a lot of the problems if Westfair could commit right now to say that regardless of whether the Act is repealed or not, you will follow 333 41 .04 in the spirit rather than the letter of the law. I mean , technically you could go in there and say the law no longe r exists , so 41.04 no longer applies. Mr. Smith: I signed that agreement. I am comm itted and I reconfirmed w ith Mr.

Evans our mutual commitment to renew this agreement without a labour dispute; no strikey. Mr. Ashton: I realize th at, b ut I am just t rying to deal with th e situation . What if there i s an impasse ? Will Westfair mut ually agree , no m atter if the legislation i s repealed or not, to follow the current p rocedures if there is an impasse? Mr. Chairman: I want to advise Mr. Ashton that we are not negotiating a contract here. I would advise you that if you want to speak to Mr. Smith outside of the committee room and talk about these things, that is fine, but we are talking about the legislation in Bill 31 here.

We would like to keep the question to those- Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I did not raise this issue . The Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) did . I believe the Member for St. James init ially was not aware of the current provision, and as a courtesy I had given it to the Member for St. James. I just want to clarify for Members of the committee, essentially what will happen if the Act is repealed is that the final offer selection mechanism we currently have may not apply. I was just hoping and I would, quite frankly, love to legally be wrong, that there would be no potential repeat of 1987.

But unless Westfair agrees and the union agrees to follow the current provisions , we could end up in a strike situati on. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Ashton. We will let Mr. Smith wind up here. Mr. Smith: Mr. Ashton, I will tell you, and I am speaking for Westfair and I am speaking for the labour relations function of Westfair, it is our intention to renew this collective agreement without a strike. If we do reach impasse, we are going to submit our differences to Mr. Vincent Reddy and he is going to select which of those differences are going to go which way.

There is not going to be a strike in Winnipeg this year. Mr. Chairman: Thank you , very much for your prese ntation of this afternoon. Mr. Smith: It was great . Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Ms. Gray, did you have a question? COMMITTEE CHANGE Ms. Avis Gray (Ellice): Yes, Mr. Chairpers on. I am wondering if, by leave of the committee, Mr. Edward s could replace Mr. Herold Driedger from Niakwa as Member of the Standing Committee on Indust ri al Relations, and this to be effective immediately? Mr. Chairman: If the re is unanimous cons ent, yes, we can do it. Is there unanimous con sent? Agreed ? Okay.

Friday, March 2, 1990 Is that for today or tomorrow or effective when? Effective immediately? Okay, it is agreed that Mr. Edwards will replace Mr. Herold Driedger. Okay. Mr. Ash ton. Mr. Ashton: . . . -(interjection)- on the procedure becaus e in other comm ittees tha t ha s not been accepted . I have no difficulties with it because normally it is the House in Session that determines the seeing of committees. But I just want to make sure that there is no concern. Mr. Chairman: lt can be done by unanimous consent of this committee -(interjection)- yes, it can be done, but it has to be unanimous consent.

Is there unanimous consent then? No problem. Okay. An Honourable Mem ber: Who will be replaced ? Mr. Chairman: Mr. Herold Driedger. ***** Mr. Chairman: Okay, I would like to call Mr. Patrick Joyce, No. 17 on your list to the stand, please. Mr. Joyce, do you have a written presentation? Mr. Patrick Joyce (Priv ate Citizen): No, I do not. Mr. Chairman: Okay, please proceed then. Mr. Joyce: Thank you, Mr. Cha irman and Members of the committee.

I would like, first of all, just to indicate that I am very pleased with this opportunity to approach this committee and indicate some of my own personal feelings as a private citizen on this matter of FOS. I would like to assure you that I am nowhere near as eloquent as other speakers that have come forward. The only thing I can add ress you on is my own personal feelings on this issue of FOS. I have had an opportunity to review many different aspects of that, ranging from read ing the newspaper artic les surr ounding this

part icular issue as well as perusi ng some of the legislation that applies. I guess for the record so that you know where I am coming from, I think it is important to indicate to you th at I very defin itely oppo se the actions of the Government to move toward repeal of Bill 31. I support the concept of final offer selection, and I also support that legislation that embodies that particular legislation. I believe that the legislation itself provides an aid in the area of collective bargaining and it also brings a level of common sense to that area of collective bargaining as well. I am sure also, Mr.

Chairman, that the committee has heard many private citizens as well as representatives from both the union community as well as the business community on behalf of the issue of the repeal of the final offer selection. I would particularly raise the question as to what I find is a little bit unsure in my own mind as to why it is important to repeal that legislation. Obviously, I do not support that.

I would like to think that, on behalf 334 of all Manitobans, those people who brought forward legislation for the protection of not only workers, but also to provide a balance in the labour relations community, that legislation was well thought out, was vetted through a number of different sources, and people had an opportunity to understand what the ramifications of implementation of that legislation would be.

