Manitoba Committee Hansard — 12 December 1990 (Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 1, 35th Legislature, 1st Session)

35-1-ir1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

,-8048 First Session ·Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS _ 39 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. Marcel Laurendeau Constituency of St. Norbert VOL. XXXIX No. 1 • 8 p.m., WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1990 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 0713-9608

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

HICKES, George LAMOU REUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALP INE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack, Hon. PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEF ANSON, Eric ST ORIE , Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Os borne Thompson Welling ton Crescentwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage la Prairie Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Con cordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lake side Charleswood lnterlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas lnkster The Pas St. Norbert Elm wood Morris Burrows St urgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St.

Johns Swan River PARTY Liberal NDP NDP Liberal Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Wednesday, December 12, 1990 ~IME-8p.m. . OCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba 'CHAIRMAN - Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. forbert) ATTENDANCE-7-QUORUM-6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Derkach, Praznik Messrs. Ashton, Cheema, Ms. Friesen, Messrs.

Laurendeau, Reid APPEARING: Becky Barrett, MLA for Wellington Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for Inkster WITNESSES: John Doyle, Manitoba Federation of Labour Sidney Green, Manitoba Progressive Party Albert Cerilli, Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers Pat Martin, Private Citizen Rob Hilliard, Manitoba Federation of Labour MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 12-The Labour Relations Amendment Act Bill 23-The Employment Standards Amendment Act (2) * * * ':lerk of Committees (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk-Fltzpatrlck): Order, please. Will the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations please come to order?

We must proceed to elect a Chairperson . Are there any nominations for the position? Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Madam Clerk, could we nominate the Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau)? Madam Clerk: Mr. Laurendeau has been nominated . Are there any other nominations? Any further nominations? If not, Mr. Laurendeau, you have been duly elected Chairperson. Please, come and take the Chair . Mr. Chairman: This evening the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations will be considering Bill 12, The Labour Relations Amendment Act, and Bill 23, The Employment Standards Amendment Act (2).

It is our custom to hear briefs before the consideration of Bills. What is the will of the committee? Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I just wanted to indicate, prior to proceeding, that the agreement amongst House leaders was that we would deal with public presentations tonight and public presentations tomorrow as well, and that there would be no votes, no consideration of the clause by clause of the Bills tonight , so it would be strictly for public presentations both tonight and tomorrow night. Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Chairperson, I understand that was the agreement that was reached between House Leaders. I understand as well that this committee has both Bill 12 and 23 to consider tonight. Perhaps we could arrange our affairs such that, should there be any presenters on Bill 23, which are the extension of maternity-paternity benefits, we could also hear them tonight if they are at this committee, following the presentations on Bill 12. Mr. Ashton: The other thing the committee should deal with, and I agree with the Minister in terms of that suggestion, is also its sitting hours tonight .

I would suggest we hear as many of the presenters who are present today as possible. There may be other presenters who are on the list who are unable to make it tonight. We should perhaps listen to them tomorrow night as well, but the committee may wish to consider its sitting hours, some rough parameter . I would suggest that we listen to as many people as possible tonight, but I would not want to inconvenience people too greatly. I suggest we not sit past midnight. T L C N A C

2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1991 Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): I would agree with Mr. Ashton that we should try to accommodate everyone who is here tonight, and I would hope that there is a willingness. I understand many of the presenters, in going through the list, have made presentations on this matter to Legislative committees before, which are on the record. I hope, if we are all willing, that we should be able to clear House Business or hear everyone, I would hope well in advance of midnight. * (201 5) Mr. Chairman: Is it agreed that we will sit until midnight? Leave it open?

Okay. Shall the committee deal with hearing of presentations from Bill 23 and then 12? Twelve, then 23? Agreed? I have a list of persons wishing to appear before the committee to make pre sentations respecting Bill 12. The registered presenters are Mark Okopski, Sidney Green, Albert Carilli, Leonard Terrick, Pat Martin, Roland Ooucet, Ron Ruth, Dennis Atkinson, Robert Ziegler, Julie Antel, Nancy Oberton and Darlene Dziewit, and two walk-in presenters, Mr. Rob Hilliard and John Doyle, for Bill 23.

Should anyone else present wish to make a presentation and their names are not on the list, please advise the Clerk of the Committees, and your names will be added to the list of presenters. I would also like to advise the committee that we do have one presenter registered to speak to Bill 23, John Doyle. If there are any members of the public present who are interested in speaking to Bill 23, please advise the Committee Clerk, and your names will be put on the presenters' list. Does the committee wish to impose a time limit on the length of presentations? No time limit. We now call upon Mr. Mark Okopski. Mr.

Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I think the suggestion was that we deal with Bill 23 first, one presenter, and then proceed to Bill 12. I would certainly recommend that. Mr. Chairman: I called Bill 12, and that is what was agreed to. Mr. Ashton: It just makes more logical sense to my mind, if we have one presenter on one Bill, to deal with that individual, so they do not have to wait all night, and then proceed with the other Bill. Mr. Chairman: What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Cheema: Mr. Chairperson, I think we could deal with Bill 23 first because there is only one presenter.

That would make some sense so the time can be saved for the person. He does not have to wait for four hours. Mr. Chairman: Is it the wish of the committee to deal with Bill 23 first? Agreed? Then we will deal with Bill 23 first, and we will call upon John Doyle to come forward and make his presentation from the Manitoba Federa tion of Labour. If you have any written copies of your presentation to forward to the- BILL 2� THE EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (2) . Mr. John Doyle (Manitoba Federation of Labour): I apologize, Mr.

Chairperson, I only have one or two copies, but I will be certainly glad to forward copies tomorrow. Mr. Chairman: If you have a second copy, maybe I could have a second copy now, and we will have it photocopied. Proceed. Mr. Doyle: I would like to extend the apologies of the president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour,. Susan Hart-Kulbaba. Because of the relatively short notice period, she was unable to arrange her;

schedule in such a way as to be able to attend· tonight to speak to both Bill 23 and Bill 1 2. Both are Bills that she has a keen personal interest in, as well as her responsibilities as president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour. I would like to thank the members of this, committee for extending this opportunity to the Manitoba Federation of Labour to speak on Bill 23. As you are aware, the Manitoba Federation of Labour represents and speaks on behalf of more· than 88,000 workers and their families in Manitoba on matters that affect their well being.

The reason for the drafting and the passage of Bill 23 is recent amendments to the Unemployment, Insurance Act by the federal Government. For the most part, the Manitoba Federation of Labour: considers these amendments to be nothing more than the latest erosion of workers' rights by the Mulroney Government. If there is a positive aspect of the amendments, it fa lls in the area of expan ded parental leave provisions. Amending The Manitoba Employment' Standards Act was an opport unity for this1 Legislature to make aspects of pare ntal leave in this, province more progressive. Unfortunately, you have.

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3 chosen not to take the opportunity to do as much as you could have in this area. *

(2020) I would urge you to amend Bill 23 so that the following changes to The Employment Standards Act are made . In order to qualify for maternal or paternal leave, a Manitoba worker must be continuously employed by a single employer for at least 12 months as things currently stand. The Manitoba Federation of labour regards this as an unreasonable limitation on a worker's access to these provisions, particularly in light of the current economic recession. A growing number of workers are finding it difficult to meet the 12-month requirement.

As the recession deepens and becomes longer in duration, this will become a fact of life for more and more workers in Manitoba. In addition, maintaining different entitlement provisions for access to UI maternal leave benefits 20 weeks of insurable earnings in the previous 12 months, and provincial maternity leave provisions, 12 months of continuous employment with a single employer, amounts to gender-based discrimination. While I have no legal training on this, this would also suggest to me that an action based on the Charter of Rights may be possible in this regard.

Further, we would ask that The Employment Standards Act be amended to ensure that workers have access to all new benefits contained in the Unemployment Insurance Act as it now stands revised by the federal Government. The Manitoba Federation of Labour believes the guiding principle in amendments to The Employment Standards Act, and by extension this Bill, should be the maximization of the flexibility of workers' access to parental leave provisions. Thank you very much for receiv ing this presentation. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Are there any questions from the committee? Mr. Praznlk: Yes, Mr.

Doyle, I am just curious about a comment you made in your presentation about urging us to amend the Bill to allow for all new benefits to be taken advantage of. I was wondering if there were some that you believe were not covered, other than the 12-month opt-in provision. I know the MFl is well aware that I have charged the labour Management Review Committee, of which your organization appoints members, to look at that matter early in the new year, but are there other areas that you are suggesting were not covered by the amendments? Mr. Doyle: No, I will be frank with you, Mr.

Minister, that clause is a reflection of the relatively short period of time that we had to work on th is presentation. If in the event I have missed ~omething a~d not addressed it in this provision, I included this sort of blanket urging to be as progressive as possible in the eventuality that I had not addressed all of the matters that I should have. Mr.

Praznlk: I just ask that because the framework for that particular clause was the one primarily suggested by your president through the labour Management Review process of the 17-week formula, and so I would hope that we have covered off those issues that you raise. I appreciate the time frames, et cetera; I just wanted to clarify that comment. Mr. Doyle: In conversation Ms. Hart-Kulbaba has indicated that she was quite pleased to see the amendment extending to 17 weeks that particular provision. Ms. Becky Barrett (Welllngton): Mr. Chair, I would like to ask Mr.

Doyle about a comment that he made in his presentation about the federal amendments being the latest erosion of workers' rights by the federal Government. If he would like to clarify that, please? Mr. Doyle: Thank you for asking that question. It gives me the opportunity to outline a few things that I feel about the federally amended Unemployment Insurance Act. I think the- Point of Order Mr. Praznlk: Point of order, Mr.

Chairman, I certainly do not want to deny Members of this House and presenters the opportunity to discuss changes to the federal Unemployment Insurance Act, but there are a lot of presenters here on another Bill.

The matter before this particular committee is amendments to our Employment Standards Act, and I know there are issues there on which the MFl has a very strong position with the federal Government on unemployment insurance benefits , but I would hope, as it is not the issue under consideration of this committee, that we can kind of confine our questions and our presentations to the matters to be dealt with by this committee. *

(2025) 4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 199t Mr. Chairman: Before you go, Mr. Ashton, I will just ask that the committee Members refrain from going away from what was discussed within the brief. The questions are to relate to the brief that was presented, and for clarification of the brief. Mr. Ashton: If you would give me the opportunity, I wish to make comments on the previous point of order and to point out that the question related specifically to a comment that was made in the brief. I point out that the Minister himself realizes that this Bill has resulted from the UIC changes .

The comments were made in the brief, and I believe the Member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett} was in order. She was asking a direct question on the brief, and that is our normal procedure. For the Minister, I do not know why he is so sensitive. We tend to allow a fair degree of latitude to Members of the committee and to presenters. I could understand his concern if the matter had not been raised in the brief and if it was extraneous, but the Member asked a question directly related to a statement in the brief, which I believe is in order.

