Manitoba Committee Hansard — 14 August 2000 (Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 3, 37th Legislature, 1st Session)

37-1-ir3

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session- Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Industrial Relations Chairperson Mr. Daryl Reid Constituency of Transcona Vol. L No. 3 - 6:30 p.m., Monday, August 14, 2000

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN, Nancy St. Vital N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve. Hon. Thompson N.D.P. ASPER, Linda Riel N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky, Hon. Inkster N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. Brandon East N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUA Y, Louise Seine River P.C. DERKA CH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry Lakeside P.C.

FAURSCHOU, David Portage Ia Prairie P.C. FILMON, Gary Tuxedo P.C. FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. Wolseley N.D.P. GERRA RD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GILLESHAM MER, Harold Minnedosa P.C. HEL WER, Edward Girnli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI. Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU. Marcel St. Norbert P.C. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. LOEWEN, John Fort Whyte P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon.

Lord Roberts N.D.P. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon. Minto N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Torn Interlake N.D.P. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PENNER, Jim Steinbach PC . PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZ NIK, Darren Lac du Bonnet P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack Southdale P.C. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Carman P.C. RONDEAU, Jim Assiniboia N.D.P. SALE, Tim, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Wellington N.D.P. SCHELLENBERG, Harry Rossrnere N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. SMITH, Joy Fort Garry P.C.

SMITH, Scott Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric Kirkfield Park P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. - WOWCHUK. Rosann. Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

5 LEGISLATI V E ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Monday, August 14, 2000 TIME - 6:30 p.m. LOCATION- Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON (Transcona ) Mr. Daryl Reid VICE -CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Scott Smith (Brandon West ) ATTENDANCE - 11- QUORUM- 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Ms. Barrett, Hon. Ms. Mihychuk, Hon. Mr. Robinson Messrs. Enns, Loewen, Nevakshonoff, Reid, Rondeau, Schuler, Smith, Mrs. Smith APPEARING: Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights Mr. Darren Praznik, MLA for Lac du Bonnet Mr. Larry Maguire, MLA for Arthur-Virden Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, MLA for St.

Norbert WITNE SSES: Bill 18- The Labour Relations Amend ment Act Mr. Roger Cameron, Railway Association of Canada Mr. Gordon Peters, CANDO Contract ing Mr. Doug Olshewski, Canadian Auto Workers Ms. Wendy Sol, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union Canada Mr. AI Cerilli, President, Manitoba Federation of Union Retirees Mr. Rob Hilliard, Manitoba Federation of Labour Bill 44-The Labour Relations Amend ment Act

(2) Mr. Gordon Peters, CANDO Contracting Ms. Joyce Reynolds, Senior Director, Government Affairs, Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association Ms. Jan Speelman, President, Manitoba Teachers' Society Mr. Roy Eyjolfson, Seagram Company Limited Ms. Heather Ostop, Private Citizen Mr. Peter Woolford, Retail Council of Canada and Retail Merchants Association of Manitoba Mr. Robert Desjarlais, United Steel Workers Union Local 616 6 Mr. Sidney Green, Private Citizen Ms. Irene Merie, Chair of Board, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce Mr. Murray Sigler, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce Mr.

Rob Hilliard, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr. Jim Carr, Business Council of Manitoba Ms. Candace Bishoff, Chairperson, Manitoba Employers Council Mr. Dan Overal l, Manitoba Chambers of Commerce Mr. Edward Huebert, Mining Association of Manitoba Ms. Brenda Andre, Perkins Family Restaurants Mr. Terry Cooper, Manitoba Association of School Trustees Mr. Jim Baker, President and Chief Executive Of ficer, Manitoba Hotel Association WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 44- The Labour Relations Amend ment Act

(2) Mr. Bryan Walton, Vice-President, Western Region, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors

6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14, 2000 Ms. Shirley Canty, Manitoba Motor Dealers Association MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 18- The Labour Relations Amendment Act Bill 44- The Labour Relations Amendment Act

(2) Mr. Chair person: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Will the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations please come to order. The NDP caucus chair, the PC caucus chair and the Honourable Member for River Heights (Mr. Gerrard) were advised by letter, dated August I 0, 2000, by the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, that st af f from Information Services may be in attendance in order to videotape parts of this meeting for inclusion in the A Day in the Life of the House video. As you will notice, Information Services is in attendance this evening to videotape parts of this committee meeting.

This evening the Committee will be considering the following bills: Bill 18 , The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Bill 44, The Labour Relations Amendment Act (2). We have presenters who have registered to make a public presentation on each of these bills. It is the custom to hear public presentations before consideration of bills. Is it the will of the Committee to hear public presentations first? [Agreed] In what order does the Committee wish to hear the presentations? Mr. Scott Smith (Brandon West ): I would suggest 18 and then 44. Mr. Chai rperson : Is there agreement? [Agreed} Thank you.

We will hear Bill 18 first. I will read the names of the persons who have registered to make public presentations this evening from a list that we have. I will read them in order from registry: Sidney Green. Roger has been possibly changed to Bill 44. This is dealing with Bill 18 .

Second, we have Roger Cameron from the Railway Association of Canada; Gord Peters, Cando Contract ing; Karen Naylor, Canadian Autoworkers Union; Wendy Sol, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union Canada; AI Cerilli, Manitoba Federation of Union Retirees; and Rob Hilliard, Manitoba Federation of Labour. * (1 8:40) Those are the persons who are registered to speak on Bill 18 . For Bill 44, we have a number of presenters that are registered here this evening. I will read them.

We have Irene Merie, Rob Hilliard, Jim Carr, Candace Bishoff, Dan Overal l, Paul Moist, Edwa rd Huebert, Joyce Reynolds, Doug Stephen, Brenda Andre, Terry Cooper or Craig Wallis, Dan Kelly, Jim Baker, Peter Wightman, Bernard Christophe, Colin Robinson, Bruce Buckley, Brian Etkin, Grant Ogonowski, Ron Hambly or Alfred Schlieer, Jan Speelman, George Floresco or John Friesen, Cindy McCallum or David Condon, Gord Peters, Brian Short, George Fraser, Jonas Sammons, Maureen Hancharyk, James Hogaboam, Kenneth Emberley, Darlene Dziewit, Julie Sheeska, Edward Zink, Donna Favell, Joy Ducharme, Alice Ennis, Heather Ostop, Linda Fulmore, Kelly Gaspur, Colin Trigwell, Larry Mcintosh, Graham Starmer, Roy Eyjolfson, Chris Christensen, Peter Woolford, Gerry Roxas, Dale Paterson, Jerry Woods, George Bergen, Maria Soares, Neal Curry, Bob Dolyniuk, Bob Stephens, Ilene Lecker, Lydia Kubrakovich, Darrell Rankin, Jim Murray, Todd Scarth, John Mann, Rod Giesbrecht, Buffy Burrell, Albert Cerilli, Robert Desjarlais, Richard Chale, David Martin, Ron Teeple, Peter Olf ert, Randy Porter and Grant Mitchell.

Those are the names we have listed for Bill 44. We also have one additional name that has just been brought to our attention, Robert Ziegler. Those are the persons that are registered to speak to Bill 44 this evening. I wish to draw to the attention of the members of the Committee an oversight that has occurred with respect to one of the presenters, Mr. Sidney Green, who had been registered to present on Bill 18 . Is it the will of the Committee -

August 14, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7 to allow Mr. Green to be the first presenter on Bill 44, which was, I believe, his original preference, first in-town presenter? Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Chair, just to infonn the Comm ittee that we have gone through when Mr. Green registered, and that is where it would place him on the list. Mr. Chairperson: That is correct. Mr. Laurendeau: I have one other issue on committee business, Mr. Chair. Because we will be more than likely dealing with out-of-town presenters, can we clarify one thing: What an out-of-town presenter is?

I do believe that we had to do this last year because we had some people registering with their cottages out of town so they could get on the list first. So I would ask if anybody has used their cottage as their registration that they be dropped to the bottom of the list, okay, and, Jan, that is you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Laurendeau. What is the will of the Committee with respect to out-of-town presenters? An Honourable Member: Out of town first. An Honourable Member: Out of province first. An Honourable Member: Out of province, and then out of town. Mr. Cha irperson: I thank members of the Committee.