I think that the legislation has been in place for a short period of time, and there is some time that is attached to that particular legislation, as has been indicated here, and I believe is a record in front of the committee. As far as labour board statistics are concerned, there has been I believe a number of applications, in the range of 72 applica tions, made under the FOS legislation.

Of those applications, I would assume that at least 67 of those applications have been withdrawn signifying that there has been some other method of arriving at a collective agreement between those parties, hopefully by mutual agreement.

In the five cases that have been quoted here that have indicated that it had to go before the selector, I am sure that in those particular cases where decisions were made by that selector, that in fact both parties by legislation and through the pro cess have had to live with the consequences of those decisions from the selector. * (16 00) I have not seen anything in the newspaper or brought forward that says those people who had decisions imposed on them by the selector were unfavourable to that. I have not seen any indication that there was a great hue and cry to the politicians.

I have however seen di vergent phi losoph ies come forward from politicians, and I am wondering whether or not the whole issue, rather than being a practical issue in the exercise of labour rela tions, has become a political football. Cer tain constituencies are being protected in the name of labour relations. Well, I for one do not accept that. I am a Manitoban. I am a taxpayer. I believe that the politicians should be working toward the inter ests of all Manitobans, not just a par ticular constituency, whether that be a union, whether that be the business, or tha t be some other area.

I believe the legislation that is put forward is there to provide a balance. lt also takes away the situation whereby there is a lot of ec onomic cost both to companies, large and small, in a work stoppage or a strike situation. lt also prevents those people who are affected by those work stoppages, being the workers themselves, from finding themselves in dir e financial circumstances by virtue of either a strike or a lack of a raise of pay which has presumably precipitated that strike situation. I think that FOS is good common sense.

I think, at any collective bargaining situation, certainly strike or lockout is a final weapon but somewhere in between utilizing that final weapon, there has to be some way of creating an extra tool, if you will, to try and find a way through the maze of difficulties that are precipitated through the collective bargaining process. I think FOS, or final offer selection, gives that opportunity, not just heavily hande d to the union's side but at least in terms

Friday, March 2, 19 90 of the outcome. The selector ma kes the decision on the outcome as I un derstand the Act.

I also belie ve tha t nobo dy, whether it be busine sses who are affected by the legisla tion or the unions tha t are also affected by it when appl ication is made, wants to find hi mself in a position where a third party who has been ind icated earlier on may not have the financial expertise in their select ion deci sion, or may not have a great deal of backg round as far as the labour relations atmosph ere in th ose particula r compan ies or un ions making a decision on what is going to lead . to the solution of their cont ract for the future.

I think tha t in itself is the key to the final offer selection legisla tion, tha t it sits and hangs over the heads of both parties similar to the sword of Damo cies, if you will , in pushing th ose two parties together to be reasonable at the bargaining iabie. I think tha t is the key, both parties have to be reasonable.

In any bargaining situation it is my that egos become involved and sometimes people them selves into corners, and when the only thing they have left to get thems elves out of a corner is to either go on strike or locked out, to my way of thinking, that is not a rationa l way of a very tumul !uous set ol end. may be a time and a pla ce a!! situa tions. I think as a comm ittee you people should gi ve good thought to the fact this legislation does not only protect or ham per large unions or corpora tions.

You are from the giants in indus try, you will, such as Foods who have just, before have approached here, ind icated tha t they a very di fficult strike situation. ! am was on sides tha t pic ture but what about all of th ose other smaller uni ts where you have people who do have the opportunity of having big busi ness or big labour beh ind them.

Wha t about th ose who come from smaller unio ns. they have smaller compan ies, what happens them when they get into situation where they are organized, they are in a colle ctive process and tha t process is not work ing out Is the only option tha t is open to them to go out on strike for 60 days and at tha t point maybe apply for fina l offer selection and then have a selector decide wha t is happe ning? Wha t happ ens to th ose people during tha t 60 days, is there not a real economic im pact on them? There is the same economic im pact whether you are a small union, a big union, small busi ness, big busine ss.

No matter what you are there is an economic im pact to you. Is tha t a smart way of res olving conflic t at the table when things gel th rown into the mili eu, tha t takes tha t process out of sync? I think that final offer select ion tends to drive those parties cl oser together and says to them look, you have an opportun ity to work out this process, if you do not ther e is somebody who is going to tell you what tha t settlement is going to be. Busine ss does not want tha t, the work ing man does not want that.

The work ing man wants to get on with doing the job but he wants a fair return for the job tha t he does. The busine ss also wants a fair return in the work that they get from !he employee and they also have to be cognizant of what the bottom 335 lin e is as well. But at some point somebody has to say in this bargai ning atmosphere tha t th ose emp loyees have a right to go to work, do the job that they want to do, and at the same time be able to have a fair return from doing tha t job.