I would suggest the Minister perhaps relax a bit and allow Members of this committee to ask questions based on the briefs presented. Mr. Derkach: Just further to that point of order, I would just like to indicate that we are talking to the Bill. The comments made by the presenter certainly are valid, but indeed we are talking specifically to this Bill. We should try and stay on topic, because there are a lot of other presenters who have presentations to make on another Bill. Ms. Barrett: Two points-Firstly, the last remark made by Mr.

Derkach, yes, we do have many other presenters on other Bills, but I do not think that should dictate our discussion on this particular issue, that there is only one presenter or time limits. Secondly, I would assume that anything stated in a brief made by a presenter would be open to questions of clarification and expansion. It relates to the Bill, and I do not think that there is anything wrong with asking for clarification on a statement made by the presenter. Mr. Chairman: Number one , the Honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik} did not have a point of order.

I will ask the Honourable Members present to please just open your questioning up towards clarification of the brief, and to keep the answers brief, Mr. Doyle. We would appreciate it. Thank you very much. *** Mr. Doyle : I think the comments that I have to make about the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Benefits Act at the federal level are more of a context that I would like to couch the comments that I have had to make about Bill 23 and put them in context.

The revisions that have been made to the Unemployment Insurance Benefits Act at the federal level I think are a serious and a very profound erosion of the financial security of unemployed workers in Canada. For example, the amendments will mean that fewer people will have access to fewer benefits for a shorter period of time. In addition to that, funds from the unemployment insurance benefits fund will be used for their retraining.

It is not that I have anything against retraining; I think retraining is a positive and necessary thing, particularly in these challenging economic times, but I think the least well-placed people in Canada are the unemployed to pay for these things. I could go on at some length about the number of amendments that have been made to the Unemployment Insurance Benefits Act and the negative effect it is having on unemployed people from coast to coast and potentially for any working person in Canada at this time, not the least of which is the withdrawal of federal funding from the unemployment insurance fund.

However, it is against that framework of unfairness that I think this committee should be studying its amendments to Bill 23 with the aim in mind of doing as much as it can to make the situation facing people in the position of relying on funds from the unemployment insurance fund for financial security for a variety of reasons, to have the most progressive set of rules to deal with and have the fairest access to what is fast becoming a profoundly unfair structure. BILL 12-THE LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT Mr. Chairman: We will now move on to Bill 12. We will ask Mr. Mark Okopski. Mark Okopski, are you present?

Mr. Sid Green. Would you have copies of your presentation, Mr. Green? Mr. Sidney Green (Manitoba Progressive Party): No, Mr. Chairman, but from my experience, I believe that you will have copies in a day or two. *

(2030) ' December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5 Mr. Green: May I say, Mr. Chairman, by way of observation, my name is Sidney Green. I am here on behalf of the Manitoba Progressive Party, and I believe that it is important that I state my Party affiliation at this time, because the address that I am going to make will be unique in that the only political Party in the Province of Manitoba that pursues actively the principles of free collective bargaining is the Manitoba Progressive Party.

Each of the other political Parties, the New Democrats, the Liberals and the Conservatives accept the fact that the state is in power to impose collective agreements, and they do this to the extent that they have to change the meaning of the word "agreement." Agreement as is understood by every child, probably from Grade 1 on, would be when two people agree with one another. When the NDP passed legislation saying that the state will tell two people what to do in order to try to give some romantic aura to what they were doing, they said that when two people do not agree, that is an agreement.

That has carried forward not only in the legislation which is sought to be repealed today but in many other sections of The Manitoba Labour Relations Act. There is only one political Party in the Province of Manitoba that is pursuing actively, enthusiastically and determinedly the principles of free collective bargaining. The other observation I want to make, Mr. Chairman, other than the importance of the Party affiliation in terms of what I am saying, is that it became apparent to me that nothing much is happening here tonight.

That became apparent when it became easy to park one's car, when we came into the room and there were relatively quiet and sparse attendance. I contrast that to the time when I was in the Legislature when we were dealing with the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, and I can tell you that the Chamber was full every night for six weeks steady-the Chamber. You could not park your car, and the Committee Room was always attended by a hundred people.

Nothing much is happening here tonight, and I think that should be of significance to the people who are both proposing this legislation and the people who are opposed to it. The other hint that I got was when one of your Members referred to an agreement among the Parties that there will be no votes taken. I have been around long enough that, when the Parties agree thatthere are no votes taken, Members will not have to be here, because nobody is going to be counted in the long run. I make that observation, Mr.

Chairman, because that will also be the substance of what I am saying, that nothing much is happening here tonight, not because I disagree with the fact that this piece of and I say it advisedly-fascist legislation is being repealed, but what is being left in the Act by way of intrusions on free collective bargaining means that not much of a step is being taken by the Government in this connection . Mr. Chairman, I use the term "fascist legislation," and that term, I come by it honestly. It was taught to me by trade unionists.

They said that fascist legislation is when the state denies to the parties the right to take independent and free action, namely, the right to withdraw one's services or the right to say that they will not hire and says that the state can impose a collective agreement. When that was done in the Province of British Columbia, and is still being done, it is referred to by the Party in Opposition in British Columbia, namely the NDP, as fascist legislation. When you people enacted final offer selection- when I say "you" people, I am talking about the royal you, namely the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba.

At that time it was controlled in the majority by the NDP. They passed a piece of legislation which said that the state can take a position which, if it can be requested by the employer or the employees, if it was requested by either of those, a vote would be taken amongst the employees, and if the employees wanted it, then the right to strike would be taken away and the state would impose an agreement by permitting a selector to say whether the company's offer or the union's offer would be accepted. I indicated, Mr.

Chairman, at that time that the trade unions appeared to be accepting this fundamental infringement of free collective bargaining, which only proves that the trade unions are just as capable of taking away the rights and liberties of subjects, if they think it is to their benefit, as are employers, but in either case, whether imposed by the employers or done for the advantage of employers or done for the advantage of employees, it is fascist legislation. I used that word-when was the legislation passed?--about six years ago or five years ago, seven years ago. Since then, Mr. Chairman, a judge

6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 199i of the Court of Appeal of the Province of Manitoba has referred to similarly oriented legislation as fascist legislation. I note that a New Democrat wrote a letter to the newspaper and sent a letter to the judicial counsel complaining about a judge being involved in politics. Now, Mr.

Chairman, it is interesting, the same New Democrats, in spite of being warned that they were going to turn politics over to the judiciary, said that we have to have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which can say to the Legislature, no, you cannot do this because it is fascist legislation, it interferes with the rights and liberties of free independent citizens. When a judge does not, the same New Democrats who said "We turned this over to you to do it," said, no, you cannot say it when we approve of the legislation, even though it is fascist.

I was totally opposed to turning over to an unelected judiciary the right to say that the Legislature does not make the laws in this country, but the New Democrats were all in favour of it. They said no matter what the Legislature says, we have judges who have a superior knowledge of what the rights and freedoms of individuals should be. We tell those judges that they can declare legislation to be contrary to the rights and freedoms of the individual, ergo, fascist. When a judge does it, he is reported to the Judicial Council. Mr.

Chairman, the judges are going to continue to do this, because they have not only the right but the responsibility of doing it, vested in them by the three political Parties that were united on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which has reduced the rights and freedoms of every citizen in this society, but I will not go into that tonight. *

(2040) First of all, I want to tell you where I am coming from when I speak of free collective bargaining. I was in the House last year when Jay Cowan decided that he was going to filibuster this Bill. I think that Members should have been a little wary about talking about no time limits when they saw the names on the list. I am not going to repeat what Mr. Cowan did, because I think that what I have to say can be said in a shorter period of time. The fact is, he said that those people who are opposed to final offer selection do not understand trade unionism. That was your problem.

The people who are voting to repeal this Bill have some kind of ignorance in their head, and they do not understand what the situation is. I am forced, Mr. Chairman, to just deal in a very short way with my understanding. I was, for man~ years, a lawyer for many of the large trade unions who always taught me that what I am to pursue is free collective bargaining. The Manitoba Federation of Labour appointed me to teach free collective bargaining at the University of Manitoba to the people who were becoming business agents of the various unions in the Province of Manitoba.

What I was teaching then, I am going to be talking about tonight. The MFL knew it, because they wanted me to do it. I was the lawyer for the Manitoba Federation of Labour for many years. I was the Labour Critic for the New Democratic Party. I was on the committee which drafted The Labour Relations Act which provided for more free collective bargaining and took away many of the restrictions on free collective bargaining that existed before we came in. I had the good fortune to be associated with people like Bob Russell, Jimmy James , other trade unionists whose names are legendary in this province.

I have read the speeches of Fred Dixon who defended himself on the principle of free collective bargaining. I sat in this room when Art Coulter came and spoke against the wage and price controls on the principle thatthey offended against the principle of free collective bargaining. Right up until 1973, the entire thrust of the trade union movement was in favour of free collective bargaining and removing any restrictions on free collective bargaining. In '73 they said to themselves why should we be willing to deal simply with freedom? We have a Government that is supposed to be our friend.

We should ignore this freedom business and get them to pass laws that will help us defeat our employers when we are in trouble, and they pursued that position for three years. They never got those laws but they got some promises. They got promises from Howard Pawley and Muriel Smith and Jay Cowan that if you get off this free collective bargaining pitch we will enact legislation which prohibits an employer from hiring people during the existence of a lawful strike, which I said could never happen, would never be, and was totally contrary to the principles of free collective bargaining. y

December 12 , 19 90 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 7 They decided to go with those people. They were in power for seven years, and they never enacted the leg islation that they promised the trade union movement. They betrayed them. They said that they would do it, but did not do it. That was a big issue. They did do worse, Mr. Chairman. First of all they ena cted leg is lation which talked about fi rst agreement.

First agreement means that there is no agreement, but in order to put a champagne label on a bottle of poison they had to put on champagne when there was poison inside, so they said first agreement, that is when we the state imposes, but we will call it an agreement. Then the trade unions were not happy with the first agreement, so they said we will give you an agreement in perpetuity, and you will never have to go on strike. You will never have to worry because it can only be done if the em ployees agree, and if they do agree we will appoint a selector.

If the Government who is our friend is appointing a selec tor, we have a pretty good idea that the selec tion is going to be in our favour. I read in the newspapers that this system of final off er selection is nothing new. lt is done, I think they said, by the baseball leagues in the United States. Mr. Chairman, talk about ignorance. Is there legislation in the United States which says that the baseball leagues will go to final offer selection?

Is there anything in the Province of Manitoba, taking this secti on out of the Act, which says that an em ployer and an em ployee cannot choose by free collec tive bargaining to go to final offer selection? The NDP ers, they believ e that if something is a good thing it should be legis lated, that it is good whether you like it or not.