If there is anybody else in the audience that would like to register or who has not yet registered and would like to make a presentation, would you please register at the back of the room? There is a Clerk's table at the back, and they would be pleased to add your name to the list. I would like to remind presenters that 20 copies are required of any written version of presentations. If you require assistance with photocopying, please see the Clerk of this committee. I have been infonned that one or more presenters are from out of town.

Did the Committee wish to grant its consent for out-of town presenter to be heard first? [Agreed] How does the Committee propose to deal with presenters who are not in attendance today but have had their names called? Shall these names be dropped to the bottom of the list? Shall the names be dropped from the list after being called twice? Mr. Laurendeau: As long as they are only dropped the one time today, and as the Committee is being called tomorrow, they can be read the second time tomorrow morning or tomorrow evening. Hon.

Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): would suggest that they be read a first time this evening and then another time tomorrow morning but not be dropped from the list unless they have been read for tomorrow evening because there will be people who may be able to make it in the evening who could not make it in the morning. Mr. Chairperson: So the Committee agrees then that the names of presenters will be called once this evening and then will be called again tomorrow. [Agreed ] An Honourable Member: Twice tomorrow. Mr. Chair person: Twice tomorrow. I stand corrected.

I would also like to infonn the Committee that written submissions have been received from several individuals: Bryan Walton, Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors; Keith McDougall, Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers; and Shirley Canty, Manitoba Motor Dealers Association. I believe members of the Committee have copies of the presentation that have been distributed. Copies of these briefs have been prepared and distributed for you prior to the start of this meeting.

Does the Committee grant its consent to have these written submissions appear in the committee transcript for this evening? [Agreed ] As a point of infonn ation for all in attendance, this committee has been scheduled to meet again tomorrow morning, Tuesday, the 15 th of August, 2000, at 10 a.m. If necessary, the Committee will also meet tomorrow evening at 6:30 p.m. As a courtesy to persons waiting to

8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14, 2000 make presentations, did the Committee wish to indicate how late it is willing to sit this evening? Mr. Smith: Mr. Chairperson, I would suggest we sit until midnight tonight and then at that time peruse the audience to see if we need to extend the time past that. Mr. Cha irperson: Is there agreement of committee members for it to be reviewed at midnight? [Agreed ] Before we proceed with the presentations, is it the will of the Committee to set time limits on presentations? Mr. Smith: Mr.

Chair, I would suggest we go with the 15 -minute presentation time and a 5- minute question period time. Mr. Chair person: Is there agreement of the Committee? Some Hono urable Members: Agreed. Some Hono urable Members: No. Mr. Harry Eons (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, the question of setting time limits is not set in stone by traditional regulation. I am well aware that previous governments have, from time to time, set time limits, but it is at all times up to the Committee to set the rules by which they wish to govern themselves.

I sincerely suggest to you, in view of the interest, the public interest and the import of this bill that we consider being somewhat more generous in our time. I am suggesting 20 minutes for presentations and I 0 minutes for questioning. Mr. Smith: Mr. Chair, one more time, I fully agree with the Member that we need to sit in the public interest and hear everybody who is here to present, and I know he mentioned previous governments, being the past government, had set precedents on almost all bills that were presented. I know in Bill 26 it was set at 10 minutes and 5 minutes.

I think this increases it 50 percent to make sure that we can hear as many people as we possibly can on this issue. This is about giving people the opportunities to be out there, so I would like to stick with the 15 and 5. Mr. Chairperson: Are you making this in the form of a motion, Mr. Smith? Mr. Ron Schuler (Spring field ): Actually, I had a motion, Mr. Chair, and that was I was going to move that we make it 20 minutes for presentations and 10 minutes for questions. Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by Mr. Schuler that the time lines be 20 minutes and 1 0 minutes for questions. The motion is in order.

Is the committee ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Chairperson: The question before the committee is as follows: That the time lines be 20 minutes and 10 minutes for questions. Shall the motion pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Yes. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of passing the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The motion is accordingly defeated. * * * Mr. Smith: I would suggest, Mr.

Chair, as I presently did, that it be 15 minutes for presentations, 5 minutes for questioning.! have it written, and I would move such. Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by Mr. Smith that the time allowed be 15 minutes for presentations and 5 minutes for questions. The motion is in order. Is the committee ready for the question? * (18 :50)

August 14 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9 Mr. Laurendea u: I was wondering if he might be ready for a friendly amendment and move that questioning from five minutes, which allows the Minister one question and us one question, if we are lucky. If he would just be able to move it to ten. I have seen how succinctly the Minister can answer her questions in Question Period, so I am sure the questions could be put the same way. A friendly amendment to ten minutes would be reasonable. Mr. Cha irperson: Mr. Smith, are you willing to accept the friendly amendment as he stated? Mr. Smith: Unfortuntely, no. Mr.

Chair person: The question before the Committee is as follows: that the time limit be fifteen minutes for presentations and five minutes for questions. Shall the motion pass? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Cha irperson: In my opinion the Yeas have it. The motion is accordingly carried. Bi 1118- The Labour Relations Amendment Act Mr .

Chair person: We will now call on the presenters as listed on the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations, Bill 18 . The first person listed as out-of-province presenter is Mr. Roger Cameron of the Railway Association of Canada. Is Mr. Cameron here this evening? Please come forward, sir. Good evening. Do you have copies of your presentation? Mr. Roger Cameron (Railway Association of Canada ): Yes, I have given them to the Clerk. Mr. Cha irperson: Before you proceed, Mr. Cameron, if you might indulge me.

Just for information for members of the audience here this evening, we have set up Room 254 just down the hallway of the Legislature here as the overflow room for members of the public who may wish to hear these presentations from that particular setting. Please access that facility down the hall. You may proceed, Mr. Cameron. Mr. Cameron: Canadian railways are part of the North American railroad network. They handle more than 5 million carloads and containers of freight and transport more than 45 million rail commuters and intercity travellers annually within Canada.

The Railway Association of Canada speaks on behalf of six railways operating in Manitoba and the 48 other railways operating in Canada which represent virtually all freight and passenger rail activity in Canada. The railways provide, manage and maintain their own infrastructure, unlike our principal competitors the truc king industry which rely on provincial taxpayer support to provide and maintain the overburdened road network. When the Canada Transportation Act was passed in mid-1 996 there were 31 members of the Railway Association of Canada. Today there are 54 member railways.

On average, there has been one new railway company created in Canada every two months since mid-19 96. All the short lines and regional railways in Manitoba affected by or interested in the issues before you today have been created since that time. Manitoba's railways employ more than 5400 workers, meet an annual payroll of some $323 million, purchase some $216-million worth of goods and services and make capital investments to modernize their equipment and facilities in excess of $82 million a year. As well, they pay approximately $42 million a year in property, fuel and corporate taxes to the Province.

In Manitoba, 17 27 kilometres of track has been transferred to new owners and operators since mid-19 96. Operation of only 364 kilometres of track in the province were discontinued during the same period.

10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 The new short lines and regional railways have successfully retained existing traffic through the North American rail network and have grown their business. Eighty-seven percent of freight customers are satisfied with the service provided by short lines, according to findings of the Angus Reid Group. It is important to note that the legislation in Saskatchewan and British Columbia deals with the very concerns the RAC raises in our submission.

In addition, the British Columbia Labour Relations Board, in the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway decision last year, which is attached to the submission, has applied these principles in a similar manner. In essence the Board recognized that there are two significant differences between the labour relations considerations of a transcontinental railway and a short-line railway.

First, with respect to contract structure, it was found unreasonable for legislation to require a small railway of 31 employees, in that case, to accommodate labour contracts with five different unions as in the case of the operation of a transcontinental railway. Second, the Board deemed that there was a difference in the nature and financial signifi cance of a national railway versus a short-line railway to the Canadian economy.

The Board found that what may be appropriate for a large industrial employer in the federal setting has little in common with what is appropriate for a smaller employer in a single province whose provincial competitors may be local truckers, most of which would be non-unionized owner operations. The proposed language put forward by the RAC in appendix 8 is similar to provisions in The British Columbia Labour Relations Code and The Saskatchewan Trade Union Act.

These revisions would permit the Manitoba Labour Relations Board to establish bargaining structures that may be appropriate for a short line railway and to consider the important labour-relations considerations involved with these enterprises. Our submission is intended to assist the Government in its effort to develop new, innovative and sustainable short-line railways in the province, viable railways that will generate an array of local economic opportunities in Manitoba.