I think that, as I had ind ica ted , this is a pr act ical solution, and when politicians tend to jump into this I am wondering at whose inter est they are jumping into this process with. You have the working people of Manitoba out there who are sayi ng tha t th ey need some protections. Obviously , there is labour legislation there to protect them . This is another tool , but it is not only a one sided tool as I see it.

Certainly it is onl y the union's side or the workers' side tha t gets to apply for the final offer selection, but both parties have an opportun ity to benefit from it, and the benefit is through the pro cess of which they go through this legisla tion. The benefit does not come forward only in what happens, how the selectors make their decision and in whose favour th ey make the decisi on.

I would sugge st to you tha t when you look at th ose 72 cases tha t came before the Labour Board and 67 of th ose cases were resolved , obviously the pro cess mus t have had some impa ct on both the company and the workers' representa ti ves in order to force them in to a situation of saying we better react reasonab ly, we better find some areas of comprom ise, because if we are not able to find th ose areas of compromis e, then we are going to be out on the bri cks.

If we are out on the bricks and th ose people are out on strike, there is going to be an economic im pact to them, and conseq uently ther e is also going to be an economic im pact to the empl oyer. To my way of thinking, in Ma nitoba tha t does not make sense; tha t is going to help driv e busi ness away.

I think final offer selection legislation helps to main tain a calm and un iform labour relations atmosphere in this province. ! think if you take a look at it on a cross countr y or a national perspective, when you look at the labour rela tions in this province, I think tha t you have to take a good look at how busi ness has been done in this provi nce and how Ma nitobans have their own made-i n-Mani toba way of doing busine ss in this province, " (16 10 ) We do not have to look to Que bec for any lessons in labour relations, we do not have to look to B.C., look !o ourselves.

We have seen tha t Mani tobans when th ey are left with some alterna tives and are given an opportunity to be creative in how they deal with not only their legislation through their politicians but with their colle ctive bargaining, in fact they can produc e solutions tha t are acceptable to both the workers and the compan ies. do not see and I have not heard before this comm ittee a whole lot ol busine sses coming forward out of the woodwork saying tha t we have been harmed by finai offer selection or even tha t they und ersta nd what final offer select ion is about.

I see a lot of media attention on this issue from time to ti me, some of it negativ e, some of it positive, but I wonder, un less you

Friday, March 2, 1990 have gone into that process and you have ownership of what collective bargaining is about, you do not have an intimate understanding of what final offer selection is there for. I think one of the key factors of final offer selection is that the system itself or the legislation is set up in such a way which is brilliant, that it does not favour either party in terms of the settlement outcome. There is a third person neutral that will make that decision.

Nobody wants the decision made for him, as I have said before, but in the event those parties cannot get beyond their egos, can not get beyond a di fficult situation where in fact one side or the other has painted themselves into a corner, then there is somebody there to act on behalf of both those parties to provide a solution which does not create further discomfort to both the workers and to the public of Manitoba. I think that it also prom otes quick, reaso nable bargaining from both sides.

I think something else in terms of the legislation that you have to look at as an aspect is- my understanding is there are two times when you can become involved in the final offer selection in terms of your application before the Labour Board. One of those times is between 60 and 30 days before a collective agreement expi res. At that point in time, it may be that your experience with the employer you have had in the past number of months or years that the collective agreement has been in force, in fact the employer has been less than agreeable in the way that it conducts its labour relations.

The mood may be somewhat out of sync as far as the people in the work force are concerned. As far as the attitudes, they may be polarized . If that is the case, then that window which creates what is, as I have read in certain places, an apprehended dispute, then an application can be made that at that time, before you go into bargaining, says to the parties, look, when we go forward to bargaining, we better be reasonable, we better find a way of settling this issue without all the rancor and sabre rattling of going out on strike or we are going to lock you out.

This provides an avenue that says, that is not going to be there for you, folks. What is going to be there for you is that somebody is going to make that decision.

If in fact you get involved with the final offer selection and you go through it at the initial stage which is the 60-day to 30-day window in order to get into it before you go into collective bargaining, I think it is important to note that the issues you put before each other have an opportunity to be resolved before it goes to the selector. 1t is my understanding of the legislation that at any point in time the parties still have an opportunity to resolve all the way up until such time as an impasse on a specific item-1 will use the example, possibly money, which is always the bottom line- comes into play.

Well, at that time, I am sure, the selector, in looking at those issues, does not have to be an expert in financial analysis in order to take a look at what the trends are, make a decision as to people's relative ability to pay. lt is not an issue of compromise.

He will balance his views on that, he will make a choice and both parties will live with that. 336 I do not see that as being fundamentally wrong. think that as you go through the FOS legislation at a later point in time, once people have been out on that picket line for 60 days and there does not seem to be any pr ospect of finding a very pleasant way of trying to come back to the bargaining table, what is that doing in the Province of Manitoba to not only the public relations view of Manitobans and how they conduct business here, if in fact you get into very long protracted strikes where they become very bitter?