There is no final offer selec tion legislation except in the Province of Manitoba, and the fact that people do it, the fact that people choose to say that they are going to do it, is something that could be done in the Province of Manitoba without the legis lation and always could be done. What has happened, Mr. Chairman, with The Labour Relations Act in this province is that it ceases to deal with emp loyees and now deals with the organized trade union movement. lt is designed not to help emp loyees, but to help business agents.

I can show you the difference in terminology that occurred over the last 30 years with my limited under standing of the subject. In 1955, the common statement amongst trade unionists, and it was given as a rhetoric, as a rote, as an axiom: If you have the strength, if you have the members, if you have the em ployees, ifthey are on your side, you do not need a certificate. If you do not have the memb ers, if you do not have the strength, then a certificate will not do you any good.

The reason for that was that if you had the workers who were su pporting you, and you walked into the emp loyer and he refused to recognize you, nothing happened, because the emp loyees were on your side and they would not work until there was an agreement. If you had a certificate but there were no emp loyees supporting you, then you could not get an agreement if hell froze over, because the em ployer would say you had no stre ngth and you will not be able to do anything. That was the phrase.

If you have the strength, you do not need the certifica te ; if you have not the stre ngth, the certificate will not do you any good. What is the phrase today? The phrase today is the wishes of the empl oyees are irrel evant. Now, Mr. Chairman, I put that to you, not hypothetically, I put that to you in at least three instances, and there are many more. There was a plant in the lnterlake where 12 em ployees out of 12 said they did not want the union at the time that the application came to the board. The union argued, well you do not take that time; you take the time that they made the application.

The em ployees said but we do not want this union, and the lawyer for the empl oyees said "The wishes of the emplo yees are irrelevant." •

(2050) In the last two weeks there were 17 out of 18 em ployees of a plant who say that they do not want the union. The union says regardless of that the corn pany must continue to negotiate with us, that we can get final offer selection, that one empl oyee can vote as against the other 19 and impose an agreement which deducts union dues from all of those emplo yees, and the wishes of those 18 people are irrelevant.

That is made possible by your final offer selection legislation. lt is not the union has taken a position that they can sign an agreement with this emplo yer regardless of the wishes of the em ployees. The Act says that when an agreement is taken to be ratified it is only the mem bers of the union who vote , and none of these people are memb ers of the union, so it can be passed by one member. What has happened, Mr. Chairman. The reason that I am here tonight is not because I am in favour of si mply re pea ling this final offer selection

8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 199( legislation. I say that is of very little consequence. It means little, and the real attack that has to be made is on the free collective bargaining process itself, because the final offer selection legislation can make itself very acceptable to legislators by a simple amendment. You know , one would expect the Liberals to come through with that kind of amendment, because they have no principles at all.

If they can just get something that will sound right, they would be willing to pass it, so you are likely to get an amendment from the Liberals saying that you will leave final offer selection like it says-Mr . Ashton says it stops strikes-but merely give it that either side can impose it. I see Members nodding their heads, and that will have a good ring to it. Even the Tories will buy that. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, when I appeared before committee when this was going through , I said this kind of legislation falls right into the hands of the employers.

Now it is a small step to go from where we are, from final offer selection which the employees have a veto power over, to final offer selection which is mandatory. If the employees can ask for final offer selection, why cannot the employer? If the employer can go for it, then is it not fascist legislation? Fascism is fascism whether it is exercised by the one group or by the other group. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this kind of an amendment suits the Liberals perfectly. We will say that we want to be fair and that the legislation is really good, it stops strikes.

I have read in some note that a hundred applications have been made. Think of it, employees who are seeking to improve their terms and conditions of employment, who think they know what they need, have a hundred times said, we are willing to risk getting the company's last offer. That is a positive development in this society? A hundred groups of employees have said we will throw ourselves in the hands of a selector who can give us the company's last offer, and if he gives it, we have to take it whether it feeds us or not, and we cannot go on strike if that is what he does.

Somebody here considers that to be progress in industrial relations in this province. Now I will tell you why they have done it. They have not been trained in responsible bargaining; their business agents see this as the easy way out. No responsibility will have to be taken by the union for what they ultimately get, because they have argued it before a selector, and he has made the award. That is why they have done it. If somebody says that that is an enviable reputation of labour relations in the Province of Manitoba, Mr.

Chairman , then industrial relations in this province have gone beyond the point of no return, because free collective bargaining involves responsibility. Where you have freedom , you know that if you exercise that freedom you will have to accept the responsibility for exercising it.

If you look at the pamphlet that I gave you, which I think is just as valid today as when it was written, what that means is that if an employer decides as a matter of freedom that he is not going to behave reasonably, he can be shut down, and the public will support those people who want to shut him down if he is behaving unreasonably, or a union, if they are behaving unreasonably, their employees are going to suffer. Therefore, each side in a situation where freedom is the governing feature must, with that freedom, exercise a concurrent responsibility.

If nobody is responsible at the end, if you say we can walk out, carry signs for a couple of weeks and get strike pay, and after that we can say strike is over, in a period of 10 days, and now we are going to have a selector tell us what we are entitled to, then that is the kind of labour relations that you will have.

It does not mean that you have the best climate of labour relations in the country, except insofar as in the South that the slave owners could say that we have the best climate of industrial peace in the world , because these people continue to work for us and they get nothing and we look after them and we are nice to them. A strike does not necessarily mean people walk on a picket line. If you have final offer selection and the company's offer is chosen, does my friend really believe he stops a strike? Does he really believe that the workers will continue to work at a wage which they think is not acceptable?

They just will not picket and walk around the plant; they will go someplace else. Do you think an employer who is required to pay a wage that he cannot pay will not have a lockout because a selector told him not to lock out? He will lock out. He will gradually wind down his business and go away, or he will not come here in the first place. That is wonderful industrial relations by the new standard of the NDP.

December 12 , 19 90 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 9 Mr. Chairman, the reason that I am here is for the same reason that I came last time. The more you encroach on the freedom of the emp loyees and on the emplo yers, the mor e you en croach on everybody's freedom. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and you cannot be a little bit pregnant, the more you trod this path, the more you will trod this path, but you have trodden it too far right now. lt is not so that this was necessary for the development of the trade union movement in the Province of Manitoba.

The trade union movement in the Province of Manitoba to the greatest extent, 85 perce nt-and let us forget the Government, that was not any kind of trade union organization; that was a statute which says, you are all in a union-but at least 80 percent of the workers who are organized in this province were not organized through any Labour Relations Act. Do my friends think that trade unionism started with The Labour Relations Act? lt was inhibited by The Labour Relations Act.

There were trade unions in this province and collec tive agreem ents long before any Labour Relations Act came in. lt is Acts of this kind which have hurt emplo yee strength, not helped it, and that is why, Mr. Chairman, there is nobody here tonight. You will not see any em ployees here; you will see a few representatives of unions, because the emp loyees here do not feel that they are being hurt by this legislation, nor did they feel that they were being helped by the first contract leg islation.

I can prove it. • (21 00) You have two Liberals over there who are shaking in their pants that if they do not go for the unions, they are going to lose their seats in the north end of Winnipeg. The Party gave them- yes, there are two of them of over there, the Memb ers, Mr. Lamoureux and Mr. Cheema. Oh, you can laugh this year. You did not laugh three years ago. Eighty percent of the emp loyees voted against the Party that wanted this legislation. Think of it politically.ln the last election, the NDP got 22 percent of the vote. They lost in their good seats.

That was immediately after the NDP came and gave them the wonderful final offer selection, and they lost. They retained very few seats in the working ridings in the north end, and in Flin Ron and in Thompson no union is going to ask for final offer selection. The United Steel workers of Americ a is not going to say we are going to accept a company's last offer if a selector tells us to do so, nor are the unions in Flin Flon going to do that.

I know that my friend who says that this is a wonderful way to keep the em ployees down, and we have found the secret- Okay, but let us accept it. lt is fascist legislation, and the judge has correctly described it. That is my position. I told you I would not do what Mr. Cowan did. Mr. Ashton: I understand the reasons that you were unable earl ie r this year to be able to make presentation to the committee. Mr. Green: Last year I was I think in Australia at the time. Mr.

Ashton: I understand you were on the list, but you were unable to make a presentation when it was dealt wi th-or a simil ar Bill was dealt with previously. I am just wondering if you are aware that there were a considerable number of presenters that came before -(i nterjec tion)- 75 presenters to the committee. Mr. Green : I am aware, Mr. Chairman, that last year there was a position in the Legislature where anything could happen at any time because there was a minority. The Mem bers of the Opposition had a larger number of Mem bers than the Mem bers of the Government, and this Bill became a fighting issue.

Therefore at that time it meant something. I wonder whether my friend says that the situation is the same today, because if he does, he cannot count. Mr. Ashton: The reason I am asking that is because you have suggested that someho w people are not concerned about the issue. Of course, last time there was considerably more notice. I do not know if you are aware, but the notice in terms of this going to comm ittee has really been about 24 hours because of recent developments in the House. In other words, you accept that last year there was a co nside rable amoun t of interest, given the possibility of changes.

I say that, having heard the comments of the Minister today who said in debate that to his mind the issue was basically already resolved. He said that people had spoken, using obviously el ection re su lts-the major ity the Conse rvatives received , certainly in terms of seats-and had suggested, of course, that perhaps the functioning of the committee would not be effective .

10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 199( Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Mr. Ashton, if you have a direct question you would like to ask of Mr. Green, or are we going into a debate? Mr. Ashton: I am asking a question; I am giving a

preamble to the question. This is not Question Period; we do not have one-sentence

preambles and questions in committee. I would just appreciate a bit of latitude. I am just trying to deal with a point that was raised by the presenter, and I know he is an experienced former Member of the Legislature, knows the processes. I just did not want to develop the question without giving ample background in terms of what has happened. I think that is legitimate. I am asking the presenter if he is not aware of the considerable amount of interest that was shown.

He talks about this being a matter of concern only to business agents, but by many shop floor workers who came before this House, by many people, for example, who had been through the Supervalu strike, Safeway employees, shop floor workers who came before this committee. Many who had never made a presentation, never spoken publicly in their life, said that this type of legislation was an option. I am just wondering if you are aware of that from the last Session. Mr.

Green: I am aware of what took place last year, and I say that last year there was an attempt by the NDP to marshal all its forces and by the unions to marshal all their forces to deal with this legislation, because there was a minority Government in the House. They wanted this to be their issue, they hoped that they could make a big thing out of it, and they attracted people. I can tell you, Mr. Ashton, that when we were dealing with the public automobile insurance, not a single one of us had to go and get people to come. They were in the halls for six weeks steady. I am telling you that last year Mr.