As currently drafted, certain aspects of Bill 18 would likely inhibit the start up of short lines in Manitoba and mean that lines that might otherwise be transferred for continuing operation would be discontinued. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present our recommendations on this important bill before the Legislature. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Cameron. Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour ): Thank you, Mr. Cameron, for your presentation and particularly for the documentation that is accompanying your presentation.

Please rest assured that we will take a look at your concerns and we will take them very seriously. Mr. Cameron: Thank you very much. Mr. Harry Enos (Lakeside ): Mr. Cameron, those of us in rural Manitoba have, with regret, watched too much of our rail disappearing in the past two decades and are, in fact, encouraged by the development of short line and regional car riers, the people that you represent.

Simply to underline the point that you made in the last paragraph of your presentation, your association believes the passage of this bill, Bill 18. will inhibit or will make the development of short lines more difficult in Manitoba. Mr. Cameron: As it stands at the moment, we believe that would be the case. The simple fact is that the principal competition for short-line and regional rai lways is in most cases the local trucking industry. Mr. Ron Schuler (Spring field ): Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to defer to the Leader of the Liberal Party. I understand he had his hand up. Mr.

Enos : I just wanted, while we have this gentleman before us who is familiar with the legislation governing short and regional lines across Canada, to your knowledge, is this type of legislation that is being proposed here in Manitoba unique?

August 14 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 * (19:00) Mr. Cameron: It is at this time, yes. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I wonder if you could clarify whether, in your view, it would be possible to amend this legislation, or whether it would be far better just to kill it. Mr. Cameron: We believe that it can be amended and address the issues that we have raised. Mr. Gerrard: Could you outline specifically the changes that you would need? Mr. Cameron: In Appendix 7 of the sub mission, we have addressed the proposed language to do that. If you wish, I can read that into the record.

Do you wish me to proceed? Mr. Schuler: I do have one question to Mr. Cameron, and clearly, we are all concerned with short lines in Manitoba because it impacts our rural economy, and whatever undermines short lines certainly is something that undermines our economy in the rural area. My question to you is, Mr. Cameron, there has been a Jot of confusion in regard to what exactly is transferred.

For instance, are you under the impression that, if 250 kilometres of railway line is bought up by a short line, you also get a union with that or are you under the impression that unless you buy rolling stock or you actually buy a facility that has unionized workers, that is first when you would get a union with it? Mr. Cameron: If you are going to operate a railway, you need both. Mr. Schuler: Just for clarification, but there are short-line railways that are interested in just track, right? They just buy real estate.

Does that mean you would also get the union with the track, or do you have to buy physically rolling stock or buildings or production facilities for you to have the union transferred over? Mr. Cameron: I am not aware of any short-line railway that would only buy track. Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Cameron. I appreciate the fact I think you come from Montreal, and we saw you before committee one other time under Bill 20, and you have been very patient to come a long way on two occasions for a somewhat limited access to the Committee.

My understanding is that certainly with short-line railways it is not unusual for employees, who I guess were limited because of restrictions in their labour contract under a national situation, to do the duties that maybe two or three employees would have had to perform under a national contract when they become part of a short-line operation. Mr. Cameron: You are talking about essentially very, very different business structures between a short- line and a national carrier. The short line is a local business in every sense of the word, and that is why they have been as successf ul as they have.

One of the main characteristics of that success has been in local service to customers and the flexibility and local knowledge of people in business opportunities. The needs of different types of business for frequent switching, for example, all play to the ability of a local workforce that is able to respond quickly and with innovation to those customers' needs. Mr. Chair person: Thank you, Mr. Cameron. That concludes the time allocated for questions. Mr. Loewen: I would ask for leave to extend the question period? Mr. Chairpers on: Is it the will of committee to allow for an extension of the questions?

An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Chair person: Leave has been denied. Thank you, Mr. Cameron. The next presenter on the list is Gordon Peters, CANDO Contract ing. Is Mr. Peters in the audience? Do you have copies of your presentation, sir? Mr. Gordon Peters (CANDO Contracting): Yes.

12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 Mr. Scott Smith (Brandon West): I wonder if it would be the will of the Committee, Mr. Chair-1 know Mr. Peters has come from out of town, as well, and he is presenting on two bills, Bills 18 and 44-to allow Mr. Peters to do both presentations at the same time, as opposed to coming back much later in the evening. Mr. Chairperso n: This is not the regular practice of the Committee. Is it the will of the Committee to allow Mr. Peters the opportunity to present on both bills?

I believe the recommendation was the time allocated would be comparable to a dual presentation. Is that your will, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters: Thank you very much. I feel honoured. Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed, sir. Mr. Peters: Thank you. Madam Minister, ladies and gentlemen, it is great to be here tonight. In the special honour of this, I am not sure we will double up the time, because I do not know if there is that much to talk about. But I will go ahead and do it. My name is Gord Peters. I am the President of Cando Contracting of Central Manitoba Railway here in Manitoba.

A little company background is to the left in your folders. It is really the issue we are talking about tonight. There is background information on Cando and Central Manitoba, to the right, just to let everyone know what we are. To go into it, Cando Contracting is a full service railway company that operates several short lines and railway switching contracts in Canada. Cando is a Canadian, employee-owned company with headquarters in Brandon, Manitoba. Central Manitoba Railway, CMR, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cando, and was the first provincially licensed railway in Manitoba in April of '99.

Central Manitoba Railway operates a line from Winnipeg to Pine Falls, which is about 65 miles, and a second line from Winnipeg to Graysville, about 55 miles. CMR began opera tions in May of '99 upon obt aining a licence from the Manitoba Motor Transport Board. Currently we employ 21 people. From May '99 to February of this year, we paid out about $6 15 ,000 in direct wages.

Also at this time, we purchased about $1 .5-million worth of products and services from other Manitoba companies; paid $1 30 ,000 in property taxes; paid $1 6,000 corporate capital tax and $33 ,000 fuel road tax in our locomotives that ran down our own railroad line, and not down the roads. This preceding information is included just to illustrate that a short-line railway does, in fact, have a definite benefit to the Manitoba economy, and should be considered when reviewing the following. Just to add to that, we also operate the Barrie-Collingwood Railway in southern Ontario.

The only reason I mention it is that particular railroad is owned by a municipal government. They have contracted with us to do the operation. So we work together in partner ship, sometimes with municipal governments; sometimes if it warrants it, we will buy it ourselves, or a combination thereof, whatever happens. I have left Mr. Rick Newlove's phone number there, if anyone wants a contact person to find out how it is working down there. You are welcome to give him a call.

Cando credits its success in today's competitive business environment with its ability to develop a high performance empowered team of employees. These employees must be able to perform a diverse array of tasks in order for Cando to succeed. One of the programs that Cando has introduced to help in developing this team approach has been an employee-ownership program. Since the program's introduction in 19 96, employee ownership in Cando has increased to 70 percent of our employees owning approximately, today, 35 percent of Cando.

Cando Central Manitoba matches these employee contributions in this program, very similar to what many companies contribute towards pension contributions. An indirect benefit of this plan, that we found out over the period of running over the last four years, is that the education it gives employees on the benefits-and I stress the responsibilities of ownership-has been a great success. But it has been with a learning curve. I am very pleased with the progress we are making in it. This education spills out in our employees own personal lives, understanding what ownership and different things mean. We -

August 14 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 have seen a very strong group of people that have developed their skills and a knowledge of the business world that improve greatly, which makes me proud. We feel we would lose this ability to provide this plan should the proposed legislation be enacted. Most federally governed union con tracts have a defined pension plan that has to be adopted under this legislation. That is one of the big concerns we have. Our Employee Ownersh ip Program was facilitated by Crocus Investment Fund, a Manitoba-based, labour-sponsored, venture capi tal fund.

With their help, we have ensured that the money in our plan stays in Manitoba, unlike the majority of pension plans where the money, at the very least, leaves the province, if not the country. Through Crocus, many of Manitoba's top companies have introduced or are planning to introduce similar programs for their employees. * (19:10) The recent phenomenal growth shown in this high-tech industry has proven that employee participation in ownership can be a very useful tool in recruiting and keeping key employees.

We feel that this tool will be taken away from us with the introduction of this legislation, and it will be extremely difficult to keep young, educated employees in Manitoba. We must work harder at producing positive labour legislation that will deal with the issues ahead of us and not those that occurred in the past. Legislation that promotes and encourages employees to invest in themselves will have a greater impact on improving the health and well-being of our province in the future than trying to foster a relationship that pits one side against the other.

