Manitoba Committee Hansard — 24 February 1990 (Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 8, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-ir8

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGI SLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITO BA THE STANDING CO MMI TTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATI ONS Saturday, February 24, 1990. TIME - 10 a. m. LOCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN - Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli) ATTENDANCE - 10 - QUORU M - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Ernst, Filmon, Hon. Mrs. Hammond Mr. Edwards, Ms. Gr ay, Messrs. Helwer, Pank ratz, Patterson, Plohman, Storie WITNESS ES: Mr. Jim Murphy, The Opera ting Engi neers Union, local 90 1 Mr. Lou Harr ies, Private Citizen Mr. Ron Cote, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER DISCUS SION: Bill No. 31 -The labour Rela tions Amend ment Act Mr.

Chairman: Good morning , I call the Sta ndin g Co mmit tee on Ind ustrial Relations to order . The Stand ing Committee on Ind ustrial Relations will resume hea ring public presentat ions on Bill No. 31, The Labour Relations Amendment Act. I will shortly read the names of the presenters from the fi rst page of the presenters list. If there are any members of the public who wish to check and see if they are registered to speak to the Bill, the list of presenters is posted outside of the committee room .

If members of the public would like to be added to the list to give a presentation to the committee, they can contact the Clerk of Committees and she will see tha t they are added to the list. If we ha ve any out-of-town presenters who ha ve to leave shortly, or are unable to return for su bsequent meetings , please ident ify yourselves to the Committee Clerk and she will see tha t your name s are brought forward to the com mittee as soon as possible. Did the com mittee Members wish at this point to give some ind icati on to members of the public as to how long we will sit this morning?

When do we want to break for lunch? An Honourable Member: 12:30? Mr. Chairman: Do you want to break at 12:30 and resume at -(interjection )- 145 We will break at one then. Ok ay. I would also like to remind committee Members that the committee agreed to sit until fiv e for this aft ernoon 's sitting. Picking up from where we left off yesterday, the names- page 1 of the presenters list is as follo ws: fi rst is Bev Seman; Jim Murphy; Buffie Burrell, Ken Crawford; Linda Fletcher; lrvine Ferris; Lou Harr ies; Randy Porter; George Bergen; Patrick Ma rtin and Bruce Buck ley. So we will start with Ms. Bev Seman.

Is she here this morning? -(interjection) -We will go on to the next one then, Mr. Jim Murphy, the Opera ting Engi neers Union, Local 90 1. Mr. Murphy, do you ha ve a written presenta tion? Mr. Jim Murphy (The Operating Engineers Union, Local 901): Well, I just ha ve my own personal notes, but I ha ve ma de copies, if anybody wishes. Mr. Chairman: Do you ha ve a copy for everyone? Perhaps if you would just wait a minute till we get these distributed, please. Ok ay, Mr. Murphy, would you please proceed. Mr. Murphy: My name is Jim Murphy. I am a business rep with the International Unio n of Opera ting Engi neers.

My presentation just consis ts of my personal experience using the legislation. Wha t I ha ve before you is, we have used applic ations for final offer selection 13 times. I ha ve listed all the employers, the da te we filed the applic at ion, the number of meetings we ha ve held and if there was a negotia ted settlement or if th ere was a decision hand ed down by the selector. I would like to briefly go th rough each case. The fi rst appl ication made was Janua ry 20,'88, and it was with the Rural Mun icipality of Springfield.

There was a total of th ree meetings there and after the th ree meetings negotiations came to an impasse and we filed for final offer selection. In th at case, a selector's decision was handed down. Subsequent to that, that collectiv e agreement has expired and the union has successfully negotiated a second collective agreement th ere without the use of final offer selection. In tha t case, the relations between the union and the employer ha ve actually become better. *

(1005) The second case is with the Rural Municipal ity of Brokenhead . There was one meeting and we actually reached agreement at the fi rst meeting with the selector. The fi rst meeting was to determine the number of outstan ding issues, and at tha t meeting with the aid of a selector we ac tually came to an agreement. The third applica tion was with the Rural Munici pality of Lorne and it was filed-a lthough the col lective agreement expired on the 31st of Janu ary and we generally wait until the la st day, you will notice that

Saturday, February 24, 19 90 applic ation was filed on November 8. We had sent out a no tic e to negotiate September 6 and the union proposal on Sept ember 6. We had meetings on September 26 and Oc tober 25,'88 . At the end of the second meeting the council had in formed us th at it was a decision of council tha t they were only prepared to look at a wage incr ease. The R.M. ind ica ted at tha t point tha t they were prepared to go to FOS. We had appl ied and a settlement was rea ched, a negotiated settlement was reached in tha t case, Janu ary 5, 1989.

The one comment I have on this particular applica tion is that if it were not for final offer selection the onl y alterna tive the union would ha ve had in this case where the council ac tually made a decision without negotiations to say that this is the position and we are not cha n ging right from the outset. The first meeting th ey had alr eady said the proposal went before council and council ma de a decision and th ey were not movi ng.

The second meeting was, we wanted to confirm tha t was in fact tha t they were not prepared to change and they ind icated th ey were not and ind icated to us tha t th ey were prepared to go through final offer selection. If it were not for the final offer selection being avai lable, the only alterna tiv e to the uni on would ha ve been to file with the Manitoba Lab our Board unfair bargai ning ch arges against the employer and go thr ough a Labour Board hea ring. The next appl ica tion was with the Rural Munici pali ty of St. Clements.

The union sent their proposal to negotia te for an agreement tha t expires on the 31st of December'88, September 1. The union sent their proposal on September 20. There was a series of meetings after tha t on December 18, 30 and Janu ary 5. A selector was appointed and that one concluded in a selector's decision being handed down April 12, 1989. Also with the Rural Mun ici pality of St. Clements, although th ere ha s been a drast ic change in the council and the make-up of council with a new reeve and thr ee new counci llors, relations there ha ve also improved.

In the case of the R.M. of Louise, we had filed for final offer selection December 1,'88, for an agreement tha t expires on the 31st. We sent our notice to negotiate September 1. Proposed change s follo wed September 16. After th at we had a meeting on December 7, at which time we reached a negotia ted settlement. The next one was with the Rural Mun icipalit y of Dau phin. We filed on December 1,'88. A notice to negotiate was sent September 1,'88; union proposal October 10.

There was a series of meetings, five meetings in al l, Nov ember 4, 9, 18, 19 and 30, at which time negotia tions reached an impasse and we filed for final offer selection. In tha t case an agreement was reached . Although I do not ha ve it no ted, there was at the ac tual selector heari ng that with the aid of the selector aga in, we reached a negotia ted settlement. Also I would say in tha t case negotiations and relations ha ve con tin ued, and they are good relations. The next case was with the Rural Munici pality of Birtle. We file d on Dec ember 1,'88.

No tice was sent to negotiate September 1,'88; the union proposal October 5,'88. There was a meeting on November 3. There was no ag reement reached , and it looked like there was an impasse at tha t point, although after we filed for 14 6 FOS we did meet again December 13 and reached a negotia ted settlement. The next case was the Rural Municipa lity of Montc alm. We filed December 1,'88. Notice to negotia te was sent Sept ember 1 ,'8 8. The union propo sal foll owed September 6,'88. We had meetings October 24 and October 28, and we had not reached an agreement.

We filed for FOS , and subsequent to that we had a series of meetings. We reached agreement Janua ry 27, '89, on a negotia ted settlement. The next one, the R.M. of Tache, was filed December 1 ,'89. Notice to negotia te was sent September 18. Union proposal follo wed Octo ber 18. Because of the municipal elections this year, it was almo st impossible to meet, so we had filed before we could arrange a meeting, but we did ha ve a meeting December 8. We reached agreement on December 20, 1989. * (1010 ) The next one was the Rur al Muni cipa lit y of Broken head.

The application was filed December 1,'89, for an ag reement th at expires December 31. Notice to negotia te was sent on September 18, '89. Uni on proposal was sent Oc tober 19. There were a series of meetings, December 12 and 19. Subsequently we reached a col lective agreement on February 6, 1990. In all tho se cases where we did reach a negotia ted settlement, we withd rew our applica tion for final offer selection. The next case is the Rural Municipa lity of Lac du Bonnet. We filed December 1,'89, for a col lective ag reement that expires on the 31st.

Notic e was sent October 1 with the union proposal Octobe r 25. Agai n, because of the municipal elections, no meetings were held before we filed because they were unable to meet. Meetings were held December 21, Jan uary 4, Janua ry 12, Janua ry 19, and to date we still do not ha ve a negotiated settlement, but we are close to a settlement. There has been a selector appointed, so it is proceeding with FOS , but I feel confident th at we will reach a negotiated settlement. The next one is with the Rural Municipal ity of Oak la nd. We fi led December 1,'89, for an agreement expiring on the 31st.