Cowan got up and said he was going to speak for two days, he did speak for two days, the unions said they were going to organize their people to come here, and they came here. Tonight, nothing is happening. The reason nothing is happening-and you know, maybe I will inspire something to happen tomorrow, because I have not met a single working man, and I meet them all the time, who is concerned with final offer selection. I have met trade union organizers who are concerned with final offer selection.

I do say to you that the real test was what happened in the election immediately following the enactment of final offer selection. Those benefactors who brought it in got whipped in their best ridings. Mr. Ashton: Well, I am interested in that comment. I could pursue it, but I suspect that it had probably more to do with Autopac rate increases than it did with other issues, and I think even you would concede that. I wanted to deal with your suggestion that somehow people were organized to come into this committee by myself or other Members of the New Democratic Party. I can indicate that I did not phone people.

I can indicate the people who came forward, many of them were shop floor workers, and they were concerned. People had been through the Supervalu strike and the Safeway strike. I would like to ask you directly, are you suggesting to them that they are somehow supporting fascist legislation? Mr. Green: Yes, they are. Absolutely. I absolutely say that the trade---do you think that trade union fascism is a mystery? It absolutely exists, and they are supporting it. They are supporting it, because it makes it easier for them. Mr.

Ashton: In other words, you are suggesting that the shop floor workers who came out of their own experience are motivated by support for what you call fascist legislation. Mr. Green: Mr. Chairman, I did not talk about a shop worker. I do not know the identity of every person who was here last year. I was here when Mr. Cowan said that they are going to bring a whole bunch of people to these meetings. You are not going to get out of here. You are not going to be able to get out of the Legislature.

We are going to line up, and we are going to keep you there for-after you hear me speak for this length of time, we are going to have a whole bunch of people come in. Yes, I am suggesting that there was an organized attempt. I cannot say that every individual who came was that way, but yes, there was an organized attempt to make this an NDP issue to try to improve their electoral position which suffered very badly after the last election. Yes.

The individual who came, you know, I am not saying that every person who came was inspiring fascism, but I am saying that the organized attempt to maintain this legislation is an attempt to have fascist legislation, yes. Mr. Justice O'Sullivan said

December 12 , 19 90 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA 11 the same thing except not with respect to this legislation. At least we have other people who are knowledgeable in the field who use the term equally to myself. Mr. Ashton: Well, as I indicated, there were many people, and I realize that you were not able to be here and perhaps were not aware that there was rather limited notice this time, but I can assure you that there were many people who came before this committee.

I talked to them after in terms of their presentation who indicated that it was the first time they had ever made a presentation in public, shop floor workers who have their view-1 understand your views. I have been in committees over the last number of years, and I must give you credit in one sense. You do not change in terms of your views. I respect that, but I would hope that you would also respect the views of others. I think they would be rather offended by the suggestion that they are supporting fascist legislation.

You know, as I have said, we could debate this further, and I would probably in an academic or intellectual sense enjoy the debate, but I did feel rather offended for those people who came before this committee. * (211 0) Mr. Green: Mr. Chairman, let me make it quite clear to my sensitive friend who is not sensitive for himself but sensitive for others who he feels might be offended, that some people support fascism and do not know that it is fascism. There was 90 percent of the people in Germany who supported Hitler. They were not fascists, but they got caught up in supporting that type of thing.

The fact is that people can get caught up in supporting things, which does not make them fascist, but it is fascist legislation. Mr . Ashton : We ll, I could continue this -(interjection)- No, the analogies to Hitler in Nazi Germany do concern me, and I just want to indicate that I am coming from a situation-y es, I am from Thompson and a former steelworker. I have been through a number of strikes. Many of the people who came before this committee have been through a number of strikes, and they spoke from that perspective. They spoke really from the heart, not from any particular perspective.

I appreciate the clarification. I do know they would feel rather offended by the suggestion that their emotions are fascist in terms of the type of legislation they support. I appreciate that it is probably more the debating position of the presenter, the kind of presentation that we have had today. I appreciate the reassurance that he is not suggesting they are being fascist, but I can indicate I was rather put aback by the comment, not in terms of myself. I know the presenter has been in politics in the past.

He is aware that there is the give and take of politics, but many of the people who came before this committee, believe you me, were very concerned from the heart about the situation and put forward their views. Mr. Green: Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no doubt that people of good will came and supported this legislation. That does not mean that it is not fascist legislation. You know, I have been called certain names as a result of what people say my views are, and I have to accept that is what their view of my view is.

My view of the people who support this legislation is that they are supporting fascist legislation, including you, sir. Mr. Kevln Lamoureux (lnkster): Mr. Green, I must say that it has been somewhat enlightening to hear your presentation, and maybe even a bit refreshing from a former New Democrat making a presentation in the fashion in which you have put it, but it did strike to mind a couple of questions that I would like to ask. The New Democrats have said on the record on numerous occasions that final offer selection prevents strikes from occurring. I would ask for your opinion on that. Mr.

Green: First of all, I have to say that there are means of preventing strikes from occurring. lf that is the objective, then I am able to provide the NDP or the Liberals or the Conservatives with suggested legislation for preventing strikes. ! did not know that was the purpose of the legislation. I thought the purpose of industrial relations legislation is to provide for a fair system of determining what the terms and conditions of employment of employees will be. There is no substitute for free collective bargaining. You can prevent strikes by doing what was done prior to 1969.

The Labour Relations Act provided a means of what they called compulsory conciliation, and that did prevent strikes. lt also prevented unionists from getting their rights. lt also prevented employees from having a fair means of obtaining good terms and conditions of employment, but the only strikes that you can statistically show that it prevents are those which end up with a closure and

12 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA December 12 , 19 90 pickets and somebody saying that the legal strike is in existence. Strikes do not take place in accordance with laws. Strikes take place in accordance with whether or not the marriage can continue. You have an employer and you have employees. You can impose whatever conditions you want. If the employees do not like them, they might not strike, but they will not stay there. The employer does not like them, he might not lock out, but he will wind down.

Those things are not measured in the statistics of preventing strikes, and whether a person comes here is not mentioned in the statistics of preventing strikes. You know, the NDP people, they are very facile. Mr. Doer says that he will not be interviewed by a CKY reporter, because that reporter is on strike or that reporter is a strike breaker working against the system, but when the engineers, which was a union, were on strike, Mr. Doer was the president of the Manitoba Government Employees' Association, no suggestion that his employees not walk through the engineers' picket line, no suggestion that Mr.

Schr oeder, Mr. Pawley, the others not walk through an engineers' picket line, and I respect that. You cannot say that I am not going to at any time deal with what I have to deal with because somebody is protesting. lt is the greatest hypocrisy to suggest that the NDP will never cross a workers' picket line. lt will depend on what it is all about. Mr. Lamoureux: Another thing that I found somewhat inte rested me is you mentioned on numer ous occasions that the NDP, at least from what you can see, have imputed motives on behalf of the New Democr atic Party.

You made reference to a commitm ent made by Howard Pawley to try and appease the labour movement in regard to not hiring replacement workers, and how they could have possibly been appeased with final offer selection. I did not quite catch the tie-in that you were making with that. The suggestion, at least that I picked up from you, was that final offer selection came in as a direct result of the labour movement pressure on the New Democr atic Party. Mr. Green: There is absolutely no doubt about that. I mean is somebody going to deny that? By the way, I think they have a right to pressure the Party.

When I was a Minister they pressured me, and they have a perfect right to do that as anybody else in society has a right to pressure me. When I yield to the pressure and when I do not is a question, but they pressured me for three years that I am to pass legislation that says that when your mother is in the hospital and the nurses go on strike, the hospital cannot hire another nurse. I said you can tie my arms and legs to horses, send them oft in different directions, and I will not pass such legislation. They have a right to pressure me, and this group yielded to that pressure.

The trade union movement was promised that there would be legislation that said that when there was a strike, the employer was prohibited from hiring people. They were not promised it? I was there when the promises were made. I heard them made. I heard them made directly. They were promised that. Mr. Ashton is shaking his head. I was in the room when the prom ises were made. I was there when they tried to extract a similar promise from me and would not get it.

Then, when the NDP came to power and they saw that this is absolutely unacceptable, they started to make concessions which are as bad, the first contract legislation and the final offer selection. Do you not recall, if those who are here when final offer selection was passed, that one union, I believe it was the city union, CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees-came and said we do not want this, we want what we were promised, the anti-strike legislation? If Mr. lamour eux feels that citizens cannot pressure him as an MLA, then I think he has another think coming.

They have every right to make whatever pressure they want to. •

(2120) Mr. Cheema: Mr. Green, your presentation has been very enlightening for me in terms of your knowledge of the subject. I just want to ask you your opinion on something that the NDP has used in the last Session and in terms of also the campaign. The liberal Party has been asking for binding arbitration for doctors and refusing to have final offer selection. Can you tell me and maybe give some lecture to the Members for the NDP, the basic difference between binding arbitration and final offer select ion? Mr.

Green: I think if the NDP were true to their position, they would have said that they would be willing to have final offer selection for the doctors. The Liberals said that they were prepared to have binding arbitration. I say that they are both wrong, that no Government should permit itself to go to

December 12 , 19 90 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANIT OBA 13 arbitration on what its employees will get, and yet today I suppose the Government and the union can go to final offer selection. I suppose it is binding on them. You see, I am different. Mr. Ashton says the employees are willing to put it into the hands of an arbitrator, that the arbitrator will say that they will get the company's last offer. If I was a Government, I would not be willing to put into the hand of an arbitrator, a selector, that I will have to accept the union's last demand. I wish to negotiate to the end.

Negotiations to the end means negotiations until we arrive at an agre ement, which is the gene ral situation where you have free collective bargaining without legislation, or it is just like if there was a person trying to sell me shirt and he says that I am to pay $10 and I say that I only want to pay $8.00. Nobody should be required to force me to pay $10-nobody. I just walk away and do not buy the shirt.

If enough people walk away and say we will not work, and if they are right and their position is sound, then the employer will not be able to get other people and his business will be seriously affected because the public will respond to him. That is what a strike was. By the way, what I am saying is not the position of a strike . That is the position that I was congratulated for and elevated for when I was a New Democrat. That was the position of the New Democratic Party.

If you take that position today, you are not anti-New Democrat; all you are is New Democrat from 20 years ago, because that is the position that they took, the same position. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Green, I would like to know your views about the amendment we proposed in the last Session. Several presentations were made. Most of them were very good and from their point of view. If we have such a good legislation, which everyone from the New Democratic Party is saying is best, and the MFL is saying best, why not just study the result of that?

I have never heard of an expe riment in any field that you do experiment for two years and do not study the result . That is beyond my imagination for me, from a common-sense point of view. I would like to know your views on that. Mr. Green: Mr. Cheema, you are not going to get any endorsement from me for the Liberal position. The Liberal position is no position at all. The question of free collective bargaining and its benefits or deterrents does not have to be studied; it has gone on since the beginning of man.