We agree that at one time unionized protection of employees was important and unions served a very useful purpose in protecting the rights of employees. Business practices have evolved since that time, with the majority of businesses today realizing that it is the people they employ that make the business successf ul. Manitoba business, and in particular Cando, has made great strides in fostering an educated and empowered workforce in Manitoba.

The proposed legislation, both Bills 18 and 44, increases the gap between employees and management, creating an us-versus-them atti tude, which in our opinion is a huge step backwards. The short-line industry is one of the few industries that will be directly affected by Bill 18 more than 44. The Manitoba Government must be made to realize that our industry, a short-line railroad, cannot survive run under the same employment rules or labour contracts designed for a Class I railroad.

The major concern with adopting the employment rules or labour contracts of a Class I railroad is not the wage or benefit level being paid to the employees, but deals with the work rules that these employees use. As a short-line operator, we generally require fewer employees with more diverse job descriptions. We need our employees to be more adaptable and to perform various tasks that they may not be required to under current contract labour. This is one of the major reasons that a short-line operator can operate a line more effectively and customer friendly than a Class I.

The competition of a short-line railroad is not other short-line railroads, regional railways or Class I railways. The true competition for our industry is the trucking industry. We feel that this legislation gives further competitive advan tage to the trucking industry, as it would rarely ever apply to them. All we ask for is a level playing field. Just a quick side note. As a director of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, the Chamber is also concerned about Bill 18 on the redevelopment of Pinawa. Does this facility hold the opportunity to forge ahead in the world of atomic energy waste management?

If that is true, you ask yourself why Bill 18 ? Will it damper the effects of allowing an entrepreneur room to attract the best and brightest staff to develop a business plan for this facility? It is just something to think about. We always like to come forward with solutions. We have listed four solutions, as we see it, if Bill 18 is passed. I was having a great summer until all this came about, but anyway we will deal with it as it goes. If Bill 18 is passed, one of the things is to modify the proposed

14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 legislation only to include businesses affecting 10 or more employees. There are similar rules. Saskatchewan has rules like that. It just does not make sense, in our opinion, to apply it to all because there are some very small operations out there that are going to be affected by this with under 10 people.

We talk that providing an amalgamation of several bargaining units into one bargaining unit representing the affected employees might be another possibility, and provide the purchaser of a business the ability to renegotiate existing labour contracts to better reflect the needs of the business that evolves is another possibility. I would like an end. You know we should enact progressive legislation that encourages and promotes Manitoba employers and employees to invest in the province and themselves. It is a very critical. Thank you for hearing me tonight. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you, Mr. Peters. Mr.

Enos: Let me take this opportunity, Mr. Peters, to express my appreciation for the fact that you are in business. For the benefit of my urban colleagues on the Committee, it may not seem important to keep a 65-kilometre, or 10 0- or 200-line operating, but I can assure you it is the very lifeblood of some of the communities that are impacted by that. Again, my simple question: Does the combination of this legislation make it more difficult for a short-line operation to be set up in Manitoba, in your opinion? Mr . Peters: As it stands, we heard about different amendments that might be coming forward.

To date, I have heard nothing, or have never received anything, put it that way. Bill 18 , the succession rights, there are a couple of opportunities we are looking at in Manitoba. We envision our company the way we manage it today, a high performance team, employee owners. They own it. How are we going to incorporate that or try to go after this opportunity side by side? We were already looking at a couple of situations where we would share equipment and that. In my opinion, it is going to make it very difficult and impossible for us to move ahead on these opportunities.

To that end, I received a call today from Seagram in Gimli expressing deep concern, Mr. Eyjolfson, up there, about what impact it is going to have in this facility, because we have been looking at that line. I have told them point blank that, unless we get some things changed, it is going to be very difficult in our situation to look at it. Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Peters, for your presentation. As I stated to Mr. Cameron before you, before the legislation gets out of the committee stage, we will be addressing your concerns or taking them under advisement for sure. Mr.

Gerrard : I take it from your comments that it really is absolutely critical that there be some changes to this legislation if you are going to continue to operate short-line railways in a reasonable fashion in Manitoba. Mr. Peters: I think one of the things that maybe somebody asked me today, why we have been so succes sful in the short-line business, and some of them have been questionable how they made out. One of the things we look for is more than the railroad business. When we go and look at an opportunity, I am just working on one right now, it is not only a short line but also a loading contract.

So this is something that the railroads never did, never involved with. I am trying to figure out now if there was legislation. We had to take the unions. I do not even know where they fall under it. because the railroads do not do that type of work, yet it would be all under our bill or our corporate logo. Unless we spend a lot of money trying to figure out how this is going to go, I do not know. I just cannot figure out how to integrate the two together. We have already started down the course with Crocus, with their employees on an ownership program.

To blink now and change it, I am trying to think of how we do it. I have not come up with any answers on how we can successf ully do that. Can I start another company, unionize and do it? I suppose we can, but at my age and that, I would prefer to go the one course we are going, the team we got, because the formula has proved very successf ul to customer concerns like Seagram, to different groups like that, that we can get the job done,

August 14, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF M-ANITOBA 15 and we can keep traffic on the rail and not put it on the truck. Mr. Jim Rondeau (Assiniboia): I find your share purchase pension plan very, very interesting, especially how it involves Manitobans investing in Manitoba, so I would like to ask you whether you are willing to share some of that information with me, being as it is a personal interest of mine, and I think we, as a government, might be very interested in that information. Mr. Peters: I get quite excited about that one, so I can jump over the table on that.

That is something that, when we were looking at our employee ownership, led me to Crocus because of their mission statement and what they are saying. Their beliefs and ours are very similar, and to that end, I can tell you that our board of directors. Sherman Kreiner, CEO of Crocus, sits on our board, and that is another thing that we are quite proud of at CANDO. Angus Reid did a poll on the companies that are employee owner now. They did a poll on who was having the best results, who was empowering their employees.

I know CANDO's results were, you can take Sherman and his word for it, but we blew everybody away, what we were doing different. I speak long and hard about employee ownership. I am a serious believer in it. I am a founder of this company, but to me it is an absolute logical way to lead business in the next 25 years, is get to the ownership side. Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): I was really impressed with your presentation, Mr. Peters, and the whole aspect of working in partnership with employees and ownership and having the opportunity to have a partner in the actual process. Mr.

Peters, what do your employees think of Bill 18 ? Have they spoken out in support, or are they tentative about it? Is there any good in this bill whatsoever? Mr. Peters: This is one of the days that I am not sure I should be making the speech here, quite frankly. An Honourable Me mber: Sure you should. Mr. Peters: We are a young company, and I got delegated the job to come in and speak to it. They spoke to us. Every group has got the right to organize if they want. I do not disagree with that. I think it is a sign of poor management. If we do not address the issues of employees, we are going to get unionized too.

It is as simple as that, in my opinion. * (1 9:20) They have spoken out, employee ownership. We did a seminar for Crocus at the U of M. We had four staff come in and talk about it because really the employee ownership is not about me either, it is about what it did to the employees. They have spoken out about it. Their concern, their investment. We have got a hundred staff who have bought into the shares of CANDO. Our plan was to expand, especially in Manitoba, other areas also, but expand in Manitoba, and then to have this come forward.

I was here a couple of weeks ago with another problem in the railroad industry too, so we are spending a lot of time here. That is something that we never did see come. I would like to get it behind us and get on with business. Mr. Chair person: Thank you, Mr. Peters. That concludes the time for questions on Bill 18 . Bill 44-The Labour Relations Amendment Act

(2) Mr. Chairperson: Did you wish to proceed with your presentation on Bill 44? Mr. Gordon Peters (CANDO Contracting): My presentation is in there. That is all I got. That is all I have got to say as far as Bill 44. The issue really from 44 comes as a Manitoba business person. I sit on the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, the Manitoba Business Council, and I am very concerned with Bill 44. We are a non union group so really I can say it does not affect me. It does affect me as a Manitoban what signal we are putting out. I look to the high-tech industry, the leaders of the new management techniques and things like that, and I am

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 concerned that we are sending out the completely wrong profile to the North American economy, the workplace. We are sending out the wrong rules. Maybe this applied 15 years ago. I do not think it applies, a lot of these things, in the future ahead. We have got to find better ways of working together as a team, and we have got to work at that. Mr. Harry Eons (Lakeside ): If I understood you right, Mr. Peters, you indicated that you are now kind of speaking as a member of the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce? Floor Comment: Yes. Mr. Eons: Mr.