Notice was sent October 2, the union proposal the 25th. We met on November 30, and again this is one of th ose cases where we at the fi rst negotia ting meeting met the R.M. Counci l, informed us tha t they had reviewed the union proposal , and they were not pre pared to look at any changes except a wage incr ease. lt was on that, tha t we filed for FOS. The only other alterna tive, if FOS was not avai lable, would be an unfai r labour practice charge for fai ling to negotia te in good fa ith. Tha t one also is proceeding right now th rough the FOS.

There has been a selector appoi nted , and we hope to get some da tes in the near future. The next applic ation was with the Rural Municipali ty of Gil bert Plains, and it was filed December 1 for an ag reement expiring on the 31st. This applica tion was dismissed by the Manitoba Labour Board on a technical legal arg ument on wha t 30 da ys meant, so it was dismissed.

Saturday, February 24, 1990 That is my experience as a union rep with the final offer selection legislation. All of these employers have been relatively small employers with units from five to 18 people. In all of these cases , the employee s felt that because of the size of their bargaining uni t that to try and obtain the changes to the collective agreement through the strike mechanism would not be successful. That is the end of my presentation . The only comment that I have is that in our particular case the legislation has worked well. It has brought the parties together, and in the majority of cases we have ended in a negotiated settlement to the collective agreement. •

(1015) Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Are there any questions to the presenter? Mr. Storie. Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Thank you, Mr. Murphy , for that presentation. I think I want to thank you for coming to committee this morning to present your views. I think it has been very instructive and I hope it has dealt with a number of the issues, criticisms, that have been raised by the Government and by the Liberal Opposition with respect to fin al offer selection .

One you have mention ed on a number of occasions is tha t having used final offer selection, the relationship between the bargaining unit and the municipalit y in this case act ually improved . I suspect , but perhaps you can confirm if there are other reasons , that a strike in most of these areas , relatively small commun ities, tends to be bitter. Is the mechanism of FOS being used to avoid those kinds of thi ngs on both parties part? Mr.

Murphy: I feel definitely that especially in these cases, in small communities where the public works employees of any municipalities are possibly neighbours of the councillors and certainly neighbours of a lot of the ratepayers, that a strike would be bitter and carry lasting feelings. In our case, we are glad that there is a mechanism there . Through the use of it relations have improved.

One of the reasons is that after the selecto r' s decision , in the case of the selector's decision , we have often gotte n together again with the municipality and reviewed the selector's decision and even gone so far as to draft the co llective agreement and sign it and submit it to the Labour Board . Mr. Storie: Out of all of the applications for FOS, the selector has on ly made two decisions? Mr. Murphy: In all of the 13 applications the selector has made two decisio ns. The first one was with the Rural Municipality of Springfield , and it was in favour of the union.

The second decision was with the Rural Municipality of St. Clements, and it was in favour of the employer . Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairper son, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is sitt ing here and my Liberal colleagues are sitting here who oppose this legislation. We have before us today a labour leade r who the Leader of the Liberal 147 Opposition claims asked the question, who speaks for organized labour?

We have a labour representative here this morning who has used FOS, who tells us that it is working , who tells us that it is not cre ating animosity, that in fact it is bringing the parties together who have used it successfully to reach collective agreement without strikes , which everyone at this committee I hope says, we do not want, who has had a selector choose the employer's position in one occasion and the union's position in anothe r, who comes before the committee and still maintains that this is good legislati on, it is working in the interests of Manitobans and the people of the province .

I would ask you, Mr. Murphy, has the Premier , has the Minister of Labour , has the Member , any Member , the Liberal Leader, have they ever contacted you to ask you about your experiences? Mr. Murphy: No. Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairperson, does it make any sense to you, Mr. Murphy , to have the Government attempting to remove this type of legislation without talking to the people who use it, the people who have experience with it, the people who may depend on it to prevent strikes? Does it make any sense to you? Mr.

Murphy: I feel if the Government were to sit down with the people who have used it , the people who have been affected by it, I think they would come to the conclusion that it is valuable legislation and should be retained . Mr. Storie: It is interesting, first , you referenced the first set of negotiations where final offer selection was used.

You mentioned that in all likelihood, and in fact in a couple of cases you have mentioned that there was not much good intention, good bargaining faith at the outset of negotiations where proposals were laid on the table , and take it or leave it, we are not talking about it . In your opinion, would most of those or would some of those have lead inevitably to strikes and to long protracted strike? Mr. Murphy: I guess the ultimate decision for a strike would have been up to the members of the bargaining unit. It would have been either a strike or low wage settlements and in some cases actually concessions . *

(1020) Mr. Storie: I guess maybe this is a touchy subject, and I am somewhat, feel some intrepidation in marching into this territory, but I would ask you in your opinion wheth er the agreements that have been reached, were there any improvements , gains made , that have proven to be too onerous for the management, the municipalities? Mr. Murphy: No. I feel that the negotiated changes to these colle ctiv e agreements were accepted by both parties and both parties feel that they are fair and reasonable . Mr. Storie: The end result of the process is an agreement that both

part ies can live with.

Saturday, February 24, 19 90 My next question is tha t there was some suggestion by Members opposite, Government and the Member for St. Jame s (Mr. Edwards) , the Labour Critic , tha t somehow these kinds of negotia tions lead to win ners and losers. Is the use of final offer selection any different in your opinion than the normal bargai ning process in terms of the conflicts that it creates between the barga ining units? Mr. Murphy: In my experienc e it has not created win ners and losers.

In the ca ses of the negotia ted settlements, the relationship between the employer and the union is strong, and it is a good relationsh ip. In the two cases where the selector has handed down his decision, I would say in both of tho se cases, through the use of the joint conference comm ittee, tha t provision of the col lective agreement, tha t the relations ha ve improved. Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairp erson, perhaps I could take a few moments to talk about some of the detai ls of the negotiations. I do not want Mr. Murphy to betray any confidenc es, but I am wond ering for example in the R.

M. of Da uphin case, where agreement was reached back in February of'89, before FOS was applied for, how many issues were outstandi ng, if you can recall in tha t detail? Were there a lot of issues outstan ding? Mr. Murphy: There were six issues outstanding at tha t time. Mr. Storie: Wh en final offer selection was applied for th ere were a numb er of out sta nding issues. Yet somehow ag reement between the parties was reached . Why does tha t happen?

Why in your opinion can FOS be useful and in your experience has been useful in bringing the parties together and concl uding what we all want at this comm ittee-the Premier (Mr. Filmon) can ind icate if he wants some thin g else-but a successful set of negotia tions. Mr. Murphy: In all of the case s, aft er the appl ica tion for final offer selection, we ha ve made it a point to com munic ate with the employer, ind icate tha t we are prepared to meet at any time to sit down and talk about the issues. In the case of the R.

M. of Da uphin , when it finally went into the selection hearing, I think the parties between themselves had reached agreement on four of the outstanding issues. With the aid of the selector, the other two were reached and ag reed to between the parties. Mr. Storie: Mr.

Chairma n, one of the thin gs tha t we have said, not only we, but people who ha ve studied the use of final offer selection in other jurisdict ion s, was tha t final offer selection forces the parties to focus on the outstanding issues and see if there is a way to resolve them, because neither one of the parties wants to be ca ught with their pants down, in effect, ha ve to go back to their respective parties and say, we put a final offer on the table tha t was just not acce ptab le, tha t the object is to get as clo se together and make as reasonable a proposal as is possible.

In your opinio n, and this is again ask ing for an opin ion, in tha t process of narr owing you objectiv es, is there any danger from 148 the union 's point of view of havi ng the selector choose the other party's proposal? *

(1025) Mr. Murphy: Our experience has sho wn tha t on the outstan ding issues, when it gets down to putting your final position to the selector, when you in fact look at the final posit ions , although they were not communic ated to either side before the y were commun icated to the select or, and when they are commun icated to the selector, he then gives each party a copy of the other party's final position, you see often tha t positions are not tha t far apart. At tha t point usually another meeting will resolve it. Mr.

Storie: As I read you rig ht, wha t hap pens is tha t both par ties- there tends to be an un written understan ding of what is a reasonable solution, and tha t in final offer selection, when the moment of decision comes for either party to ask the selector to decide, is it A or B, the parties tend to start sa ying, yes, well, we are on common ground here in most of these cases and we can resolve this. Mr. Murphy: That has been my experience. Yes. Mr. Chairman: Are there any other questions for the presenter? Mr. Storie: Mr. Murphy, we ha ve a $64,000 question.

Wh y are the Government and Liberals trying to do away with final offer selection? Mr. Murphy: I guess the onl y way I can ans wer is, wha t you read in the paper, tha t No. 1, they see it as a tool that ham pers mana gement. That would be the onl y reason I could see the Government or the Liberals want ing to remove final offer selection, is to take a valua ble tool away from the workers and give tha t much mo re power to management when it come s to negotia ting a collect ive ag reement, especially as it affects small bargai ning agents. Mr.