There has always been somebody who said we have to figure out a way of keeping these working men working even though they are not satisfied with their pay. If it is arbitration or if it is this or it is the other thing, the thought that this would come from the NDP was the last thought in my mind. They have accomplished what, if anybody else sought to accomplish, they would take to the streets. They did it by putting in something so audacious that nobody would have believed that anyone would have the nerve or the chutzpa to do it.

They said, oh yes, do not worry, we are going to do this, but it is not going to hurt you, because you are going to have a veto, and we are not going to give it to the employer. Nobody has ever suggested such one-sided legislation, and they think it is one-sid ed. I will tell you something; it is not one-sided, because there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant. The person who proposes an amendment-if the Tories proposed an amendment today, which I suggested to them they would do, and if they do not, they deserve more credit than I give them.

If the Tories brought in a Bill saying that it would be available to the employer and available to the unions, there would be screams from my friend over here. Nobody would go with them, because they would say well, of course, if the union can ask for it, why can the employer not ask for it? If it is such a good thing, then why should they object to doing it when the employer asks for it? If final offer selection is good, if it stops strikes, if it is a wonderful system, then why can the employer not ask for it?

Why can the employer not say, just as the union says, we want final offer selection, now both sides have t <>--tJtrike is cancelled, no strikes, no lockouts, each side can have it and we are going to accept the decision of the selector? Do you know why? Governments of whatever stripe become entrenched, and ultimately the selector is going to select in favour of maintaining economic activity, and it will be for the employer. This is brought about by the unions, because they had a friendly Government in power. lt is shortsighted. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Green, I will repeat my question again.

Yo u have said repeatedly in your presentation that this legislation is not good for both sides, that it is not the right way of doing it. You have your own views about that issue, but at the same time you have made it very clear that if this is the

14 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA December 12 , 19 90 best thing, if, for example-even a hypothetical example-with the two, almost three years of enforcement, almost 90 percent of the settlement has gone through the FOS. Now we have the right opportunity to study it, and in your views, why not study it? To me, it does not make any sense. You have a major experiment, and if there are flaws, and if there are problems that can be solved, why not study such an important thing? Mr. Green : I just have to tell you that I have studied it, that I have spent 25 years studying industrial relations.

Final offer selection was not a new thing except that when I studied it, every time it was selected, it was either done by both sides, in other words, by free collective bargaining-in which case I have absolutely no objection to it, because people say well, we both agreed to this and we are prepared to do it. lt is supposed to make sure that the offer Is a reasonable one, because if it is way out, the selector will not have a chance of picking it up. Trade union relations are not like that. lt is not as if offers can be condensed into two statements where one side is so clear and the other side is not so clear.

They can be very complicated. You might want to take a little of both, and you cannot. If both sides say we are in a situation where we want to do it, that is fine, and of course, that is available. The people who lead you to believe that is not available without this legislation are deceiving you. That is available in the Province of Manit oba, always has been available in the Province of Manit oba, and somebody saying that you cannot do it without this legislation, they just do not understand. * (21 30) I will use Mr.

Cowan's words: they do not have any understanding. lt has been suggested that it be legislated so that it stops strikes, but that means that it has to be done by both parties, because the employees can continue a strike as long as they want to. If the employees have the strength and they can bring the company to its knees, they are not going to ask for final offer selection. At that pointthey say it is not a good idea. That is why the United Steelworkers in Thompson has never asked for final offer selection, and they will not unless they run into very tough times and they are beggars.

They have not been up until now. The people who want final offer selection are those people who are not able to engage in meaningful collective bargaining, and therefore if they do call a strike and flex their muscles, they know that after a certain number of days they can say strike is over. Do you know what a strike meant? A strike meant that the employees said we are not going to work, and we think we are so right that if we do not work we will picket the company's plant.

That does not mean we stop people from going in. lt means we are asking the public not to go there, we are asking people not to work for them, and we think our position is so strong that we will win. If we do not win, we are going to have to look for other jobs.

Under the legislation we have in the Province of Manitoba now, they say that after a certain number of days-- just listen to this-they can say strike is over, and people who have been vulgar , commenting, saying that they are going to do terrible things, doing everything they can to destroy the business, walk through the door and say everybody who has helped this employer while you people have been running them down, they are all fired, and we who have been calling him a son of a bitch, we all go back to work.

That has never been the case except by this new legi-no trade unionists ever thought that was possible, but they asked the Government, they pressured them, they got it. But that was never the position of a strike. I do not think-and I am not sure now-1 do not know whether federally the CKY people can do that. Mr. Cerilli would know, but I do not think so. Mr. Daryl Reld (Transcona): I find that the comme nts are very interesting here ton ight, although I would not be willing to go so far as to say that the comments were enlightening, as my two fellow other comm ittee members here have indicated.

I have a couple of questions I would like to ask this pr esenter. I would like to have his definition of free collecti ve bargaining based on the statements he has made that FOS process is a piece of fascist legislation. I would like for him to define for me "free collective bargaining." Mr. Green: Free collective bargaining is defined in that booklet, but I will give it to you clearly. First of all, "collective" means that it is not one person, that the employees can get together and bargain as a group, which was ostensibly denied to them by law and by employer refusing to bargain with the group.

He says I will talk to my employees singly, so collective means that they could do it together, that

December 12 , 19 90 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 15 they could seek solidarity. There were no laws that gave them solidarity. The solidarity came from each of them agreeing with the others, and those that did not agree were scabs, and that was free too. They could go back to work if they wanted to, there was no law that they could not. "Free" meant that there were no restricti ons on their right to bargain and that they could do everything lawful to pursue their position. They could not stop other people from working, they could not throw stones through the boss's window.

On the side of the employer, free collective bargaining meant that he had a right to conclude an agreement or not to conclude an agreement, and that if he could hold out and gain support because he felt that the demands were unreasonable, he was free to do everything lawful to try to continue his business. That is the definition of fr ee collective bargaining-not my definition-t he definition that was advanced to me by everybody in the trade union movement. Mr. Reld: I would like to ask the presenter whether or not he agrees with that definition of free collective bargaining. Mr. Green: Yes, I agree with it.

I have given it to you. I am sorry it has not enlightened you in any way, but some people cannot be enlightened. Mr. Reld: I know this presenter has been away from this building for some ti me, but I would like to remind him too that in some of the comments that were ma de that gender -ne utral discussions and comments should be put on the record , and that is just to bring him up to date on some of the events- Mr. Green: Mr. Chairman, I am free to speak as I wish. Mr. Reld: I am just bringing him up to date with some of the changes that have taken place. Mr. Green: You want to backdate me. Mr.

Chalrman: Order, please. Mr. Green, we are not debating here. Mr. Green: I believe it is a Chairman. I never regarded the Chairman as being male. Mr. Reld: Thank you, Mr. Chair. With the definition that has been put on the record here on free collective bargaining by this presenter, I would like to know the presenter's thoughts on the processes that are in place ot her than FOS , namely conciliation, mediation and arbitrat ion, how they affect the negotiations that take place, and what bearings they have on the free collective bargaining process. Mr.

Green: That voluntary conciliation, which is what we established in 1966, I have absolutely no objection to it. lt does not have to be legislated, but even if it is legislated, conciliation means that you take a good officer, you get the parties in a room and you try to convince them through moral suasion and through any other me ans that you have of convincing, as Lord Taylor did with the doctors in Sas katchewan and the Saskatchewan Government, "Gentlemen, come to an agreement." That is conciliation. That does not interfere with anything that I have said.

Arbitration as we know it, sir, is usually dealing with disputes that arise during a collective agreement after an agreement is there. I have no objection to the parties arbitrating in a dispute that takes place during an existing collective agreement. That does not detract very much from the position of free collective bargaining, but you should be happy to know that in the States the parties are not bound by the arbitrator's award in many cases. They have to want to live with it, but it is still free collective bargaining even if you have in your agreement that we will arbitrate.

The state ment that it has to be in an agreement is a departure. lt is not a departure during the negotiation procedure, but after an agreement is entered into, you arbitrate disputes. That is not an issue, although if one wanted to make an issue of it, it would probably work just as well if it was not there. We had arbitration before the PC 1003 and The Labour Relations Act, and you could enforce your position in arbitration the same way as you could enforce your position in negotiati ons. You could say we will not live with this award, which by the way is not such a bad thing.

If the arbitrator awarded something which an employee could not live with, I would defend the right of that employee to say no, we are not going to do this. lt does not happen, but I would cert ainly defend it, or vice versa. Mr. Reld: Mr. Chairman, this presenter has given us his impressions on the three processes that I asked about- Mr. Green: Mediation you did not ask me about. I did not mention mediation. *

(2140) 16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, this presenter has given us his impressions on at least two of the areas that I asked questions on. The binding arbitration process which is in the current system without the FOS, of course, imposes settlements on parties and can have a very negative impact. By that, I mean there can be winners and losers, and there usually are winners or losers. I would like to have the presenter's thoughts on binding arbitration. Mr. Green: Maybe the Member could be somewhat enlightened.

There is a difference between negotiating a collective agreement, an imposed agreement and an arbitration of a dispute which arises during the currency of a collective agreement. Arbitration, except what they call interest arbitration, which is a dangerous thing-interest arbitration is what the firefighters have; it is what the policemen have. They arbitrate agreements and that is a definite interference with free collective bargaining. The arbitration of disputes during the existence of a collective agreement is not part of the bargaining process; it is part of the administration of the collective agreement.

Even there, it is not necessary that it be binding, but binding arbitration I will accept as not being an interference with the free collective bargaining towards reaching terms and conditions of employment. We are merely then trying to define what the terms and conditions of employment that have been arrived at mean, and those are arbitrated. Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, then the presenter, I would assume, must agree that the state does have a role in helping to solve contract disputes . Mr. Green: Mr. Chairman, I do not agree. We had arbitration before the state was involved.

The solving of contract disputes after a contract is arrived at is the same thing as two people who are commercially involved in a contract going to court to have that dispute decided. To decide an existing dispute on an existing contract is different from free collective bargaining, and everybody recognizes it as being different. There is still in the States-and I sympathize with it because it happens to be my tendency to say that where the arbitration is unacceptable, the parties could be left to their resources. As a matter of fact, that happens.

Even though you get an arbitration's award, ultimately they have to live together. I am willing to accept the arbitration of a dispute during the existence of a collective agreement after the agreement is arrived at as not being an interference of the same nature in any way with the arbitration of a dispute during the collective agreement. That is not part of the bargaining process; that is the administration of an agreement that has been arrived at. Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I will not belabour the point much longer. There seems to be some dispute in the facts here.