Peters, the President of the Manitoba Federation of Labour has identified people like you as being nuts, crazy and on the lunatic fringe. Do you consider yourself a lunatic, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters: I have to take a while to answer that one. No, I do not. Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte ): Mr. Peters. thank you again for your presentation on both these bills as well as your attendance to Bill 20.

If all three of these bills proceed, Bill 18 , Bill20, Bill 44, would you say that that tilts the playing field considerably more to people looking for places to invest, certainly tilts the playing field toward B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan or Ontario as opposed to making investment in Manitoba given the nature of these three bills? Mr. Peters: I think if anybody wants to check Ontario when they had succession rights come in never had a short-line railroad until they enacted. It really does affect the railroad industry. What really is wrong about it is-I mean there are reasons why CN and CP have got rules.

They run good railroads. They run good, safe railroads, and they have those rules for reasons, but a lot of their rules on work are completely different than ours. To try to run one to the other, it is the same. We run into this, so why do we not have paved highways all over the province? We could say gravel roads are unsafe to run on. We have got to learn to deal with certain sizes of business and certain aspects. I really believe that we are getting caught in this. There only are two or three more lines in Manitoba. We are talking about probably less than 15 people in this whole thing.

You talk to Seagram at Gimli what impact it is going to have on them. I know that we are going to have it very difficult making investments in Manitoba if these pass and unless there are some changes made to them. You talked about Bill 20, The Provincial Railway Act, the changes. I really have got to commend the Committee and whoever is involved in the changes that went through. It is something we can live with now. There were lots of changes made on that from what we first heard, so I appreciate that. That is going to help us on that aspect of it. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield ): Mr. Chairman, and to you, Mr.

Peters. at any time during your discussions with the Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett), did you ever indicate to her that to expand your business or to invest further in Manitoba you needed a bill like Bill 44? Should Bill 44 go through, do you see that as being a catalyst for further investment in Manitoba? Mr. Peters: Once again, I said we are non union. so Bill 44. unless we are unionized, I do not see where it has any impact on us. I have not talked to the Minister on it. I am making this presentation tonight, as I said, Bill 44, as a Manitoban.

I think we are sending the wrong signal compared to, say, the high-tech employee ownership. I would like to be dealing with other issues. We are going to send out the wrong impression to the rest of the world if this is passed, in my opinion. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Let me just brief ly pick up on that last comment. Essentially, what you are saying is that instead of Bill 44, we should have a government which is looking at the models that your short-line railway and the high-tech industry that would really promote dynamic employee participation in business rather than the older models of the past. Mr.

Peters: I really get upset, us against them. I am an individual who has led a company as a founder, and I am quite willing to share the benefits of the upside of the equity thing in this,

August 14 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 as long as there is an understanding of what that is. And I am not kidding you, there has to be an understanding of what ownership responsibilities are. I think there are great ways to do it in the world today. I think that Silicon Valley-I mean, I look at Pinawa and say that some entrepreneur who has got this figured out is going to make this work, is going to bring the best and brightest into our province, and yet there is this thing of Bill 44, Bill 18 standing in the way, discouraging that.

To me, it just does not make good sense, and I do not like sending out the wrong impression. I like to tell our employees: We are here together; we are going to invest together; we have proved it in over four years. Crocus has been a very beneficial partner in our growth and our success with the money we have made them, but I am proud to make them money because they took the risk with us. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Peters, you mentioned Bill 20 and prior to coming to committee you had had some discussions and others had discussions with the Minister of Highways (Mr. Ashton), who is responsible for it.

We had indication prior to the sitting of committee, and in fact we had the amendments that were presented prior to committee. Do you have any indication from the Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett}-h ave you received any amendments that the Government is willing to look at with regard to Bill 18 ? Mr. Peters: No, I have not at this stage, but I might not have been on the list. I am not sure who gets them. Mr. Chair person: Thank you, Mr. Peters. That concludes the time for questions. Bill 18- The Labour Relations Amendment Act Mr. Chair person: Next presenter on the list is Ms. Karen Naylor. Ms.

Naylor, please come forward if you are in the audience. Floor Comment: I am not Ms. Naylor. Mr. Chairperson: Will you please identify yourself. Mr. Doug Olshewski (Canadian Auto Workers ): Doug Olshewski, Canadian Auto Workers union. Ms. Naylor- Mr. Chair person: Will you hold on one second, Mr. Olshewski? Were you here in substitution for Ms. Naylor? Mr. Olshewski: Yes. Mr. Chairpers on: Is it the will of the Committee to allow Mr. Olshewski to be a substitute? [Agreed ]. Do you have a written presentation? Mr. Olshewski: No, I do not. Mr. Chair person: Please proceed. Mr. Olshews ki: Thank you.

Doug Olshewski, national representative with the Canadian Auto Workers union. I want to say from the start that our union supports the legislation in its entirety. We do not wish to see it amended. We feel that we could have used it many years ago. I have had at least one experience where Canadian National sold a rail line, that being the northern line now known as the Hudson Bay railway, when they sold it to OmniTRAX. The saving grace for us at the time of that sale was that seven miles of the track ran into the province of Saskatchewan.

Therefore, because it was an interprovincial track, it remained under the federal legislation and successorship applied. Had that track been solely within the province of Manitoba, there would not be any successorship provision. Now some might argue that OmniTRAX and the Hudson Bay line are big enough not to be called the short line-I would argue differently-but certainly had that been solely within the province, there would not have been the opportunity for the union to negotiate with the new employer.

Both companies, Canadian National Railway and OmniTRAX, the pur chaser, recognized that if there were a challenge that they would probably lose, that it would remain under the federal jurisdiction. So both companies, the selling company, Canadian National Railway, and the purchaser,

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 OmniTRAX, agreed to enter into negotiations with us. Now I have heard some talk here about the work rules and how draconian and terrible they can be for a small operator. There is no doubt that when you go from a national railway like Canadian National to a short line, that many of the work rules are obsolete. For example, we had seniority clauses that applied nationwide or within the region. Certainly those kinds of things would not work with the short line.

It became necessary for us then to sit down with OmniTRAX and with Canadian National and work out a new system of operating. * (1 9:30 ) I heard some talk about pension plans. OmniTRAX being in the business of operating short lines in the U.S. had their own pension plan and wanted to implement that. That took some talks, that took some discussion, but we were able to work in a tr ansition whereby the CN pension plan and the new pension plan could be at least integrated and worked with. Had that seven miles of track not been within the province of Saskatchewan, it would have been a totally different scenario.

Canadian National could have simply served notice to the employees that you are all being laid off, you are without jobs within 14 days or 3 months, depending on which provision of the collective agreement applied. They could have served that notice and said goodbye to those employees. The new employer could have started fresh and hired new people at much reduced rates of pay, but they did not do that. They sat down and they negotiated a brand new collective agree ment with us and that agreement is-I believe we started those negotiations in '95 or '96, and those people are still in place.

Those collective agreements are still in place. and I have not heard a lot of disruption going on out there. So to think that you are always going to inherit the identical collective agreements, certainly the legislation has to say that because we need an opportunity to get in the door. If we have no opportunity to get in the door, the employees are going to be the people who pay the price. Certainly this piece of legislation does not apply strictly to railways, but the railways are here because they know it affects them.

As I say, it is unfortunate this legislation did not come earlier because there have been a number of short lines where employees, workers have paid the price as a result of employers not so much wanting to get rid of the business, the fact is that some selling employers, some selling railways, merely want to de-unionize. We have had fights with the big two wherein we found that they were really still operating the short line, that what they had really done, that we found they were the real employer, that they had really contracted out the work and they did it to get rid of the union and to bring in cheap wages.

Employers do not like unions because we negotiate good wages, good benefits, good health and safety provisions for the employees. That is why employers do not like unions. let us be honest about it. The fact is that in every one we have had our own big two railways short line themselves. What they called it was an internal short line. We are going to do an internal short line. We have negotiated that with them.

When the parties are willing to co-operate and work together, and we have-and not just my union but many unions within the railway industry have worked together to bring about short lines where there were no other alternatives. They have proven to be successf ul companies, and the employees have been able to maintain a standard of living which is respectable. Thank you. Mr . Chair person: Thank you. Mr. Olshewski. Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour ): Thank you very much.