Storie: We find it very interesting tha t tha t could be the view of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or the Members of the Li beral Par ty when there are no businesspeople here toda y to tell us why we should not cont inue to use final offer selection in the Province of Manitob a. Mr. Ryzebol, who is from Westfair Foods, SuperVal u, who is one of the most vi rulent ant i-labour individua ls I ha ve ever met, did not come forward. The Mini ster of Labour (Mrs. Ham mond) , to my knowledge, has asked one simple question to presenters about the use of fina l offer selection.

Th ey have no intention of defending their ac tio ns, none- Mr. Chairman: Order . Mr. Storie, I want to remind you tha t you must keep your questioning pertaining to the presenter's views or the presenter' s-order. The questions to the presenter shou ld be questions for clarification, not sta tements. Mr. Storie. Mr. Storie: Thank you, Mr. Chai rperson. I apolog ize if I overstepped the bounds. I was att empting to get

Saturday, February 24, 19 90 clarification from the presenter as to his views of why this legislation was before us. Obviously I would like to be able to use tha t inf orma tion from presenters and from the public in our conti nuing arguments to convince the Liberals and the Cons ervatives tha t this course of act ion is not good for labour relations in the Provi nc e of Manitoba. lt is not good for the provinc e, and it is going to contribute to strikes. My final question I guess, Mr.

Murphy-there are other presenters here toda y-a nd tha t is, in your experience to da te with final offer selection, can you see any justification for an attempt to repeal final offer selection when th ere is a sunset provision in the legislation which will al low the province to con tinue this experiment in labour relations activity for a period of another th ree years? Is there any thing tha t is so obviously wrong with final offer selection tha t it should not be allo wed to continue so we can assess it aft er a full five-year period? Mr.

Murphy: In my view, the legislation has been av aila ble for over two years. lt has less than th ree years to run. My experience with the legislation is that it works and it works well. lt brings the parties together and it produces reasonable settlements when the only other alt ernative may in fact be a strike. In my opinio n, this legislation should remain until the suns et provision, which is less than th ree years, because it works well. *

(1030) Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Murphy. Simply to deal first off with the allegat ion by my colleague on the comm ittee tha t somehow we had not spoken to the operating engi neers, I believe Mr. Hopkie is the president, is he not, of the operating engineers, and if I am not mistaken, Local 901? Mr. Murphy: Yes, Mr. Hopkie is the president. Mr. Edwards: Thank you. I ha ve had occa sion to speak with Mr. Hopki e, and I am sure he will confi rm that. I ha ve not had the opportunity to speak to you personally, Mr. Murphy, but I as sume tha t Mr.

Ho pkie as well is fami liar with these various times it has been used by the operating engineers. I ha ve spoken to him and enjoyed my meetings with him . Mr. Murphy, you have indic ated that the municipalit ies liked the use of final offer selection or felt tha t it worked for them as well on these cases. Was tha t wha t I am to take from your presenta tion? Mr. Murphy: I did not say tha t the muni cipalit ies liked the use of final offer selection. I said tha t the relations ha ve improved in both cases where the selector ha s actu ally made a decision.

In all of the cases a negotiated settlement was reached before a selector made a decisio n. Mr. Edwards: When you say relations ha ve improved, obviously tha t is from your perspective. You are no t speaking here toda y for the municipalitie s with respect to tha t concl usion. 14 9 Mr. Murphy: In the case of the Ru ral Municipal ity of Springfield, we ha ve sat down and concluded our second collective agreement without the use of final offer sel ection, and we ha ve had a num ber of joint conf erence commit tees.

My feelings from deal ing with the committee of council and the full counc il, and for a fi rst time being inv ited to their Ch ristma s party, tha t relations have improved. Mr. Edwards: lt is ama zing wha t Ch ristma s parties can do, Mr. Chairman. I certai nly enjoy being inv ited to them.-(interjection) -In fact, Mr. Ploh man, you missed it yesterday, but the Building Construction Trades had a Chris tima s party at which myself and Dr. Patterson were there. You certai nly were no t, as well as any other Member of your caucus.

We had occa sion to meet a lot of the prominent- An Honourable Member: Chri stmas parties could solve all your problems. Mr. Edwards: Well, it is a place, Mr. Plohma n, to do the kind of discussion tha t your col league has harped on as us not doing. lt is the kind of in formal discus sions which can educate both sides. Mr. Murphy, I take it from your la st comment tha t obviously tho se are your feelings. I do not kn ow. We ha ve 107 presenters. I will look forward to hea ring from the municipaliti es if the y are pleased with that.

I assume tha t if they ha ve been pleased with the process, they will come forward to the comm ittee and tell us tha t. I do not see them listed yet. There is certai nl y room to add on to the list. Mr. Murphy, it was suggested to myself by one of your brothers in the union movement, the head of the telecommunicat ions un ion, Mr.

Ha les (pho netic)- I do not kno w if you kno w him, it is a relatively new union tha t one thing we might consider migh t be to establi sh the same right to go to final offer selection on the part of the employer, tha t is, go directly to the Labour Board to ask for the final offer selection right. I have canvassed tha t with the head of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, with some of your brothers yesterday who appeared before us, and they ha ve consistently recoiled from tha t suggestion and ind icated th at would not be acc eptable to them in any way, shape or form.

I wonder if you might comment on tha t, in particular because I no te that the St. Clements' case was a case in which, I believe, the employer made the application for final offer. lt was not in fact the uni on tha t had gone to get final offer selection. I may be wrong about th at, maybe you can correct me. I would like a comment as to Mr. Hale s' suggestion which I quite clearly perceive to be very dama ging to the in terests of workers. Mr. Murphy: I do not kn ow Mr. Hale s. With regard to the Rural Mun icipality of St. Clements, it was the union tha t made the appli ca tion.

The selector's decision was in fa vour of the munici pality in tha t case. lt is my un derstan din g tha t the union and the employer both ha ve the right now to apply to the Labour Board, and on ly the workers ha ve the right to choose. I feel tha t is the fair way.

Saturday, February 24, 19 90 Mr. Edwards: Just to clar ify, the suggestion by Mr. Hales was tha t the employer no t ha ve to seek the ratificat ion of the workers, that the employer go directly to the Labour Board. I take it from your response tha t would be totally una cceptable to Local 901. Mr. Murphy: To the bargai ning un its on behalf of which we ha ve used final offer selection, I think they ha ve made the decision, and they are quite capable of making the decision when th ey ha ve a report on negotiations.

I feel tha t they should retain tha t decision-making over the use of final offer selection and not the union being able to implement it solely or ma nagement being a ble to implement it solely. Mr. Edwards: Aside from this St. Clements case and the many other cases in which you ha ve been inv olved where the union has asked to go to final offer selection, can you ind icate what the ave rage level of support has been amon gst workers when it has been asked for and recommended by the negotiating team? Mr.

Murphy: In the vast ma jority of cases, the negotia ting commit tee consists of at least a quar ter or sometimes half of the bargaining unit. So they ha ve fi rst-hand experience with the items tha t are on the table and with the position of the employer's negotiati ng comm ittee. In the vast majority of cases there has been a ma jorit y-ob viously there has been a ma jority because we ha ve used final offer selection, but in many cases it has been unani mous. Mr.

Edwards: I wonder if you are fa miliar-! gather from hearing your presentat ion and thinking about the employers involv ed tha t generally the bargai ning units are fai rly small in the se cases. Is th at a cor rect assu mption with respect to th ese? lt ma y vary, but generally are the bargaining units relatively small? Mr. Murphy: Yes, the bargaining unit s are general ly between five and 20 employees. Mr. Edwards: I wonder if you are fam iliar, Mr. Murphy, with a decision rendered by Mr.

Chapma n, who I kn ow you will be fam iliar with because he was a selector in many of the ones in which you were in volv ed in. lt was a case in volvi ng the Un icity Taxi company , and the Ma nitoba Food and Commercial Workers-1 appreciate you were not inv olved in tha t case -where he came to the conclusion tha t final offe r selection had not worked. He was not pleased with the fact tha t he was locked into the final offer mechanism specific ally , that he ha d received two final offe rs, both of which were unreasonable. He felt tied and bound obviously to make a decision, but regretfully.

I wonder if you ha ve any com ments on tha t case, given tha t you are ind ica ting tha t it can do nothing but assist parties in working out their dif ferences. Mr. Murphy: I am not personally aware, I do not ha ve a copy of tha t decision, I ha ve no comment really on tha t decision. Mr. Edwards: Thank you , Mr. Murp hy , for you r presentation here tod ay. 150 Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Murphy, from what you ha ve sa id, do you believe that wha t some might call a th reat of FOS has promoted negotia tion and movement by both sides? The fact tha t FOS looms. Mr.