There were statements that were made in support of binding arbitration, but the FOS process would not be a suitable alternative. Nevertheless, there was another question I wish to ask the presenter. He made a comment and stated that workers who ask for FOS are not able to engage in meaningful collective bargaining. I would like to know and maybe have him elaborate a bit further on that statement. Mr. Green: I never said workers. I said the business agents and trade union organizers, that they are the ones, that they -(interjection)- Pardon me? Floor Comment: Workers' representatives. Mr.

Green: Yes, just the same way as I represent my clients. It used to be that the business agent was on the floor with the men and worked, did the same thing as them. Then they hired a business agent who could not get paid more than them. Now it is business unionism, and they are representatives of the workers, the same way as I represent my clients. I am a business representative, but there is a distinction between the worker and the business agent. If you do not see it, it is possible that you have to be enlightened, or I have to be enlightened, but there Is a difference .

The fact is that I said that the business agents who did not trust their own capacity to engage in meaningful collective bargaining or who did badly-Bernie Christophe came to this Legislature to pressure the Legislature to get him out of a bad strike, because he could not bargain his way out of it, and that is how final offer selection materialized. Mr. Chairman: Before we move on to the next presenter, would the committee wish to take five minutes to stretch? Recess of five minutes. Mr. Cerilli will be next. * * * The committee took recess at 9:45 p.m.

December 12 , 19 90 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA 17 After Recess The committee resumed at 9:55 p.m. Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Mr. Cerilli. Did you have a copy of your presentation, Mr. Cerilli? Mr. Albert Cerllll (Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers): Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I would like to have these circulated. lt is my presentation of March 1, 1989 on Bill31 , as well as another document dealing with the National Transportation Act. We will be able to deal with the connection of those two in a minute. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Cerilli. Mr.

Cerllll: We are particularly interested in Bill12, because certainly, in our view, it moves us back a step rather than advance us towards the realities of the 21st Century in labour relations. For the record, we do not believe in the law of the jungle.

We believe in the facts of life as we perceive them in this new global environment, particularly when we see the European countr ies moving towards amalgamation in regard to not only their economic future and stability, but the 12 countries are also moving to stabilize their labour laws not only for the basis of minimum laws of wages and hours of work but certainly in the labour relations field. They are not going to be playing a stacked deck, if you like, of one country versus another in an economic com munity of countries. I think that separates us from the previous presenter.

We want to talk about the new era towards the 21st Century and beyond, particularly in the new framework of the level playing field in the labour relations for this country, our province. Maybe it is time that some leadership in regard to that is shown by not repea ling this piece of legislation, and I will tell you the reasons why.

For the recor d, and I will not bore you with rereading the matter, but I would like it recorded as such, as circulated here, our presentation from our union on March 1 , 1990 in regard to the Bill that was then introduced as No. 31, Labour Relation Amendment Act, to repeal that piece of legislation that is before us now. If that is agreeable, I will not read all of it except for one

section starting on page 268. I will take you down to the last two paragraphs on the bottom of the page, right-hand side: "The business community was influenced by the deregulation phenomenon and strongly supported the Governments to deregulate. The area mo st com mo n, the transportation industry, was to acco mmodate manufacturers and shippers. In this regard, the same dispute resolution as final offer selection was introduced in the transportation legislation through the National Transportation Act of Canada." I have circulated that particular

section to this committee as the other piece of document that was handed out. "The new National Transportation Act provides for a new framework for conflict management. Final offer selection, by the way, Mr. Chairperson, is no different. The objective is the federal Government's comm itment to have competitive, efficient and viable transportation services in Canada. All levels of Government acknowledge that the transportation sector is a key element in Canada's economic growth.

Therefore they sought the mechanism that would provide shippers and transport companies the opportunity to resolve their tariff disputes through mediation and final offer solution." In this regard, Mr. Chairperson and Members of the committee, I want to be able to share with you my recent experience in travelling to Saskatoon as a result of our involvement in the transportation field, and how this mechanism works.

The application went before the National Transportation Agency by the Cont ainer Port of Saskatchewan Corporation, an application to have CN and CP accommod ate their tariff system and shipping of goods. *

(2200) The mechanism there is no different from what we have, and I will go through the legislation with you in a minute. What took place there really was hearings by lawyers for their company, lawyers for the railwa ys, legal counsel for the National Transportation Agency, legal counsel for the province. The City of Saskatoon was represented and a number of other interested groups, as well as our union. In all, a lot of the expense was paid by the public purse.

I think that is worthy to note for the simple reason that it is a mechanism to balance out the powers that appear in a dispute for the purpose of achieving their end, may it be a large carrier and a small shipper or a large shipper and a small carrier. lt is to give them a mechanism to achieve a level playing field, if you like, for the purpose of survival. What is before you in the legislation of final offer selection is simply that, and it allows those people

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 who want to utilize that piece of legislation to do so, workers and companies alike. In the federal legislation under the National Transportation Act, 1987, the same provisions are applied. Let us go through them. We will take you, starting on page 901 in the second document,

Section 46, Mediation and Arbitration, and we talk a little bit about mediation, because the process of bargaining does not only involve workers that belong to union X and an employer Y, but because of the nature of negotiations. Negotiations is reaching the meaningful word worldwide in regard to how to resolve disputes, and here we are. The rest of the world is moving towards mediation and conciliation and yes, final offer selection, as in the transportation field, to resolve these disputes, and we, as a society in Manitoba that have had that peaceful solution for a while, are moving away from it.

It does not make sense. Our union, for the record, since the legislation has been enacted has not utilized that, but that does not mean that the time will not come in these hard times that we will not use it. I think that is important. The reason I say that is because there are workers out there, in this era of globalization and free trade blocs, that will move us towards another means of settling our differences, may it be at collective bargaining or negotiating rates for tariffs of moving goods and people. The

section of the Transportation Act, 1987, has similar roles as what we have in legislation in the final offer selection: "agreement to be bound by may be requested", and that is on page 903,

Section 48(4). lttells us that once the parties have made that decision to head into a selection process by a sslector, once that is accomplished within that framework, it is binding. If you go to the next page, it gives us the procedure,

Section 50. 50(3) gives us: "Exchange of information", which is necessary. The reason I am dragging you through this means of process is that last time that I appeared before this committee on the same subject, what we simply handed out was the pamphlet. I think that it is a useful tool, but rather than have that simply recirculated, it was worthy for you people to have the legislation itself which deals with that, the decision of the arbitrator, if you like, or the selector, the termination of the proceedings. They even go as far as having a list of selectors or arbitrators. In the same fashion, the publication of the list, the request for investigating precluded-and last on

Section 57 it goes on to say that once the "matter is submitted for final offer arbitration under

Section 48", the party "is not entitled to request investigation of the same matter by the Agency". That simply means the Agency cannot go back and reinvestigate it. Mr. Chairperson and Members of this committee, the fact of the matter is that many, many sectors of our society are moving towards a better means of settling their differences. Why should the work force of this province not have that same opportunity? Has the legislation caused any harm? I do not see anybody here telling you that this caused any harm. I do not see any presenters here from the business community.

Maybe they think it is a cooked deal already. Is that the impression we want to leave with the peoples of Manitoba? We should not. I think we should resist all that. If they were interested in really requesting this Government, rather than leaving the illusion that they have it already made or the fix is in, they should have been here arguing for it the same as we are. They should be here arguing for their position; they are not.

I think that is worthy to note for the Members of this committee, to realize that, regardless of what you heard by the previous presenter, there is no cooked deal or fix that is automatic in this society. There may be impressions of suggestions that whatever is maybe possible, but in the long run, anyone who wishes to support their position should be made to appear, rather than given a blank cheque towards an end that leaves many people wondering if in fact it is in the best interests of all sectors of our society in Manitoba or just a few.

The hearings in Saskatoon that I was able to attend for a couple of days lasted from September 24 to October 2. I guess in circumstances of that nature of the implications involved, it is a normal period of time. Negotiations between workers and an employer take considerable time. In fact, it has taken longer because the free collective bargaining process is implemented by both parties to try and resolve their dispute. Final offer selection does not mean that people sit on their hands.

There are tough collective bargaining sessions between the parties, and sometimes, rather than have a dispute, contrary to forcing people out of business, the other actually happens, because it makes people move towards a realistic level of expectation. That is the difference.

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 I think that is important when you make a decision to recommend to the House to repeal this piece of legislation or to leave it alone. It is my view, with some 40 years experience in the field-and I am not trying to age myself-that this piece of legislation in the long run will be patterned by other provinces and maybe the federal Government. Thank you. Mr. Ashton: I appreciate your distributi ng the Hansard from last Session's presentation . Mr. Cerllll: Only in part. Mr. Ashton: Of course, only in part.

I do remember your presentation then, and it was certainly a very interesting presentation in terms of the perspective you bring from a federally regulated area. I think that is a perspective people need to look at. One question I wanted to ask you, and I believe I asked you then on March 1 , 1990 and I asked of many other presenters, was whether you had been contacted by the then Minister in regard to the proposal to repeal final offer selection.

I want to ask you that question again, whether you have been subsequently contacted to ask you for your opinions as somebody who is very experienced in the labour movement, for your views on final offer selection, not just in the abstract sense, but how it has been working here in Manitoba. Have you in any way, shape or form been contacted by the Minister to determine your opinion on whether it is working? *

(2210) Mr. Cerllll: Not as an individual union. They may have asked the Manitoba Federation of Labour. For the record, I believe in the process of the provincial Government dealing with the Manitoba Federation of Labour, not individual unions that are affiliated to the federation. The reason I say that is the position I am giving you is basically the same as I had given you the last time.

It is in tune with the federation , but certainly I was not at a meeting with the Federation of Labour where the Minister asked us for any input, and as an area vice-president of the federation, if there was a meeting and I was in town, I do not know about it. You can ask the same question of the federation when they are up here. Mr. Ashton: I certainly will, and it appears the pattern is continuing that the Government does not wish to ask the question, probably because the answer might go against what they are doing.

The answer we had received from the people who came before the committee, yourself and others, was that final offer selection was working. I also want to deal with a matter that was raised then and I thought put to rest by the 70 presenters who came before the committee, and that was the suggestion that somehow the labour movement itself was against final offer selection, or significant parts of it. We heard many presenters indicate that while their particular union had concerns about final offer selection, many had indicated they had subseq uently changed their mind based on the experience.

I want to ask you once again, given your experience in the labour movement, in light of the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) comments just recently suggesting that somehow this Government was acting on behalf of the unions that he said oppose final offer selection, in your opinion, what is the position of the labour movement on final offer selection? Do they support or oppose it, and would they in any way, shape or form support this Bill which would repeal it? Mr. Cerllll: The labour movement supports the present piece of legislation on final offer selection.

Contrary to what is being said, the labour movement supports that piece of legislation, is on record as supporting that legislation, and after my presentation as part of the Federation of Labour and part of the labour movement, you will find that the support still remains. Contrary to what is happening within our environment in regard to labour relations, the business community, as I said earlier, is not here to put their position to see if they are against it or for it. I think they should go on public record if they are going to do anything, to let us know and let their workers know where they stand. Mr.