I appreciate your presentation, particularly giving examples of situations where, in the situation that we are looking to reflect in the province of Manitoba, you spoke of with the seven miles that made it continuing to be a federal jurisdiction, that employers and the unions can work together co operatively to find a solution that benefits both parties. I think it is important that we hear that from the experience of people like yourself who have actually gone through this. I was also interested that it has been four or five years since that process was undertaken and

August 14 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 that it still seems to be working, so I appreciate very much the story of how this, going from a larger railroad to a short line, can benefit everyone. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): l think your illustration was quite helpful in understan ding how things have gone up north. Maybe you could summarize the two or three biggest benefits that you see in terms of the operation of the railway, the safety and so on? Mr .

Olshewski: I think it is important that employees have unions because there are employers who like to cut comers when it comes to the safety provisions. There are employers who will relax the rules to get the job done. If you do not have someone watching over these things-and railways are particularly a very dangerous industry, very heavy equipment, hauling dangerous commodities. Unions provide information, training courses, et cetera, to their members on handling dangerous substances, on the railway traffic rules, so that our members are protected.

We would pref er that the railways never short line, but we know that is not going to happen. We know it has not been happening. When there is a move to short line and to sell off a part of the railway, we need access to the new employer, and we need access to the old employer. If this provision is in place, it forces both the old employer, the selling employer, and the buying employer, to negotiate with the union, otherwise they cannot get a deal. Given that type of legislation, we are then able to protect those employees during the sale of that business and thereafter. Mr.

John Loewen (Fort Whyte ): Thank you, Mr. Olshewski. I think you have just sum marized it all right there in your statement that this bill will force employers and short-line operators to negotiate with the union. I mean that is obviously the perspective you have come from. You have obviously heard a different story from Mr. Peters. My question for you would be, given the OmniTRAX example that you laid out or in fact the CANDO Contracting, if this bill were not there and if the employees decided they want a union, what would prevent them from having one? Mr.

Olshewski: Well, sometimes employees during the sale become so afraid of losing their job that they are willing to sell at any price, in other words, the employees are told look you will get a job if the union does not come with it. If the union comes with it, they will not buy it, so you will be down the creek. So the employees say: Well, heck, if it means keeping my job, I will go that route. So it is important that the employees have the protection of the union, especially at that time.

It does not mean that, you know, if we were talking about 25 miles of track and three employees, the union might see those people through and negotiate something for them during the sale. I am not saying that the employees, if they said, well, we really do not need a union after the sale, I guess that would be their decision but in order to get there we need this legislation. Let that happen after. We will make those decisions later. Employees can always decertify from their union, but if this is not in place, people can be beat up and beat up bad. Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry ): Thank you for your presentation.

The one question I have is it seems to me that you said you had quite an amicable relationship with the employers and that you had worked out some difficult situations prior to the introduction of this bill. It seemed to me from your presentation that you were able to negotiate. Is that not true? Mr.

Olshewski: Only because the legislation that is being presented here already existed federally and the jurisdiction when OmniTRAX proposed to buy that track from CN Rail, they fell under the federal jurisdiction and their successorship under the federal labour code, so the only way we were able to negotiate those provisions was under the federal code. Had it fallen under the provincial code, we would not have been able to do that. We would not have been successf ul. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Ol shewski. Time for questions has expired. Thank you for your presentation.

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 The next presenter on the list is Wendy Sol. Is Ms. Sol in the audience? Do you have a written copy of your presentation? * (19: 40) Ms. Wendy Sol (Commun ications, Energy and Paperworkers Union Canada ): I do. Mr. Chai rperson: Thank you, you may pro ceed. Ms. Sol: My name is Wendy Sol. I am the national representative of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. Why does the business community oppose legislation that would prohibit unscrupulous employers from escaping their col lective bargaining responsibilities?

Workers want business to honour the contracts they have negotiated. Bill 18 is balanced legislation that ensures that negotiated collective agreements between workers and their employer remain intact during the sale of the business. Without successor legislation, employees could find themselves working at the same place, doing the same jobs under the same supervision but without their previous right to bargain collectively through the union of their choice. CEP's experience with MTS underscores the importance of successor legislation.

First, MTS divided up their business into separate companies, and once the corporation was traded on the stock market some of the companies became federally regulated and one company, Advance, remained provincially regulated. Fortunately, successor rights are in place when you move from provincial to federal jurisdiction and the collective agreements were simply amended when the contract expired to reflect the changes. This was a very unsettling time for all employees. Knowing that the collective agree ment was intact went a long way to ensure a crazy time did not go insane.

Part of the company that remained provincially regulated has just seen the Internet portion of the company become federally regulated. It is business as usual for the workers as the contract is simply rolled over and will be renegotiated upon its expiry. To suggest that the contract is no longer valid, after it was duly negotiated and ratified, is an attack on the democracy in the workplace. The concept of successor ship balances the interests of all the parties. The legislation recognizes that employees have vested rights in the business which deserve protection from elimination when the business is sold.

The employer has the unf ettered right to dispose of their business, and they must be balanced with legislation that protects workers from sudden changes in their bargaining rights. The argument that business will leave Manitoba because of successorship legislation is like the tired threat of capital flight because of taxes or environmental protection. This is an hysterical reaction that is politically motivated. We urge the Government to stand by the principle of Bill 18 and to reject the self-serving demands of those businesses who are unwilling to accept democratic reform of Manitoba labour law.

Part of the responsibility of any government is to ensure a stable workforce and balanced labour legislation to promote an environment that is conducive to productive business. If workers were sacrificed during the sale of a business and contracts were not honoured, the labour environment would be unsettled and would be damaging to the local economy. Businesses are sold every day and sometimes the same business can be merged or sold several times. Workers need their interests protected in these shell games. Bill 18 is a resp onsible way for this government to ensure labour and business interests are balanced. Mr.

Chairper son: Thank you, Ms. Sol. Ms. Barrett: I appreciate your experience as well with another example of where federal legislation protected the rights of workers and also the labour environment during a very stressful time. as we all remember. I think this is a good example of what we are trying to do in Bill 18 , to ensure that balance remains when something comes from federal jurisdiction to provincial jurisdiction, that the principle that the contract stays in place for the life of the contract should be in place as it is with the jurisdiction being federal jurisdiction or interprovincial. I

August 14 , 2000 LEG I SLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF "MANITOBA 21 appreciate your giving us yet another example of where that has worked. Mr. Chai rperson: Any other questions? None. Thank you, Ms. Sol, for your presentation. The next presenter on the list on Bill 18 is AI Cerilli. Mr. Ceri lli, would you please come forward. Do you have a written presentation, sir? Mr. AI Cerilli (President, Manitoba Federa tion of Union Retirees ): Yes. Mr. Chair person: You may proceed, Mr. Cerilli, when you are ready. Mr. Cerilli: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Comm ittee.

We wish to support the Manitoba Government and the Honourable Minister of Labour, Ms. Becky Barrett, for bringing back a respect to those workers governed by the laws of Canada in their employment and the businesses sold and becoming subject to the laws of Manitoba. These workers under the present law are discrimina ted against and disenfranchised of their union rights and collective bargaining process they enjoyed and fought for under the laws of Canada.

This amendment in Bi ll 18 , The Labour Relations Amendment Act, with the necessary modifications to sections 56 to 58, will in fact make and keep these workers whole under their collective agreement covering wages and benefits already fought for and won. The historical fact is that these workers were ignored by the previous Manitoba provincial government. They were stripped of their collective rights, and we certainly express our appreciation of this provincial government's Minis ter of Labour for restoring that.

As a member of a fourth-generation railway family and a personal involvement in railway work and union membership since 19 43, there is a history of workers employed under the laws of Canada and then subject to the unilateral changes because an enterprise management sought better profits by introducing change on its own or influenced governments to accommodate their desired end to abandon the workers and the communities that helped to build and pay for their enter prise's success. Mr.

Vice-Chairperson in the Chair Oftentimes labour took matters in their own hands, as was the case in late 19 65 when the two ma jor railways tried to unilaterally introduce change that affected the workers and the communities that were built around the right railway. Canada was shut down, to say the least, and as a result the federal government appointed the Honourable Mr. Justice Samuel Freedman, a judge of the Court of Appeal for Manitoba, as a commissioner to hear the dispute. His findings were reported to the Honourable Allan MacEachen, Min ister of Labour of Canada.