Murphy: Well, I would not say it was a th reat in each case through the process of negotia tions. Both parties were aware tha t it was avai lable, and in the majority of cases where we have applied we have ended up with a negotia ted settlement. Whether the employers perceive tha t as a th reat or not, I do not kno w. *

(1040) Mr. Plohma n: In your opm1on, this is fol lowing somewha t on what Mr. Storie (Fiin Flon) asked earlier, is there an evident desire by both parties to ap pear reasonable because FOS is th ere? Mr. Murphy: In our cases and in my experience where FOS has been applied for, the majority of cases we ha ve reac hed a negotia ted collectiv e ag reement tha t was fai r and consid ered fai r by both sides. Mr. Plohman: Yes, tha t may ha ve been coi ncid ental or it ma y ha ve been a major factor .

Do you think tha t FOS has played a major role in the resolution of the disputes in all of the 13 cases tha t you ha ve mentioned here today? Mr. Murphy: There is no doubt tha t we reached agreement because if we did not a selector would fina lly ma ke the decision, and it brought both parties to put, as their final position, fair and reasonable proposals on the table, at which time then we conc luded a collect ive agreement. Mr. Plohman: So you would say then that it did play a role, the fact tha t FOS was an option you were leading to? Mr. Murphy: Yes, it did play a major role. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, Mr.

Murphy said earlier tha t he thought his opinion was perhaps tha t the Liberals and the Con servatives think it might ham per management, so tha t is why they are bringing this fo rward. I mean, we are trying to explain the un explainable. Do you think FOS do es ham per ma nagement and tha t removing it would give more powers to management? Mr. Murphy: I think the removal of FOS, in my experience, would make management more determined to get the change s they initia lly asked for and would cause more strikes, particularly among the bar gaining un its we deal with. Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Murphy, do you think strikes would ha ve made win ners of ma nagement? Mr. Murphy: I do not think strikes would ha ve ma de win ners out of mana gement or the union. I think in the communi ties tha t I refer to, strikes would ha ve cau sed

Saturday, February 24, 19 90 bitter feelings and la st ing feeli ngs . A negoti ated settlement is preferable in both to tha t. Mr. Plohman: You would not say th ere would be any winne rs in a strike situation in th ose situa tions? Mr. Murphy: No, there would be no winne rs. Mr. Plohman: Wh at you are really sayi ng is tha t FOS ha s contri buted to improving communic ation and forced both sides to com mun icate, which ha s led to better relations and av oided the situa tions where there would be no win ners? Mr.

Murphy: Yes, FOS has contri buted to com mun icat ions and in fact settlements of col lective agreements. Mr. Plohman: One la st question, and again an opinion, Mr. Murphy . I no te the R.M .s and Mr. Edwards mentioned the fact tha t they are not registered to appear here, and there are 13 rural munici palit ies. They may ha ve many dif ferent reasons why they are not appearing here, but have you suggested to them tha t they might want to come forward and tell of their experiences here? Mr. Murphy: No, I ha ve not com mun icated on their presenting a brief to this commit tee. Mr.

Plohman: Nor ha ve they com mun icated to you tha t they might be interested in it? Have they ever commun icated to you tha t once FOS is gone, we will not ha ve to go through this kind of mess, or any com ments like that? Have you had positive com ments from them? I realize this is second-hand evidence, but they are not here to appear. Mr. Murphy: In the case of the more recent co llective agreements tha t were reached where FOS ap plica tions tha t were made December 1, 1989, in the cases tha t we ha ve reached an agreement, the re has been no discussion whether they would appear.

The settlements were reasonable, and both parties accepted them. Wh en a settlement is reached tha t both parties ag ree to, I think both parties are sat isfied. Mr. Plohman: Just to conclude this then, would you consider asking them or suggesting to them tha t th ey might want to put their views forward at the committee? Mr. Murphy: Most of my negotiations ha ve been with indiv idual commit tees which consist of two or th ree cou ncil members and possibly a reeve. Any suggestion would ha ve to go before council. I ha ve not made tha t suggestion. Hon. Jim Ernst (Mi ni ster of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.

Murphy, thank you for your presentation. Can you tell me how long your union ha s operated in Ma nitoba? Mr. Murphy: Before my time. I think 1958. Mr. Ernst: A considerable length of time then, Mr. Chairma n. Can you tell me, being as how FOS has been 151 in force for some two years, wha t you did for all of the time before FOS came in and how labour settlements had been reached prior to FOS being implemented? Mr. Murphy: Well, in a num ber of negotiations there ha ve been strikes. They ha ve been resolved by strike if it got down to issues tha t were not acc eptable to either party.

There ha ve been strikes in the past, and since the implementa tion of FOS our uni on personally ha ve not been inv olved in any strikes. Mr. Ernst: Mr. Cha irman, Mr. Murphy before FOS came in, appro xima tely how many cont racts would you bargain for? How many of tho se resulted in a strike? Mr. Murphy: I guess the total number of col lective agreements-and I do not ha ve the exact number of collectiv e ag reements-would be approxima tely 40 .

In my experience, and I ha ve been a business rep for five years so tha t would be th ree years without FOS, there has been a total of fou r strikes in the th ree years previous. Mr. Ernst: Tha t is fine, Mr. Chairman . Thank you very much. Mr. Edwards: I just ha ve one more question, Mr. Murphy, tha t occurred to me. You ha ve been involv ed in a number of cases in which FOS ha s been used, stemming right back to Jan uary 1988, when it first came in. How many col lective agreements ha ve you negotia ted th at ha ve not used FOS? Mr. Murphy: About the same num ber. Mr.

Edwards: So roughly 50 percent of the time FOS ha s been used in your experience with respect to unions or locals you are in vo lved in sinc e Janua ry 1,'88. Mr. Murphy: Well, my experience is that FOS has been used twice. lt has been applied for in a number of cases, but it ha s been used twice, onc e for the union and one decision for the employer. Mr. Edwards: Ok ay, but we are getting mix ed up then in simple terminology. lt has been applied for as a means of dealing with disputes in 50 percent of the times since Janu ary 1 ,'88. Mr.

Murphy: lt has been applied for because th ere are dead lin es, and the only way you could use FOS if you failed to meet the fi rst dead lines is after a strike which we did not want to happen. Mr. Edwards: I am sorry, I do not mean to belabour th is. Let us use the word applied for. lt ha s been applied for in 50 percent of the cases which you ha ve been in volved in sinc e Janua ry 1, 1988. Mr. Murphy: Yes, it ha s been applied for in 50 percent of the cases and the vast major ity ha ve resulted i n negotia ted settlements of tho se collective agreements. Mr. Chairman: Thank you , Mr.

Murphy , for your presentat ion this morning. Oh, just a minute. Mr. Patterson.

Saturday, February 24, 19 90 * (1050 ) Mr. Allan Patterson {Radisson): Mr. Chairp erson, I und erstand with the small unit you ha ve and the clo se relationships within the co mmunit y th ere would be the trau ma, you might say, on both sides when a strike takes place, but given this and what you put forth was the positive results of this process in the ab sence of this process the final offer tool is alwa ys th ere, al ways has been. How many of th ese, forget the 13, the one tha t was dismissed, but how many of these 12 would use final offer arbitration? Mr. Murphy: I am not sure if I understand.

You mean on a volunt ary basis? Mr. Patterson: A volun tary basis. Given tha t you have had what you say is this positive experience on both sides presumab ly. Mr. Murphy: lt has been a positive experience as a result of FOS. Before FOS it has never been discussed. Mr. Patterson: Mr. Chai rperson, given the experience of th ese 12, and the assu mption tha t this particular final offer mech anism is not ava ila ble, how many of the 12 do you think would voluntarily invoke the procedure -(interjection) -in the future, yes? Mr.

Murphy: In the ones tha t we ha ve had occa sion to negotia te to collective agreements, we ha ve reached a col lective agreement before any dead line, so there was no discussion about using a selector if negotiations broke down. One of the reasons is tha t the legislation is av ai lable. Mr. Patterson: Yes, but if it was ag reed by the two parties ini tially tha t, at some particu lar time tha t they mutually set out, if a settlement was no t reached it would then go to final offer, why would the two parties not then use the procedure? Mr.

Murphy: Well, my only comment is that before the implementation of the FOS legislation it was never dis cu ssed . lt never came up as an

article to be negotia ted into the col lectiv e agreement. Si nce the legislation has been avai lable both parties kno w it is avai lab le, so there is no need to put it into col lective ag reement. Mr. Patterson: Mr. Storie mentioned the use in other jurisdictions. Wh at other jurisdictions in Canada ha ve this? Mr. Murphy: I am not fam iliar with that. Mr. Patterson: How many other jurisdictions ha ve this particular procedure?