Ashton: I found that interesting, too, last year that there were very few presentations calling for a repeal of final offer selection. A vast majority, I believe 90 percent, supported its maintenance. I would like to ask you though, further, you had rejected the views of the previous presenter which you I think described as the law-of-the-jungle view of labour relations. I was just wondering, you had indicated you feel this is very much an innovative move-in fact, it was brought into Manitoba with that understanding; it was brought in with a sunset clause.

You are suggesting then that final offer selection may be brought into other jurisdictions based on the experience here in Manitoba? Mr. Cerllll: Labour legislation is changing worldwide. As developed countries develop, they

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 are going to find themselves into legislation, and they are going to look towards other countries. If they find that a country like Canada is having difficulty in adapting to change in legislation, then I think those Third World countries will not look to Canada as they do with other means of wanting to move here. Also, they might look to united countries like in Europe, the 12 countries there where they are moving towards modernizing their legislation and where in many cases their legislation is much more advanced than ours. Mr.

Ashton: There was some suggestion earlier in terms of the number of presenters tonight representing a lack of interest in this. I just want to indicate when you first received notice that this would be coming to committee tonight. Mr. Cerllll: I think it was about 11 :30 this morning, and as a result of me heading for a meeting and coming back out, I called, that there would be a meeting here around four o'clock, 4:30. I did not mark down the exact times. Mr. Ashton: In other words, there was very short notice available to you and presumably to other individuals? Mr.

Cerllll: Yes, that is exactly what happened, but we are here, and you have photocopies of the material we wanted to place on the record. Mr. Ashton: I believe it is the strength of the presentation that certainly speaks for itself. Just as a final question, I am going to ask you, and I know I probably asked you this last time, but unfortunately we are here again.

Unfortunately people did not listen well enough last year, although we were able to save final offer selection through some tactical manoeuvers, and I think also in a significant way from the presentations made by the committee, by people such as yourself. What is your recommendation to this Minister and Government, to the Liberals who now, after the recent election, signal they want to somehow turn left? I am not quite sure if they quite understand what that means.

What is your recommendation to them as someone who has been involved in labour relations for, as you said, a significant period of time, in terms of this Bill and also perhaps in terms of labour relations generally. There have been some disturbing comments coming from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) at least, if not necessarily the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), signalling that this may not be the only change they are looking at in terms of labour relations in Manitoba. There may be other rollbacks. What is your final message to this committee? Mr.

Cerllll: The first thing I would want to say is that as a result of the last public hearings by this committee, the legislation received some breathing room, mainly because of the Liberals and that side of the House at that time, with the number of presentations and the people who presented expressing those views along with ourselves, put the proposition that it was not such a bad piece of legislation, particularly if it saves one dispute. Sometimes one dispute is enough to convince people that it is a good piece of legislation.

What I would recommend to the Minister now is the same as I had recommended to the Liberals at that time. I think it would be a shallow victory to achieve a repealing of a piece of legislation that in fact is viewed by the public out there that the business community has this Government in its pocket. I think that is dangerous, and I would suggest to this committee and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) that their absence from these hearings proves that point.

I would suggest that if they are going to have a recommendation to make to the House to leave the legislation alone, let us do it and see what happens at a future hearing. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Chairperson, I would first of all like to thank Mr. Carilli. I just wanted to be clear of the pronunciation. I always have difficulty due to the language barrier, so I did not want to offend by saying something wrong here. Mr. Cerllll: If you say it "Cherilli," it will come home. Mr. Cheema: Sure. It has been an excellent presentation.

You have 40 years of experience in the labour movement, and certainly somebody with that much experience would have gone through a lot of ups and downs. You have said that in the last Session the liberals gave some breathing space. We wanted to give it even more breathing space that time to have the amendments which were very reasonable. If the NOP would have agreed to our amendments, we could have the study period now. I think we could have saved it, and I would like to know your views. I would like to know Mr. Cerilli's view on that. You know, it looks like the Member for Thompson's (Mr.

Ashton) feelings are being hurt, because we could have saved the whole thing, and

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 I would like Mr. Cerilli to give his opinion on that matter. Mr. Cerllll: Mr. Chairperson, I think that what is happening is that everybody is looking for a way out, and I am suggesting the way out. I am saying look, we have given this Bill some breathing room. Some consideration is now saying hey, maybe in March we will think about it and we will repeal it then, or introduce it in the House to repeal, as I gathered anyway. I think we should go beyond that. There are some very serious negotiations coming down the road in this province .

Let us see what happens. It is a delicate year. There are a hell of a lot of plant closures. There are a lot of disruptions in transportation, even though it is a federal jurisdictional scene, butthere are spinoff companies in transportation that are provincially regulated. We have some of them, and we would be coming up for negotiations. *

(2220) I do not know what is going to happen because of the influence of the American transportation companies in trucking, rail and what have you, which have a spinoff effect to provincial jurisdictions. We have hotel negotiations coming up. We have other negotiations in the general workers field coming up this year, and I think that those are very-I said before we never used them, but if the workers want to resolve their difference in that manner, I think they should be allowed to have that right to decide that question, rather than have a work stoppage to go ahead and do that. They may decide to do that.

The legislation in my view should be given additional breathing room other than the month of March. This Government's mandate has just started. You know, I think that if they are going to have a review of the legislation, let us do it properly. Let us go out there and really get the pulse of the community. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Chairperson, Mr. Carilli has said let us have a proper review. The proper review that we are proposing is a study of the whole process. It is almost three years, and as you know, most of the settlements have gone through.

Most of them, about 90 percent, have gone through that process whether some unions have used it or not. Why not study it and then bring it back, if there is a further improvement that can be made? You made a very good comment in saying that if this legislation has not done any harm to the public at large, why not study it? I mean, in the common sense, you do not do an experiment without studying the good or bad effects. Why not do it? If the NDP at that time had followed our proposal, we would not be in this trouble right now. We could have -(interjection)- no, not at all. We could hav&- Mr.

Chairman: Order, please. Mr. Cheema: I would like Mr. Carilli to give us his opinion on this particular committee. We are proposing to establish a committee to come up with recommendations. That committee will have ample opportunity to study the whole process. If further improvements can be made, why not? Mr. Cerllll: The legislation is in place. The mechanisms have not bothered anybody in regard to who has applied for it and who has come under those applications. The study to do something that is already working is just a study.

If you want to make statistical studies to say well, here is what damage it did to this company , that can be done at any time within the structure of the labour committee, as I see it, through the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik). It does not need to have a group of people who come under that piece of legislation hanging on the edge wondering when the shove comes, to be shoved over the cliff. I think that is the danger in those kinds of studies of pieces of legislation.

You have to be very careful in the type of data-gathering information for the purpose of trying to determine if the final offer selection process has done any harm to a group of workers or to a group of employers. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Chairperson, can the presenter tell us then, if you would have a committee where there should not be any representation from any specific groups, but an independent committee to study the whole process of the final offer selection and come up with recommendations, say, in four or five months, then have an improvement, will they accept that kind of establishment? Mr.

Cerllll: I think that any, as I have said earlier, proposals of anything from the Minister should go through the Federation of Labour. I think that would put into place a mechanism of discussion. If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) wants to invite other Members of the Legislature, so be it. I think that those are areas open to the Minister to deal with the

22 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA December 12 , 19 90 mainstream of labour in that fashion, and I think that would be proper. Mr. Praznlk: First, I would like to thank Mr. Cerilli for his prese ntation here this evening and for his comme nts with respect to the correct procedure in dealing with various labour unions in the province. Upon being sworn in as the Minister of Labour, I had a very interesting, a very nice conversation with Susan Hart-Ku lbaba, President of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, and with Mr. George Smith from the Canadian Fed eration of Labour.

I respect fully, as Minister, the process of dealing wit h vari ous unions through those umbrella organizations. Suggestions made by Mem bers of the New Democr atic Party that I should be meeting with individual unions is something that I will not do because of the respect for that process that is there. Mr. Cerilli, I have a couple of technical questions for you on the National Transportation Act, 19 87, that you have presented to this committee. Although I admit I have not had a chance to read it in detail, I understand you have a copy in front of you. Mr. Cerllll: Yes. Mr.

Praznlk: Just glancing through this so I unde rstand the scheme-and these are the thrusts, Mr. Chair, of my questions-! unde rstand-and I should indicate, Mr. Cerilli, that I am always very interested in looking at various mediation, arbitration and dispute settle ment mechanisms that are out there. I am quite fascinated by what you presented to this committee tonight. I just noticed, for my cl arificati on, that this particular final offer arbitration process is applicable firstly where there is a difference on rates or the rate to be carried and conditions of carrying, so a relatively narrow array of issues.

Would that be a correct

interpretation? Mr. Cerllll: The reason I brought the piece of legisla tion to the attention of this committee is because I had refe rred to it in the previous present ation and to sho w that there are mechanisms that are available between business interests that only relate to the business community. •

(2230) In other words, a carrier and a shipper can have this mechanism available to them, and it provides a service to assist in that resolution. Yes, that mechanism is there for that purpose. Mr. Praznlk: Mr. Cerilli, again I thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. I am quite fascinated by it. I do not know if you had the chance to read my commen ts when I introduced the legis lation that this committee is now consider ing.

As Minister, I certainly recognize that the final offer selec tion process, whether it is a legislated one or a voluntary one, has had success, for exam ple, organized baseball wher e the number of issues have been limited. I just wanted to clarify that this process is where issues are rather narrow, the scope of the issues that are being arbitrated. The second clarification ques tion I have for you is with respect to I believ e it is

Section 48{3){b)(i). Please correct me if I am wrong, but the dis pute, as a prerequisite to this syste m of final offer arbitration being instituted- there is some requirement of the public interest to be part of the dispute. Is that a correct reading of that Bill? Mr.

Cerllll: lt is a correct assumption, but here again, to tie both ques tions into the proper focus of what is being shown as comparisons, if you like, in the mechanism of negotiations, in the final offer selections between workers who are represe nted by a union who submit proposals for negotiations and an em ployer group who also subm its proposals for nego tiations, those proposals are eventually narrowed down to areas where the final offe r sele ction will apply. The same faction applies here to some degree, and I am just giving you a general overview of the impressions that should be given some thought.

The public-i nterest approach that you are talking about, yes, there is, but the National Transportation Agency in the Act makes it so cumbersome, if you like, for the public interest really to get involved. lt could not spend a week and a half in Saskatoon, for example, to get their turn to be heard in regard to that.