The report led to many changes in and towards the protection of workers in Canada and in the provinces but also the protection of the communities and the people in them. That has been eroded in the last little while and the plan is working to some degree. In

summary, the Honourable Justice said that operational change by an enterprise should not be at the cost of workers in the community. I think that is an important lesson that we should be learning from the late Justice that was well learned and in fact heard these disputes right across Canada and found out first-hand of the adverse effects when an enterprise abandoned its commitment to a community and to the workers. In the case before you, that under Bill 18 amends The Labour Relations Act, as introduced by the Honourable Minis ter of Labour of Manitoba, Honourable Ms. Barrett, we ask for your support.

It in fact restores a right for workers caught up in any change that disrupts their lives and adversely affects their family. Bi ll 18 clearly sets out the rules of doing business and all parties that wish to engage in the transaction are prewarned of these rules. You have heard the last two speakers giving you highlights-in fact, they are colleagues of mine of what happens and what can take place, and we certainly trust that you will support Bill 18 as presented. Thank you very much. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Cerilli.

22 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 Ms. Barrett: Thank you very much for your presentation and again for sharing an experience that myself, who was not in Canada at the time of the mid -60s, appreciates hearing that historical perspective. particularly was interested in Justice Freedman's comments about a change in enterprise needs to take into account the workers and the communities that they reflect, and we think that Bill 18 provides a balance there. So thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. Vice-Chairpers on: Any further questions from the Committee.

Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Cerilli. Mr. Cerilli: Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: We will now call on Mr. Rob Hillia rd, the Manitoba Federation of Labour. Do you have written copies of your brief for distribution to the Commit tee, Mr. Hil liard? Mr. Rob Hilliard (Manitoba Federation of Labour ): No, I do not, Mr. Chair. I just have a few short verbal comments. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Hilliard: Before I begin, I would just like to comment on some of the things that Mr. Peters said. I also have a relationship with Mr. Peters.

I chair the Board of Directors of the Crocus Fund, and we are in fact co-business owners, I suppose. I would support with him wholeheartedly any initia tive to bring forward legislation that promotes genuine and true employee ownership. I had the opportunity last fall to visit perhaps the mecca of employee ownership in this world in the Mondragon area of Spain. If we had a system that was like that all over this world, certainly in this province, we would have a much fairer, much better system. In Mondragon, the workers vote on who their supervisors are. They elect them .

They vote on every single signif icant decision that goes on in their enterprise. They share in the equity. They share in everything on an equal basis. The manager, the top manager in their operation cannot make more than six times the lowest-paid worker in that plant. That is a fair system, and I would support Mr. Peters in any initia tive, in any legislation that promotes anything like that. * (19: 50) Sadly, we are a long way from that. For every operation like Mr.

Peters, there are dozens and dozens of other ones that do not want to be accountable to their own employees, that do not share the decision making, that do not share the equity of the company. It is for reasons like that, that we have to craft law and labour law in this province and in this country. The issue of successor rights is a common one in labour legislation. It exists in every provincial labour code in this country. It exi sts in the federal labour code, and it is put there for a very good reason. It, No.

I, wants to ensure that unscrupulous employers who, frankly, want to duck the collective bargaining rights of their own employees cannot do so by merely creating another company, another dummy company, moving it over there, and avoiding the collective agreement by doing so. There is another very good reason for doing that. It of fers a smooth transition any time an operation is sold so that the employees themselves do not feel threatened. The employees themselves know the rules of the game, and the employees can partici pate without fear in that transition. We heard from Mr. Peters.

We heard from the gentleman from the Railway Association. Neither one of them said they feared dealing with a collective agreement. Neither one of them said that they could not deal with a union. They merely said that they could not deal by the same rules with the collective agreement that applied with a large national railroad. We heard Mr. Olshewski say when he was involved personally in that kind of an operation he agreed completely. They could not operate by the same rules, so they sat down and negotiated dif ferent ones.

It is an absolute fallacy for anybody to think, for any employer to think that the union exists to put the employer out of business. Any employer

August 14 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 who goes out of business and puts the union's members out of work is a union that simply will not exist very long. A union must have working members to be viable at all. So a union is going to sit down, recognize the new realities and bargain a new collective agreement. That concept is vital to be recognized. If Mr. Peters wanted to buy another short-line railroad, all he needed to do would be to sit down with the union, find out what are the new realities before he stuck his neck out, before he made the investment.

The union would recognize the realities and sit down and negotiate an agreement with them. They have done it before. They will do it again. I think it is also important to note that this bill is not going to cover just short-line railroads. lt is going to cover any transfer of any operation from federal to provincial jurisdiction. The federal labour code already does this when it moves the other way. You heard Wendy Sol talk about how it affected her members, a seamless transition. It is a common concept.

It is recognized in labour law all across the country. lt is normal and routine. lt simply allows a sensible transfer of an operation under rules that everybody understands, and it does not mean that some people get in the backroom and cut a deal that benefits only themselves. It means they have to accommodate the best wishes of their employees as well. For that, I support the Bill.

If it means that there needs to be some minor amendments to that bill to make it work better, that is fine, but as long as the concept of recognizing the employees' decision to form a union and the employees' right to bargain collectively is maintained, that is the main point. Thanks very much. Mr. Vice-Chairpers on: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Hillia rd. Ms. Barrett: I appreciate your presentation and also the point that you make that I think, in much discussion around not only Bill 18 but other labour legislation, needs to be reiterated.

I am glad you made the position that it is a fallacy that unions exist to put employers out of business because the reality is, if you stop and think about it, if, as you said, an employer goes out of business, the workers are out of jobs and that flies totally in the face of what the union movement is all about. Again, I appreciate your pointing out that this is not unique legislation. It is common throughout Canada and that we are merely trying to ensure that the transition can be effective going from federal to provincial as it is interprovincially, or provincial to federal. Mr.

Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Madam Min ister. Are there any others that would like to- Mr. Gerrard : You spoke highly of Mr. Peters and the employee-ownership model in the short line railway operation that he has and indeed the employees have because they share in the ownership. I ju st want to ask you the importance of ensuring that those sorts of models are considered in any move from one compa ny to another and the importance of facilitating that where it seems like it would be a workable solution through this kind of legislation. Mr.

Hilliard: I think what the legislation obligates a new buyer to do is to frankly just sit down with the employees and negotiate what is best for everybody and all concerned, and if the new employer came forward with a proposal that says, we want to involve you in the risks and the benefits of ownership in this operation and in the decision making, they will sit down and negotiate that. This bill merely ensures that that negotiation takes place, merely ensures that that recognition of what is good for the employees also occurs. I see nothing in this bill that would prevent that from happening. Mr.

Chairperson in the Chair Mr. Harry Enos (Lakeside ): Mr. Chairman, just for some further clarification. I understand the importance of successor rights in general to organized labour and to the working people of Manitoba, but we have heard, this comm ittee has heard, specifically on this bill as it impacts on the short-line railways. In my mind that is somewhat dif ferent.

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 Here we have companies that have walked away from a service, from assets, railway track. In some instances, the track has been dormant for any number of years, and it has taken the innovation and the entrepreneurship of indi viduals, and the community sometimes. We heard one representation that in some instances it was the municipality that got together and operated a short line. I asked an earlier presenter, Mr.

Roger Cameron, representing the Railway Association of Canada, representing some 48 short-line and regional railways across Canada, whether Bill 18 was unique to Canada, to the situation. He indicated it was. You, if I heard you correctly, suggested that that was not the case. Do you have other information that is in conflict with the presentation that we heard from Mr. Cameron? Mr. Hilliard: I believe that is just an area of semantics. I also heard Mr. Cameron say that there was legislation in Saskatchewan that recognized some form of successor rights.

I was talking about the concept of successor rights as being universal across the country. When he answered your question speci fically, he was referring specifically to the wording in Bill 18 . He also indicated that he could live with amendments to Bill 18 , that still acknowledged the right for employees to bargain collectively with their new employers. I heard him say that. Mr. Ch airperson: Thank you, Mr. Hilli ard. That concludes the list of presenters we have for Bill 18 . Are there other members in the audience that perhaps may wish to present here this evening to Bill 18 ? No one?

Seeing that there are no further presentations coming forward on Bill 18 , the Comm ittee has heard all of the presenters who were registered to speak to this bill. What is the will of the Committee with respect to this bill and the presentations? Do you wish to leave this open and available for other presenters? Do you wish to conclude the presentations here this evening? Mr. Scott Smith (Brandon West): A sugges tion, Mr. Chair, that we leave it open till tomorrow and continue on to Bill 44. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): We certainly agree with that. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you.