Are you aware tha t the other jurisdictions are in the Un ited States and prima rily in the public sector where, cont rary to our greater degree of freedom here in Canada , they do not ha ve the right to strike and there is mandator y arbitration and it is in the public sector, where the process of arbi tration is man dat ory, tha t this particular special type of arbitration has been used? The other jurisdictions 152 referred to la rgely are not in the private sector. lt is in use where the employees are denied the right to ha ve a work stoppage, and the employers also, of course. Mr. Chairman: Mr.

Storie, did you ha ve one final question? Mr. Storie: Just a final question. The use of final offer selection in the cases tha t Mr. Murphy had been talking about are actually public sector because it is between the munici palit ies and the operating engineers, but the fact is tha t in Man itoba of course, Mr. Murphy, other groups ha ve access to arbitration and I am not sure wh ether Mr. Pa tterson or the Li beral Party are suggesting th at other working people in Ma nitoba should not have access to other than strike.

That sounds like wha t his argument is, that th ey should only ha ve the right to strike and no other tool even if it proves to be beneficial in preventing strikes. I guess the question is, the Manitoba Federation of Labou r and other unions in the Provi nc e of Manitoba believe tha t this is a better option, tha t havi ng this in the negotiating kit serves a va luable purpose. In your opinio n, is there any reason why this kind of a tool should not be avai lable in Manitoba even though it may not be offered to all unioni zed employees in other jurisdictions? Is tha t a reason to exclude it? Mr.

Murphy: lt is my und erstanding tha t both the Manitoba Federation of Labour and the Canadian Federation of Labou r fav our the retention of FOS as an alterna tive to strikes and lockouts. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Patterson, do you ha ve one final question? Mr. Patterson: Just as a matter of curiosity, Mr. Murphy, I note tha t two of the applica tions were settled by the selector in fact mediati ng a sati sfactory agreement. Was it the same selector in both cases? Mr. 11\!lurphy: lt was the same selector in both cases. An Honourable Member: Was it Jack Chapman? Mr. Murphy: lt was Ja ck Champman. Mr.

Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy, for your-Mr. Patterson, was there any thing else? Thank you, Mr. Murphy, for your presentat ion this morni ng. Mr. Murphy: Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Our next presenter is Ms. Buffie Burrell. Is she here? Mr. Ken Cr awford, Ms. Linda Fletcher Ms. Linda Fletcher has advised the Clerk tha t she will be here next week. Mr. lrvine Ferris, he will also be here next week. Mr. Lou Harries-oka y. Do you ha ve a written presentation, Mr. Harries? Mr. Lou Harries (Private Citizen): No, ! do not. Mr. Chairman: Please proceed. Mr. Harries: I am a dispatcher at Un icit y Taxi.

We of cou rse used final offer solection. Mr. Edwards refe rred

Saturday, February 24, 19 90 to that, I think, earlier. We were faced by an employer who brought 43 conc essions to the bargai ning tab le. Of course we could never ha ve ag reed to wha t th ey were off ering. Our alterna tive was to strike for 60 da ys and then to apply for final offer selection. If th ere was no final offer selection, there could never ha ve been a settlement of this strike. The company , I am sure, was att empting to do away with our union and, without final offer selection, would have succeeded. I think we would ha ve been on strike forever.

I feel very strongly tha t final offer selection should be retain ed because in a case such as Un icity Taxi there could not be a settlement without it. Mr. Edwards said the selector thought tha t neither side's presentation was fair. I think it is clear to me tha t the uni on's side was very reasonable; the company was not. The negotiations tha t led to thi s strike la sted for over a year, which meant that during that year there was no wage incr ease or any in crease in benefits of any kind, which of course could not be consid ered by the selector when he made his selection.

Without final offer selection th ere could never ha ve been a settlement of the Un icity strike. Mr. Chairman: Is tha t your presentation, Mr. Ha rries? Mr. Harries: I think so, yes. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Edwards you had - Mr. Edwards: Mr. Storie can go ahead. Mr. Storie: Mr. Harries, ho w many members were there in your bargaining unit? Mr. Harries: Approxima tely 24. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ha rries, I wonder if you could wait till I add ress you before you an swer the questions so tha t the mikes can be turned on. Mr. Harries: Sure. •

(1100) Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairman, so th ere were probably 24 people aff ected. You ind icated to the committee tha t you had negotia ted or attempted to negotia te for approxima tely a year prior to having to make a decision to go on strike. I am wondering if you can ind icate what the tenor of th ose negotiating meetings was before or during tha t one-year period. Mr. Harries: The com pany would co !T'e to the bargaining table and refuse to make any mo vements of any kind at any time. Mr. Storie: Mr. Chai rperson, we as sume tha t Un icity had its reasons for presenting the case as it did.

To your kno wledge, has the operations of Un icity changed in any dramatic way sinc e th e selector made his decision? 153 Mr. Harries: No, not tha t I am aware of. Mr. Storie: So, in other words, the attempt to force conc essions on working people, the attempt to create an atmosphere where a strike was the only alterna tive, a long protracted strike, really would have acc omplished nothing in terms of the operations of the company, other than a bitter strike. Mr.

Harries: I think it is int eresting that, during the cou rse of the strike, the people who worked for the company worked under the terms of our expired col lective agreement. Mr. Storie: And you are firmly of the belief tha t if final offer selection had not been in pla ce we would have had 24 people wal king the picket line for da y aft er day, week aft er week, and perhaps month after month? Mr. Harries: Absolutely. Mr. Storie: Wha t in your opinion would tha t have served anyone in the Province of Ma nitoba? Mr.

Harries: Well, as I say, the people who worked while we were on strike worked und er the terms of our expired agreement, so 1 think the reality is tha t we could ha ve contin ued to work while we were waiting for the selector's agreement, if tha t had been avai lable to us. There would have been no interruption in services, there would ha ve been no problems tha t naturally flow from people being on strike, and management and the union na turally become antagonistic towards each other and they stop hearing wha t each other is sayi ng, and perhaps in tha t mood the y could never find an ag reement. Mr.

Storie: Well, the unfor tuna te fact of it is, Mr. Chai rperson, tha t this happens, and it happens too often. Final offer selection I think was intr oduced as a tool to prevent tha t. I am wondering wha t has ha ppened sinc e the selector made his decision, whether you can ind icate wha t has happened in terms of the next set of negotia tion s, a general ind ica tion of the relationsh ip currently. Has it improved, deteriorated? Ho w would you describe it . Mr. Harries: Well, the company is run by a board of directors tha t is elected yearly.

The group tha t was so anta gonis tic toward the union is no longer the board of directors. The new board of directors seem to be much more reasonab le. Our agreement has expired and we ha ve had several meetings with them, and we ha ve again applied for final offer selection because you must apply within the windo w, but at the same time we are very close to a negotia ted agreement. Mr.

Storie: So final offer selection ha s allo wed us in the Province of Ma nitoba to move from a situation where there was in all likeliho od going to be a protra cted, disruptive, bitter strike by at least 24 members of the union, a disruption of service to a point where an agreement was reached by a selector, a selector ma de a decision, where negotiations are now proceeding on a more reasonable basis, with the

Saturday, February 24, 19 90 likeliho od of a negotia ted agreement, and in your opinion final offer selection had something to do with tha t. Mr. Harries: Yes, absolute ly. Without final offer selection, of course there would ha ve been no union members to enter into this round of negotiations in my view. Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairp erson, perhaps tha t is the objectiv e of the Members of the Gov ernment, the Members of the Liberals. Perhaps they are not too concerned about unio n-busting activi ty. I guess my question is th at the Member for St. Ja mes (Mr.

Edwards) and the Liberals seem to want to cha racterize any gains made by wo rking people as too onerous or as un reasonable. Perhaps you can tell us wha t gains , if any , you made thr ough the selector's decision, if you would care to sh are tha t with the comm ittee. Mr. Harries: The settlement was, I believe, a $150 signing bonus for each of the employees for one year, plus cost of living and the Ma nitoba Food and Commercial Workers dental plan, basi cally . Mr.

Storie: So in the opinion of the Li beral Par ty, in the opinion of those who oppose this legislation, $150 per year, less than 50 cents per day, the right to a dental plan and cost of living is unreasonabl e. This is the defi nition and obviously your employer believed tha t at the time. Do you think tha t most Man itobans would find that an un reasonable selector's decision? Mr. Harries: I do not think so, no. I thought it was fairly reasonable. Mr. Storie: Mr.

Harries, you will not be surprised to kn ow tha t what we ha ve heard from working people as they came before the comm ittee are stories similar to yours, although perhaps not quite as dramat ic, but they ha ve left I think the una lterable opinion tha t fina l offer selection is working and perhaps you can share with the comm ittee your view on why the Li berals and the Con servat ives, the Gov ernment are att empting to repeal final offer selection. Wha t is in it for them? Mr. Harries: I ha ve no idea why th ey want to repeal it.

I think it is very good legislation, good for all of the people of Manitoba act ually . Stri kes or lockouts are elimina ted and I think that is a worthwhile objective. Mr. Storie: Mr.