I think the process has to be compared in light of what is before you in final offer selecti on, to repeal that piece of legislation, and why I brought this piece of leg islation to show that what is good for the business community and to resolve their disputes should be extended in wha tever way the mechanism is put together for workers and em ployers. Mr. Praznlk: Mr. Cerilli, what I was getting at, perhaps you misunder stood my question, but in that particular section-please correct me if I am wrong,

December 12 , 19 90 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 23 but I beli eve-and again this is just on a cursory reading by myself and Legisla tive Counse l-it is a prerequi site to the system being used thatthe matter raises issues -th is is the matter going to our final arbitration-m ust be of a gener al public interest, and that the interests other than those of the shipper and carrier concerned may be materially prejudiced by the matter submitted. Jt has to be an interest to the broader public than just between the two parties in order for this syste m of dispute set tlement to be used.

Would that be a correct reading of that section? Mr. Cerllll: To a certain degree, and again the interest by the public is cert ainly to achieve concerns about public safety, the environment, and a number of other areas that have to be considered when the applications are made under this piece of legislation. Mr. Praznlk: Thank you, Mr. Cerilli. I appreciated your comments and bringing this to my attention. Mr. Lamoureux: I, too, Mr. Cerilli, do appreciate you taking the time in making the presentation. I do have a couple of quick, brief questions, if you will. The first one is in regard to final offer selection.

Do you believe the Bill could be improved? Mr. Cerllll: I think, as I said earlier, thatthe Manitoba Federati on of Labour makes annual presentations to the Cabinet, and we always deal with those areas that are bothering us in regard to what could be improved and what cannot be left alone. To my recollecti on, I do not see any suggestions to tamper with the legislation as it presently is. I think that the Federation of Labour may have something to add to that when they are presenting their views on why the final offe r selection leg islation should be left alone.

If there are suggestions for improvement of areas, that

part is open, I guess, again from the labour movement to propose to the Minister, through the Cabinet presentation as well as by em ployer groups, to present those proposed changes that they might want to see. lt does not necessarily mean that the legislation should be tampered with if in fact no mutual consent can be reached by those parties, because they are the ones that are utilizing the final offer selection for the purpose of settl ing a dispute rather than locking out or striking a particular plant. Mr. Lamoureux: I would like to ask the presenter and maybe cite a couple of specific examples.

The first one is som e of the concerns-and I was here for many of the presentations of the last Session when this was before the committee. One of the concerns was the fact that the em ployees will determine if final offer selection ultimately will be asked for. I am wondering if the presenter feels that it is fair to have the un ion able to ask the union mem bership -w hereas I unde rstand the management can, but in terms of the relationship wi th the union and ma nagemen t with the empl oyees, if he sees that there is any natural injustice in that? Mr.

Cerllll: Again, ifthere is an area where proposed changes should be made, I think that the best way to do it is to approach the Manitoba Federation of Labour. I am sure the Federation of Labour can-1 know for a fact they canvass their affi liates to find out what should be presented to the provincial Government for changes in legislation. To my recollection, I have not seen any changes proposed to this point in time. We will be making a presentation-and I am sure the Liberal Caucus will be receiving a copy of it as wel l-to the Cabinet some time down the road.

Certainly, if there are changes in there, we will be consistent in our presentation from this presenter to support that position from the Manitoba Federation of Labour. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I am interested in the presenter's opinion on this, because at the onset of the meeti ng, on the onset of his presentation, he said that he has been dealing with unions for the last 40 years. I am interested in knowing if he feels that there are some injustices that could be fixed through positive amendments.

I for one, when I had the opportunity to speak on second reading on this particular Bill, had suggested that there is worth in taking a look at some form of final offe r selection and would not want to rule it out carte blanche. I think that there is a responsibil ity for us who are in positions such as yours, such as mine, such as the Ministers and all Mem bers or all of my colleagues, to do what is in the best interest of the workers in Manitoba. I would ask for your personal opinion.

Do you believ e that final offer selection as it stands right now could be improved by making a change, so that the em ployer could have better access to final offer selection, or do you believ e that it would not be necessary? Mr. Cerllll: What I am saying, on behalf of our union and as an affiliate to the Manitoba Federation of

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 199\ Labour, is that the legislation is working well right now as it presently is for those people who utilize it. We are saying leave that alone. If there are areas that have to be considered, I think that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) has to go to the Federation of Labour, and I mean that. That is the way I operate. That is why, I guess, I am a little gray around the ears, but not as gray as some people.

When you are a part of a team in regard to what should be presented, you do it in uniformity, so that there is no scatterbrain approach to something that may have happened 40 years ago or 50 years ago in labour relations. At this time, we are saying that we are going to be making a presentation to the Cabinet, and if there are changes that we are looking for in other pieces of legislation, we are going to do that. If the final offer selection-first of all, we are saying leave it alone-needs some fixing, which is beyond me, I do not think we should monkey with it until such time as we know what we want to fix.

We have not heard from the Manitoba Federation of Labour in relation to what may need fixing. *

(2240) Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I support the MFL in terms of the cause and what it is that it does for the union movement, but as the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has pointed out, it is important that we reach out and hear from individuals. During the committee hearings last year, for example, I received one phone call from a steward who worked at Superstore. She was concerned that I would be voting against or for the repeal of the Act. I asked her if she had some time to discuss the matter, and she said she did.

We talked about the legislation, and after explaining it-and I tried to explain it in an unbiased fashion-she had suggested or was surprised to hear of some of the things that I had pointed out that I had heard at the committee--led me to believe, like I would suspect many people would lead me to believe, that in fact this legislation has potential. This legislation with amendments could serve all workers in this province well. As someone who has been with the union movement for so long, I would appreciate your personal opinion.

Before I let you answer that, I wanted to make reference to another thing that was brought up to me. That is, of course, is it necessary for final offer selection to cover everything? Why not cover the wage aspect of it? Leave the benefits to the side. Let that continue on through negotiations . Anothe r thing that was suggested and the Member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) has put quite well, maybe what we should be doing is looking at this legislation. Mr. Cerllll: To leave bits and parts of proposals that are submitted by other parties aside would only lead into misgiving and misrepresenting the legislation.

Once you start deciding only this can be dealt with or that can be left out and this can be dealt with, it is dangerous to do that approach for the simple reason that either side then can say this

part cannot be looked at by this because you proposed it from the company's point of view. The company could say well, we do not want to look at the benefit package because it is monetary. Everything is monetary anyway. The fact is, once you start leaving bits and parts of negotiations out to separate identities, that is the danger that leads the legislation to be destroyed and eventually be of no use to anybody . Mr. Lamoureux: Just a couple more very brief questions, Mr. Chairperson .

I think the presenter has in a roundabout way illustrated why I feel as strongly as I do that this legislation needs to be looked at, so that viewpoints such as that can be addressed and can be taken into account. I wanted to comment in regard to some of the accusations that were thrown across the table when my colleague from The Maples (Mr. Cheema) was talking about ou r amendment that we had suggested.

That amendment allowed for a process in which after 30 days of the repeal that would have taken effect at the end of this year, we would have seen an independent committee established that would have been mandated to report back to this Chamber with what could be acceptable amendments, but we will never know. We will never get that firm commitment unless the current Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) takes it upon himself to do just that. He made reference in terms of well, we were able to get final offer selection postponed until March 31.

I have to ask myself, even though that might make a few people happy by getting it postponed till March 31 by voting against the amendment-I must say they voted for the amendment in committee but voted against it when they entered into the

December 12 , 19 90 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 25 Chamber. I would ask the presenter, does he not feel that it is in the best interests of the workers that there be a study and something being reported back? Would that not have been in the best interests of the unions where it would have been mandated through the Legislature, that it would not have been optional for the current Government? Mr. Cerllll : As I understand it, Mr. Chairperson-! was going to call you an arbitrator, but I had better watch my tongue.

As I under stand it, the proposition was to repeal a piece of leg islation, get rid of it, and then strike up a committee to report back to the Legislature with a recom mendation to reintroduce the Bill. That is as I understand it. lt might be out to lunch, but that is as I understand it. Well, once you take something away and start reconstructing it, that is the danger that we are fearful of. We are saying let the legisla tion live beyond March, beyond June, beyond January of next year. Have an internal legis lative committee such as this body here, with the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Praznik), meet with representatives of the labour movement through the federation or other individual groups, the business community. Invite people to talk to you. I think those are the mechanisms that may be available to this committee anyway, but to go ahead and destroy a piece of legislation first and then try to resolve it-1 have a tendency of wondering, if there was a minority Gove rnment, I would say, hey, maybe there is a possibility. Howeve r, you have a majority Government, and let us be realistic.

If the Government, for some reason of internal pressures or external pressures by different groups, feels that piece of leg islation is now gone, we are not going to reintroduce it, there is nothing that this body can do from the federation or anybody else to bring that back. I am just saying to you that the legis lation is not doing any harm. In fact, it is helping people desp ite what other people say. lt is helping workers who would normally be on the street and taking away from their way of achieving their rent. The legisla tion does that for them.

I am saying let it live beyond March and beyond next year and so on and then deal with it in a committee with the interested groups. Do not threaten people that you are going to repeal the legisla tion and then start tinkering with something different. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Chairperson, I just want to make a comment here. Mr. Cerilli has said that the last time it was a minority Government, and we had the opportunity. We heard from many presenters, and many of them made excellent points from their point of view. The other side of the story was also heard.

We have had this for three years, and I am repeating the same thing again. If the NDP at that time had followed our amendment inside the House, I think we could have done the same thing now. I mean, what we are debating today, we finished that. I think that is very important, because even as the present Government has a very different philosophy, and if they are following something from a very special interest group, we could have done for the workers of Manitoba.

That was a real opportunity, but for a short-term political gain for a particular Party, we are in a way failing to give to the public of Manitoba the real answer to the proble m. The proble m, if there is a problem in terms of after three years of FOs-and if there is, as has been pointed out by various groups that there are some difficulties, then why not fix those difficulties? Under the circumstances, I think we should have the attitude of accepting a few things and then improving upon them. We could have done the same thing about six months ago.

In a way I think it is very disappointing how a political group-it could be any political Party but in this circumstance-how the political Parties could use a certain

section of society for their own bene fit without thinking what is best for the people of Manitoba and in terms of the workers of Manitoba. We come from a riding of working people from the north end. You know, many people from the community work in the CN, CP, all these places, and we are not against saying to the working people that was the message that was sent. In a political way, I think it was a victory for the New Dem ocratic Party for a short term, but they have done harm to the FOS process.

I think eventually if you sit down and look at both sides of the story, you will realize that what we are saying is correct. If Mr. Cerilli wants to answer my commen ts, it is fine. Otherwise, I will end my remarks.

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 Mr. Cerllll: As I understand it, the Liberals' position at the time was uncertain and that the legislation, as I understand it, was to be to repeal it and support that position. Of course, after hearing presentations, there was a change of attitude. There is

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-1-ir1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 1st hansardpdf ir1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7bb09b5dbac1a6d255cbeefd979b22f5eb4cec1b

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