What it does is it takes a situation where people become even further polarized , people become more set in their ways, their positions become more set in concrete, if you will, and it becomes an all-or-none type of appr oach. Well, I would say to you that final offer selection allows you the opportunity for a form of face saver. Every collective bargaining process that I have read about or seen has to provide some form of face saving. People being people, 1h ere is no technological mystery to bargaining a collect ive agree ment; it involves personalities. People sometimes paint themselves into corners.

Very clearly, FOS allows people that have managed to get themselves into a corner a legitimate and a dignified way to work themselves out of that and find a way to go back to work and earn a living. I think that would complete my presentation. Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions for Mr. Joyce? Mr. Ashton. Mr. Ashton: The previous presenter from Westfair Foods stated that Westfair's position essentially is that collective bargaining only really works if there is a threat of a strike or lockout. Their concern is that final offer selection presumably takes away that fear; that actually was the word, not threat.

I am wondering what your opinion is in terms of the impact of final offer selection. Do you believe it detracts from collective bargaining or do you believe it promotes collective bargaining? I would like to ask you what you feel of Westfair's position. Mr. Joyce: Very clearly, I believe that FOS is only necessary at a point in time where it is found to be necessary. I think that free collective bargaining, if entered into without preconceived impressions of where that bargaining is going to go, will tend to work its way through, providing the parties do not have what I would term as a preconceived agenda.

In areas where people are trying to establish a certain agenda, whether that be to hold somebody to ransom or to bust the particular union or to set a statement forward, I think that FOS, or final offer selection, would in fact act as a cooling down tool, if you will, so that reasonable heads would prevail. Mr. Ashton: Another question that has been raised in this committee in terms of final offer selection has been the impact it has in terms of unions. The suggestion has been made that somehow final offer selection hurts unions.

The suggestion has been made that somehow final offer selection can reduce the accountability of the union leadership to its members. I would like to

Friday, March 2, 1990 ask you for your opinion on that. Do you feel tho se state ments are a fair criticism of final offer selection? If not, what do you belie ve final offer select ion does i n that particular circumstance? Mr. Joyce: In my opinion, as a cit izen again, I belie ve tha t final offer selection does not create a situation where the mem bersh ip of a particula r work force is removed from a pr ocess.

I belie ve the y ha ve an opportunity to be pa rt of tha t pr ocess. lt is my und erstan ding, thr ough the legisla tion, tha t in order to apply for the process, the mem bership has to be involved in tha t by way oi a vote. The majority of the people involved in !h at vote wou ld cast their opinion. Based on that opinion, if it was affirma tive, then an appl ication for final offer select ion would be made. •

(1620) In terms of my opinion as to whether or not it ham pers col lectiv e bargai ning, I think I have said earlier that I do not think it ham pers colle ctive bargaining. As a matter of fact, I think some of the focus of this comm ittee, and l would hope they view it in this light, is that not all un ions are big uni ons, not all busi nesses are big busi nesses. Ther e is a time and a pl ace where a tool is ne cessary to prevent stri kes, or lockouts for that matter. i do noi think th ose weap ons should be used un merciful ly, if you wi ll.

I think ther e has to be something in pla ce to bring along the process of colle ctive bargaining where people have difficult ies. I hope tha t is the answer to your question. Mr. Ashtm1: Thank you for answer. I would lik e to ask you another question, and I have asked this of many people who ha ve come before the comm ittee. Some ti mes I am qu ite puzzled about the fact tha t there really is not the ground swell of people out there calling for the removal of final offer selection, and yet lt is pushed thr ough now, two years into the five-year in which it was sup posed to be put into pla ce and evalua ted .

In your experience with your contacts in your workpia ce or in your commun ity are you picking up man y people who are suppor ting the Government, who are urging the Gove rn ment to rem ove fina l offer selection? Mr. Joyce: In my opinion as a cit izen I think tha t there are a lot of citizens in this province who do not have a knowledge ol what final offer select ion is about. They do not have first-hand in volvement.

I would say to you in terms of the legisla tion, the involvement of the citizens ol this province is prima rily focused in the areas where workpi aces are organ ized under a union and where busi nesses are in a colle ctive bargaining atmosphere. I would say to you the people who really un derstand what goes on in the impl ementation of fina l offer selection are busine sses or unio ns. My un dersta nding is, when I look at what has hap pened through final offer selection, tha t it has brought peace where otherwise there wou ld not be peace in certain situations.

Very definit ely where a numb er of parties would have headed toward lockout 337 or strike, tha t h

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-ir16
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf ir16.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	62274b67c20e0f07098226451022ff4ec1f8670c

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