Harries, would you care to share with the commit tee your opinion on why fina l offer selection is such an onerous burden, when it ap pears from all the evide nce we ha ve seen to be a reasona ble alterna tive; why, if it is so un reasona ble in the view of some , ther e are no, and I state, no ind ivid ual corpora tions here to present a case agains t fina l offer selection ; why are they not here telling us, explaining to us, explaining to the comm ittee, to the Go vernment, why this is so urgent tha t it be repeal ed? Mr.

Harries: I ha ve no idea why they are not here. think probably for a lot of people, for Un ic ity Taxi for ins tanc e, there were tho se who were happy th ere was final offer selection and tha t it prevail ed. 154 Mr. Storie: Mr. Chai rperson, I have no further questions. I guess I can only say it is our belief tha t the Cham ber of Commerce ha ve a deal with Mr. Filmon and his Go vernment and the Liberal Party and th ey are not going to use any logic when it comes to the debate on this particular question.

Be tha t as it may, thank you for your presentation and providing us with some insight into another example of final offer selection as working. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairma n, fi rst of all, I just want to enlig hten the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) and perhaps his col league, the Member for Da uphin (Mr. Plohma n). I ha ve tried before and I will try agai n. They might want to review Hansa rd. I do not kno w if they were here, I believe it was Thu rsday nig ht, when Mr.

Grant Mitchell, who is a la wyer, in fact the la wyer for the Un ited Food and Com mercial Worker s - (int erjection) -Well, he certai nly ha s been-spoke on this issue. He has rep resented many un ions in this province. If I am wrong abo ut the Unit ed Food and Commercial Workers, he has certai nly represented lots of un ions in my personal experience. He said, on balanc e, tha t this was not a piece of legislation we should keep. Th ose are his words. I suggest to the Member for Flin Flon he might want to read Han sard on that. lt is also in teresting, Mr.

Ha rries, and I want to take you back to tha t Un icity Taxi situation because you ha ve ind icated tha t you feel the employer's position was unreasonable. In fact, the selector, Mr. Chap man, who has done probably the majority of the selections he has been the appoi nted selector-Mr. Cha pman ind icated in his award, and I am going to quote from a page of tha t award, I am sure you are familiar with it. He said tha t he had advised the parties tha t he did not think tha t either final offer was, in the words of the legislat ion, fair and reasonable.

He went on to explain his regret at having to make a decision und er the legislation at tha t time. He also ind icated that the employer in 1987 had a deficit of cl ose to $200,000 and in 1988, as at the year ending September 30 , had a deficit of $220,000.00. * (1 110) So he did acce pt tho se; he did not accept the absolute plea of poverty tha t the employer put forward, but he did accept tho se facts, th at they had lost money two years in a row.

He went on to obviously choose the employees', the union's, fina l offer because it was the less un reasonable , but he did find that both were un reasona ble fina l offers. I want to ask you, going from tha t-knowing the relationship you have had with the employer, which I believe ha s been hostile for some time-whether or not you would agree with Mr. Hales, who is the President of the Telecommunications Employees Associa tion of Mani toba.

He ha s suggested tha t wha t we might do is offer the option to the employer to go directly to fi na l offer and get it rat ified by the Labour Board rather tha n ha ve the employees vote on it. Gi ven your partic ular relationship with tha t employer, I assume tha t tha t would be very un accepta ble to you, Mr. Harri es.

Saturday, February 24, 19 90 Mr. Harries: Of course, I think tha t anyone would like to negotia te their own agreement across th e table with the employer and the employees present. However, if tha t does not succeed, I think it is very useful to ha ve a mechanism for settling the dispute without having to resort to a strike or a lockout. Mr. Edwards: I und erstand that. The question was, however, Mr.

Harr ies, whether or not you would agree, from your perspective, tha t it might be appropriate, in the words of one of your brothers in the un ion movement, to extend the same right to an employer to final offer selection, which would be to ha ve it ratified without being voted on by the employees. Would you agree with tha t? Mr. Harries: I am not sure tha t I would. Mr. Edwards: Mr.

Ha rries, one other question, you mentioned and I think your statement was tha t you saw it as an option to go for a strike, knowing tha t after 60 da ys final offer selection could be appl ied for, and I believe you ind icated tha t you had had a much lengthier strike in the past . Mr. Harries: No, I did not ind icate that. Mr. Edwards: I am sorry then, if that- An Honourable Member: You are not in a courtroom , you kno w, lead ing the witness. Mr. Edwards: lt is interesting the Member for Da uphin (Mr. Plohman) talks about lea ding the wit ness.

If anybody checked the record, it has been force fed since Day 1, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to ask Mr. Ha rries, if you can explain that, wha t thinking was done, I kno w tha t the collectiv e agreement ac tually ran out, I believe December 30,'87. You started negotiating and I believe on June 30, a strike com menced. Wha t was the thinkin g leading up to the commencing of tha t strike with respect to the potential use of final offer selection after 60 da ys?

Was it seen as a real option, something tha t could be looked to and in the event tha t the strike did not bring the parties to some agreement? Mr. Harries: I think it would be important for you to understand tha t the company was off ering to reduce coffee breaks, reduce lun ch periods, reduce the weekly hours of work from 40 to 36. They were off ering to reduce the number of sta tutory holi days. They were off ering to reduce vacat ions with pay. The list is almo st end less. They pretty much offered to reduce everything tha t was in the col lective agreement. Mr.

Edwards: I am sure tha t is obviously why there was not a settlement and I am sure th ose are some of the reasons why their final offer was no t selected. My question is, what was the thinking of the union lead ing up to the decision to strike on June 30? To what effect did the final offer windo w, 60 da ys into the strike, ha ve on tha t decision to strike? Mr. Harries: I think it was clear to the employer at all times tha t th ey could ha ve settled the strike for cost 155 of living and a dental plan. I am sure tha t the employer was aware of that.

They ch ose, ho wever, never even to consider taking one of their items off the table during all of tho se negotia tions. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, maybe I am not making myself clear. With respect to the details of wha t led up to the strike and ultima tely final offer selection, tho se detai ls are in some measure recounted by Mr. Chapman. My question is, lead ing up to the decision to strike on June 30, 1988, wha t effect did the existence of tha t option of fina l offer selection, after 60 da ys into the strike, ha ve on your decision to strike?

Was it something that you said you took into acco unt and you looked at and sai d, if we go on strike, after 60 da ys if we do not like it we can go for fin al offer selection? You had said earlier in your state ment tha t you saw it as an option to strike because there was final offer selection after 60 days. I just want tha t clarified, and if you can tell us wha t your thinking was lead ing up to tha t decision to strike. I do not kno w, do you und erstand my question? Mr. Harries: Absolutely.

Our thinking was tha t after our la st meeting, the mediator broke off and no progress had been made, we had no other alterna tive than to strike, because obviously we could not accept wha t they were off ering us. Then we could apply for final offer selection, which we cho se to do, reluctantly I think. We would ha ve much preferred to negotia te an agreement with the emplo yer. How ever, it was impossible. Mr. Plohman: Just to clarif y, to follo w up on that, Mr. Harr ies, the reason tha t you did not go the FOS route ini tially was because you missed the dead lin e and so you are into a strike situa tion?

Was tha t it? Mr. Harries: Correct. Mr. Plohman: So unlike wha t Mr. Edwards is att empting to put on the record , tha t somehow you thought you cou ld ha ve it both ways, have a strike and then have FOS bail you out after that, tha t was no t the think ing at all, was it? Mr. Harries: No, it never would have been our choice to strike. lt was all tha t was left to us. Mr. Plohman: So in fact th at allega tion is completely wrong and, in fact you would agree that should be rejected as the kind of think ing tha t was permeating the thinking of the union at tha t particular time? Mr.

Harries: Absolutely. lt was our in tention to bargai n a new contra ct. lt was our seventh ag reement or something. We had had one very shor t strike in the cont ract before that, but it was for two weeks, and it was not any where near as substantial a disagreement as this one was. Mr. Plohman: Just to reiterate on the record here, the previous year during tha t period of strike and waiti ng for a settlement, you were working on the previous agreement. Did you get any retroactive rais e for tha t year tha t you went without an incr ease?

Saturday, February 24, 19 90 Mr. Harries: We did not. Mr. Plohman: So you went a whole year without any improvement in benefits wh atsoev er? Mr. Harries: For approxi ma tely 13 months, I think. Mr. Plohman: That is over a year. Thank you, Mr. Ha rries. Now Mr. Edwards and the Cons ervatives think it is unreasonable, I would assu me, and onerous tha t you went with no inc rease for over a year, and then when Mr. Chapman did make the decision , he said tha t he selected the better of two un reasonable final positions. I take it tha t Mr.

Edwards ag rees with that, and the Li berals, tha t $150 per year bonus, tha t a dental plan which amounts to about 0. 75 of a percent for wages, and the cost-of-living incr ease was unreasonable after going one year without any incr ease whats oever. Did Mr. Chapman tell you what he thought was unreasonable about your final position? Mr. Harries: I think Mr. Chap man ind icated tha t he could not consider the fact tha t th ere had been no agreement in place for tha t 13 months. All he could consider was he was imposing a one-year agreement.

The fact tha t we had not had any incr ease for 13 months was not a part of his deliberations. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, tha t would seem tha t would argue on the opposite side. He would ha ve thought under th e circu msta nces tha t your final proposal of $15 0 per year and the cost of living and a dental plan was not at all un reasonable. Did he tell you at any time, were you in formed either informally or formally wha t he felt as a selector was unreasonable about your final position? Was it this dental plan tha t was so onerous for the employer, or what was it? Do you kn ow? * (11 20) Mr.

Harries: I think possibly Mr. Edwards mentioned the fact tha t Un icity Taxi has been running a deficit, but what he did not mention is tha t they are self-funding. Of course they can ha ve a deficit or a surplus, it is their choice. Each taxi is owned by an indi vidual who pays a set amount for the dispatched service. They can raise or lower it; they control that. If th ey ha ve a deficit it is because they ha ve not raised that. I am not sure tha t Mr.

Chapman can consider that, how they came to their deficit If they deliberately underfunded then I do not kn ow that tha t is a part of -1 am sure tha t the reason that he chose the union's position possibly was because he recogn ized tha t they had deliberately underfunded . Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, he ch ose it because it was the least , in his words, unreasonable of the two and I would suggest was quite reasonable. I just want to ask you one other point for confirma tion.

Is it not the fact Un icity could apply to the Man itoba 156 taxi board for any incr eases in cost of operation as a result of a collectiv e agreement such as this for an incr ease in rates? Mr. Harries: Yes, of course. Mr. Plohman: Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Edwards, you had a final question. Mr. Edwards: I just wanted to clear up page 16, for my friend the Member for Da uphin (Mr. Plohman), the sta tement by Mr.

Chapman in your award was that, he says, similarly I could un derstand the union's final offer better if it requested simply the wage incr ease and had not requested the signing bonus and/or the dental plan. To th at extent I believe the union's request is unreasonable. Tha t was his sta tement, so it was tho se two issues, and I am sure you will remember tha t from the negotia tions, Mr. Ha rries.

The other point, I see you ha ve talke d about, you do not dispute tha t the employer in 1987 had lost $220,000 but simply seek to cast that as something which the y ha d control over, and my friend has suggested th ey could apply to the taxicab board , but Un icity Taxi does not run the taxi board . You are not suggesting tha t th ey could ha ve gone and demanded any thing from the taxi board . Tha t is not what you are suggesting, Mr. Ha rries, is it? Mr. Harries: No, I am merely suggesting tha t they can apply on a yearly, or more often basis, and they often do not, so I as sume they do not desire. Mr.

Edwards: Giv en tha t Mr. Chapman ha s been involv ed in the vast majority of these cases as an extremely experienced man in thi s area, you are not suggesting tha t Mr. Chapman was in any way wrong in this decisio n, are you? In particul ar, since he ch ose your offer, the union's offer, you are not suggesting tha t we should take as fic tion any thing written in this decis ion, are you, Mr. Ha rries? Mr. Harries: No, I am not suggesting you should take it as fic tion. I think you should kn ow tha t sinc e Un icit y funds itself it can present any financial picture it choo ses to.

I think also you should kn ow tha t cost of living and a dental plan and a $150 signing bonus are not unreasonable. Mr. Edwards: Well, tha t is my question. Mr. Chapman obviously felt they were. You ha ve taken the position tha t the emplo yer was being un reaso nable. He ultima tely ch ose yo ur offer, the union's offer. Are you sayi ng tha t when he says th at statement, tha t your offer was unreasonable, you are clearly sa ying everything you did was reasonable, everything the emp loyer did was un reason able? Is tha t what you are sayi ng? Mr. Harries: Are you sayi ng- Mr. Edwards: Mr.

Harr ies, let me make it cl ear- Mr. Harries: If the question was -was our employer un reasonable? -th en my an swer is yes, he certainl y was.

Saturday, February 24, 19 90 Mr. Edwards: And everything the union put forward was reasonable, cont rary to what Mr. Chapman found? Mr. Harries: I as sume the least unreasonable then becomes the most reasonable. Mr. Storie: Mr. Cha irperson, I am ha ving a little diff iculty foll owing the logic the Mem ber for St. Ja mes (Mr. Edwards) is using. I think Mr. Chapman obviously had an opportunit y, had an obliga tion to ch oose the most reasonable. The fact is that the union -and perhaps Mr.

Har ries can confirm this, I am sure this was discussed with the membership-the offer tha t was put on the table stood a ch ance of bei ng not selected. In fact , if Uni city would have tabled a more reasonable proposal , even this modest proposal cou ld ha ve been not selected. Your members could ha ve lost. Is tha t not a possibility? Mr. Harries: Of course, naturally when someone has to ma ke choice as thir d party th ey could make either choice. Mr. Storie: So what your membership did was to put down your bottom line. You sa id, this is the minimum; this is our la st position.

This is the minimum we can acce pt, and it was accepted . I guess the question from Mr. Edwards is, in your opinion, did Un icity not realize tha t by tabling an offer, tha t was completely unreasonable, th ey could lose? Mr. Harries: I am not sure I can speak for the people who were mana ging Un icity Taxi at tha t time. However, of cou rse what th ey tab led was comple tely unreaso nable. Mr. Storie: Mr. Chai rperson, final ly, Mr. Edwards is maintaining tha t Mr. Chapman was right, tha t this was unreasonable.

I am sure you cou ld bring forward at least 24 people and, I believe, th ousands of people more who would believe tha t your final proposal was very reasonable. Mr. Edwards may want to side with Mr. Chapman, tha t the cost-of-livi ng incr ease after no in crease for a year is unreasonable. I do not think most Ma ni tobans would. Mr. Chairman: Are there any other questions for Mr. Ha rries? If not, I want to thank you very much for your presentation this morning, Mr. Harr ies. Mr. Harries: Thank you. Mr. Chairman: I ha ve been informed we only have one presenter in the aud ience at this time, Mr.

Ron Cote, from page 4 of the presenters' list. Does the comm ittee wish to hear Mr. Cote at this time and see if there are any other presenters when this presenter is finished? Agreed. Please proceed. Mr. Ron Cote (Private Citizen): Go od morni ng- Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cote-is tha t how you prono unc e it? 157 Mr. Cote: Yes. Mr. Chairman: Please proceed. Mr. Cote: I speak toda y as a private cit izen and a unio n member. I do not have a formal presentation, no copies, just some no tes I ha ve taken. I am against the repeal of final offer selection. I work in the health care industry, namely St. Bon ifa ce Hospital .

Although we ha ve never been on strike, we ha ve gone down to the wire many times, ha ve come cl ose to such ac tion. With final offer selection I ha ve an alterna tive, a means where the well being of patients at the hospital would still be taken care of while an in dependent selector would settle the la st few remaining items, and choose either the union position or the management position.

Final offer selection offers me a substitute for the collective bargaining clima te tha t is ind uced by a strike th reat, in tha t each party stands to lose sign ificantly if th ey act unreasonably and each is therefore propelled to nego tia te in good fa ith towards a two-party settlement. lt would, in my opinion, spur both sides to reach their own agreement, deter both sides from in sisting on proposals which are clearly unreasonable, and provide a way to resolve disputes in an orderly and peaceful fa shion, and lead to better labour relations. * (1 130) I ha ve ha d the sad experience of wal king the picket lines with some of my brothers and sisters in the labour movement.

I ha ve walked on the SuperValu-Westfair strike, and also the Un icity Taxi picket line. In the Westfai r strike a lot of unpleasant situations arose on the line. Some of them were violent. Had final offer selection been in place, then all of th ose could ha ve been prevented. The strike lasted 125 days, which caus ed many hardsh ips for the picketers. In addition the strike was very costly, and I think tha t was very costly for both parties. With final offer select ion this strike would ha ve been over in 60 da ys if it had taken place at all. In the Un icity strike, as Mr.

Ha rries pointed out, fortuna tely final offer selection was in pla ce and the union members were back after 60 da ys of strike, a strike which would very likely ha ve gone much longer, causing more hardships for everyone inv olved. I firmly believe tha t final offer selection is working; I firmly believe tha t removing it would be a step backwa rds, for both the uni ons and companie s. I am stron gly opposed to the repeal of the final offer selection. That is all I ha ve to say. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Cote. Are th ere any questions for Mr. Cote? Mr. Storie. Mr. Storie: Mr.

Cote, thank you again for taking the time out of your day to present your views on final offer selection. You mentioned the strike at SuperVal u. I am wondering whether you believe tha t th ere is any of your memebership or anyone tha t you know who believes tha t wal king the picket line for two months and during tha t two months, the lost wages and lost income, is there anybody who belie ves th at can be recouped?

Saturday, February 24, 1990 Mr. Cote: No. Mr. Storie: So in your opinion the idea tha t somehow final offer selection might act ually prolong strikes, or create a situation where there are more prolonged strikes, is not a reasonable opinion. Mr. Cote: Could you repeat, in a way I can und erstand it. Mr. Storie: Mr. Chai rperson, yes, I will rephrase that.

There is some opinion amongs t the Li berals and the Conservatives tha t final offer selection tends to prolong strikes, because of the 60-day provisions, tha t in fact there may be people who are prepared to walk out for 60 da ys, basically to improve their chanc es to create an atmosphere where the employer will accept the cont ract tha t is una cceptable, or tha t the union's position would be improved. Do you believe tha t there are people who believe th at they can ever recoup the lost wages from a 60-day strike? Mr. Cote: I do not believe so. Mr.

Storie: In your opinion, then, it is very unlik ely, not logical that a bargaining unit would prepare its membership for a 60-day strike just to ach ieve an agreement using final offer selection. Mr. Cote: I do not believe any member really wants to go out on strike to gain any thing. They do not gain any thing by striking. Mr. Storie: lt is in teresting, because the la st point tha t you make is the point tha t appa rently we are all in agreement on in this comm ittee, tha t no one gains any thing by strikes, and yet the Government and the Li berals want to pull this legisla tion.

To me, tha t does not make sense; I do not know whether it makes sense to you or not. Mr. Cote: No, it does no t make sense at all. Mr. Chairman: Any other further questions? Mr. Edwards: Mr. Cote, does the union tha t you are a member of ha ve an essential services ag reement with St. Bonif ace Ho spital? Mr. Cote: Yes, we do. Mr. Chairman: Any further questions? Mr. Storie: Mr. Chairp erson, I have no further questions. I thank Mr. Cote for appearing and presenting his views. Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your presentation this morning, Mr. Cote. Mr. Cote: You are very welcome. Mr.

Chairman: Are th ere any other presenters here this morning? Seeing as the re are no other presenters here this morning, I suggest tha t the comm ittee rise, and I ha ve been advised by the Committee Clerk tha t 158 she will at tempt to call as many presenters over the lunch break as possible and we will reconve ne-a t two o'clock? Some Honourable Members: One o'clock. Mr. Storie: Before we rush into this, we recognize wha t is happ en ing is exact ly what we said would be happen ing, that it is dif ficult for many people to attend on Sa turda ys. They ha ve shopping to do, they are working.

The First Min ister (Mr. Filmon) now wants to say, well, let us rush and call the comm ittee back at one o'clock. The committee normally sits at two o'clock; it was annou nced for two o'c lock. We ha ve very few presenters here. Let us ask the Clerk to call people and arrange it for two o'clock, to give them time to be here, because the First Min ister can say, and the committee can vote to ha ve us come back at one o'clock, and we will be sitting with no one here at one o'clock, because (

a) they were not expecting to be here till two o'clo ck and (

b) even if the Clerk starts phoning now, they will not be able to be here by one o'clock. So let us adjourn and give it a reasonable length of time, come back at two o'clo ck as normal , quit trying to ram this through . We ha ve an agreement tha t we are going to listen to the people who want to present. I believe tha t is a commitment from the Min ister, a comm itment from the Government, I believe, the Gov ernment Ho use Leader. Let us give it some time. Let us not rush. Hon . Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Chairman, this comm ittee is being as reasonable and as open as any comm ittee ha s ever been.

There ha ve been opportunities for people to appear evenings, day time, weekends, any time tha t could possibly be made conv enient to an indi vidual to want. When the committee sits on Saturda y, the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) says it is inconvenient because people ha ve to go shopping. When the comm ittee sits in the day time, the Member says, well, it is inc onvenient because some people ha ve to work. When the comm ittee sits in evenings, he says it is inco nvenient because some people do not like to stay out la te at night. He ha s an excuse for everything.

This comm ittee is sitting, and he is becoming ridiculous. In fa ct, he is becoming an ana chronism because he is so fo olish. The comm ittee will decide on reasonable times and reasonable circumstances, and I think the comm ittee should also take no te of the fact tha t if this is so important for people to appear and they do not ap pear when they are given da ytime, evening and Sa turda y options, it is obviously not something tha t is all tha t important because they are simply not coming. We will ha ve to take note of th at next week, I am sure, Mr.

Chairman, as we try and decide how we can get thr ough this number of presentations. We will decide th at in due cou rse. For now, I think the option the committee has to decide is on time. lt is my recommendation tha t we come back at one o'clock, because th ere are clo se to a 100 present ers who want to present. Ultima tely, we ha ve to get through them in some reasonable order.

Saturday , February 24, 19 90 I believe we should come back at one o'clo ck and see how quickly we can get through them. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Premier. I just wa nt -(int erject ion) -just a minute, Mr. Storie-to mention tha t we ha ve attempted to call everyone on the list. Everybody has been called at least once. We will attempt agai n, during the lunch break, to call as many as possible, to see how many we can get here. Mr. Storie. Mr. Storie: Mr.

Chai rperson, just so the First Mini ster is not conf used, as he apparently is, the commitment has been made tha t anyone who is on the list is eligible to come before the commit tee and a time will be made when it is conv enient. Tha t was the understan ding. There are going to be evening hea rings next week, which is what we believe should happen. The committee hear in gs should be in the evening. We are prepared to sit late into the evening every da y.-(interjection) Mr. Chai rperson, I ha ve the floor. Could I please be allo wed to continue?

The First Min ister is going to refer to the facl tha t leave was not granted for a Monda y evening hea ring. The Ho use sits on Monda y, first of all, from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m. Members are to be in the Cham ber. Our House lead er was prepared to give leave. However, the Speaker refused at tha t point to give the Member the floor. Let us not confuse the two issues. We are prepared to meet next week, Monda y, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursda y, Frida y-perhaps not Friday, but if Frida y is necessa ry, we meet Friday. But let us make the point tha t we are not going to gain any thing, tha t the First Min ister (Mr.

Filmon) is not going to gain any thing by havi ng this comm ittee change its agenda and come in to sit at one o'c lock. People are expecting to be here at 2 p.m., if the y can make it toda y at all. The people who do not come are going to come and use up time of the committee on Monda y or Tuesday or some time next week, because they ha ve been guarante ed the right to make their presentation. • (1 140) We are not going to save any time. All we are going to do is come back at one o'clock, th row everybody who had set their

schedule to be here at two o'c lock off sched ule. We are not going to acc omplish any thing, because there will be very few people here at one 159 o'cl ock because of the timing. We can certai nly vote on it if the First Min ister (Mr. Filmon) wants to make this foolish amendment. lt is not going to resolve any thing. it is not going to speed up the work of the commit tee. Tha t is na ive and wrong. Mr. Filmon: Mr.

Chairman, wha t I will say is tha t the New Democrats are att empting to frustrate and to obfuscate and to -(int erjection) -The New Democrats are doing everything they can to frustrate the process of working with thi s Bill. The fact of the matter is that people appearing before comm ittees are told that the commit tee is sitting between ten and five o'clock toda y, that wh atever time the co mmittee wants to sit to listen to people, the comm ittee is doing so in order to acco mmodate them. Wha t Mr. Storie is sa ying to us is tha t he wants to make it as diffi cult on the comm ittee as possible to do its work.

I think tha t of course is star ting to be an unreasonable point of view. On the other hand, I am not going to con tinue to try and argue with Mr. Storie over a point in which he says, quite hone stly, tha t the comm ittee should forget all pract ice, should forget all rules and should simply bend itself around and twist itself like a pretzel because he is trying to orche strate a situation he think s is in his best int erest. Ultima tely, the people of Manitoba will see what the New Democrats are doing. They will see whal they are doing at a cost of $6,500 a da y.

They ha ve now extended the length of this Session to over $250,000 of cost to the taxpa yers of Man itoba, to ha ve pushed the Session beyond its normal average length ol da ys of sitting, and to do all of these thin gs. But the people of Manitoba ha ve passed judgment in the past on the New Democrats, and the y will pass further judgment as they become irrelevant because of the kinds of orchestration and games playing ihe y are att empting to do. But tha t is okay, Mr. Chairman. I will withd raw my suggestion tha t we come back at one o'c lock.

We will come back at two o'clock, and we will see whether or not there are people here who really want to be heard on this Bill, or whether in fact - Mr. Chairman: We ha ve agreed, think. Committee rise. We will return at two o'clock. COMMI TTE E ROSE AT: 11:43 a. m.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-ir8
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf ir8.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8f781d5fbc370df72d52188e37fb6aca2f71b664

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