Then Bi ll 18 will be left open for presentations when this committee reconvenes tomorrow morning. * (20:00) Bill 44--The Labour Relations Amendment Act

(2) Mr. Cha irperson: We will now proceed with Bi ll 44. The first presenter on the list is Mr. Si dney Green. {interjection] Pardon me, Mr. Green, my mistake. I forgot we were supposed to do the out-of-province and then the out-of-city presenters first. The first presentation is Joyce Reynolds. Is Ms. Reynolds here this evening? Please proceed. Ms. Reynolds. Good evening. Ms. Joyce Reynolds (Senior Director, Government Affairs, Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association): I am Senior Director of Government Affairs for the Canadian Restaurant and Food Services Association.

We are the largest hospitality association in the country, representing about 15 000 members, which operates approximately 45 000 food service outlets. Our membership reflects the structure of the industry as a whole in that approximately 25 percent of our members are chains and 75 percent of our members are small independent locally operated restaurants, and 900 of our members are here in Manitoba. We work collaboratively with the Manitoba Restaurant and Food Services Association. Let me tell you a little bit about our industry. It is a huge contributor to Manitoba's economy.

We employ 34 000 part- and full-time em ployees, which represents about 6.3 percent of this province's workforce. We also represent about 3. 9 percent of the province's GOP with sales of approximately a billion dollars.

August 14 , 2000 LEGI SLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 25 We are very concerned about the impact of this bill on our industry and the economy. We are concerned about its impact on employee employer relations. We are concerned about its impact on costs, and we are concerned about its impact on the economy and therefore on the business.

Our economic indi cators indicate that our industry tends to perform a little better than the economy when the economy is performing well and a little worse when the economy is not performing well, and right now the economy is performing well and we want it to continue to perform well. We have four concerns in particular that I would like to raise with you this evening.

Section 40, the certification vote; the interim certifica tion, subsection 39(4); the binding settlement process during labour dispute, sections 87. 1 and 87.2, and then the reinstatement following strike or lockout, subsection 12 (2). We are strongly opposed to returning to a card-based system for union certification. We believe it removes a democratic right of employees in this province.

We think a secret ballot vote is the only fair and accurate mechanism in which to determ ine the true wishes of employees, and we have problems with the trade union claims that there is employer interference with the secret ballot vote. We find that a little self-serving given that The Labour Relations Act already gives a labour relations board the authority to order a quick vote after a certification application has been received, as well as the authority to remedy any serious unfair labour practices by employers.

Secondly, there is no obligation on the part of the union organizer to inform employees what the significance of the union card is, what the rules of certification are, what the obligations of certi fication are, and it is natural. Their objective is to sign as many employees as they possibly can, so they are not going to voluntarily provide a full and balanced account of what those responsibilities of being a union member mean.

We feel that a secret ballot vote is the only fair process in a democratic environment, and it allows employees to make an informed decision without interference from both employers and unions. The other thing about a secret ballot vote, it lea ves no doubt in the minds of the other 35 percent of employees who maybe were never approached or rejected the union's approach as to what the majority really wants. It also gives employers that sure knowledge as well, which means that the collective bargaining process is not undermined right from the very start.

The collective bargaining process can be undermined if there is that doubt. On the other hand, the unequivocal results of a secret ballet vote produce a decisive and unassailable out come for both employers and employees. In

section 39(4), Interim certification, we had diffi culty with that as well. This provision requiring employers to commence collective bargaining for a bargaining unit that is undeterm ined is fundamentally flawed, and it is problematic for employers. The technical requirements of certification cannot be met until the bargaining unit is determined. By attempting to fast-track this obligation certification, employers will be forced to bargain collectively bef ore it can be determ ined if that relationship even has a basis in law. This can result in huge costs for employers.

It is really unfair to impose these huge costs for legal counsel, management time when the thresholds of certification have not been met and potentially will not be met. This provision could also result in a fragmentation of the workforce. For example, bargaining for employees who may not be covered could create status for some employees that does not actually exist. The next

section that we have concerns about,

section 87. 1 and 87 .2, this proposed provision represents an unprecedented intrusion by government into the collective bargaining process. It adds extensive powers to the Labour Relations Board with no right of appeal. Employers in Manitoba are already dis advantaged as a result of a mandatory first contract arbitration which allows unions to guarantee certain working conditions to employees during a certi fication drive through an arbitrated settlement. Unions will now be able

26 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 to make similar guarantees to employees in subsequent contract negotiations by negotiating for a strike that is guaranteed to last only 60 days. The negotiating parties know the economic circumstances of their relati onship best and what trade-offs make the most sense. The Labour Board or arbitrator cannot be expected to fully understand the operating realities of a restaurant business and other businesses in the province, nor can they be held accountable if the rates of pay or working conditions create problems for the business's continued operation.

Access to binding arbitration effectively removes the incentive for parties to engage in responsible collective bargaining.

Section 87 provides unions with a powerful tool to deploy as leverage against an employer who is unable to agree to union demands at the bargaining table. If the union has a strike fund which will last 60 days, it can sustain a work stoppage to support demands which may exceed an employer's ability to pay. In this situation, an employer is confronted with a lose-lose situa tion, accept unreasonable demands in order to avoid a costly and a disruptive work stoppage in the short run or incur those strike costs with the possibility that an untenable settlement will ultimately be imposed anyway. The next

section that we have a problem with is the reinstatement of workers following a strike or lockout. The current provision is essential to discou rage undesirable picket line behaviour and prevent situations that occurred under previous legislation where employers were required to reinstate employees who commit ted iile gal activities during a labour di spute. For the protection of restaurant employers, employees and their customers, we think it is necessary that the legislation remain as it is and not protect employees gui lty of strike-related mi sconduct such as violence and property damage.

The current legislation was desig ned to protect employees from any repercussions arising from exercising their legal rights, not their illegal behaviour. The legislation needs to continue to make this distinction. I did not bring my watch up, so I do not know if I have enough time. I have made comments on a number of the other provisions. Okay, I will leave those with you and sum up then. * (20: 10 ) Basically, we have a problem with the legislation because it tips the balance of power in favour of unions which are now focussing on the service sector for new sources of revenue and members.

We also have problems with the card based certif ication system because it denies employees their basic democratic right, and we are opposed to measures which discourage parties from engaging in responsible collective bargaining. We think first contract arbitration and extension of this concept to the labour dispute resolution have precisely this effect. In today's increasingly competitive market place, sensible, balanced, and flexible labour laws are required.

The proposed changes wiii increase regulatory disparities between Manitoba and neighbouring jurisdictions, in particular Alberta and Ontario, and thus erode Manitoba's ability to compete and attract new business investment. Thank you. Mr. Chair person: Thank you, Ms. Reynolds, for your presentation here this evening. Any questions from committee presenters? Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): Yes, just briefly. It is nice to see you. We met on another issue not too long ago. I take your concerns, and I know that the presentation is more detailed than you were able to give, so we will take a look at it.

I appreciate your having taken the time to come and make your presentation bef ore us tonight. Ms. Reynolds: Thank you very much. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Chair person, I, too, would like to thank you very much for your presentation. On page 7, the last paragraph certainly does help the Commit tee quite a bit. When we go into looking at amendments, certainly this will be something we will be bringing to the Minis ter's attention. So thank you very much.

August 14 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 27 Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Thank you for your presentation. Based on this presentation, I am drawing the conclusion that you would like to see this bill withdrawn? Ms. Reynolds: Yes. Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Thank you for your presentation. You made some very salient points that had a lot of cr edibil ity behind them. In your view, would any business outside of Manitoba be attracted to Manitoba if Bill 44 goes through, in the service industry with the parameters around Bill 44? Ms. Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, we believe it will have a detrimental effect.

We certainly followed the situation in Ontario when Bill 44 was introduced and some amendments to the labour code in B.C., and we saw the impact they had on investment. They definitely im pacted investment in those two provinces. Mr. Harry Enns (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, a question to Ms. Reynolds. I would assume that a number of the businesses that your organization represents are members of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce. Floor Comment: I would assume that there is a lot of overlap. Mr. Cha irperson: Ms. Reynolds, we need to record it for Hansard purposes. That is why. Ms. Reynolds: Oh, sorry.

I believe there probably would be overlap between the Manitoba Restaurant Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, yes. Mr. Enns: Mr. Chair, I am simply trying to identif y the "lunatic fringe" a little more clearly. Thank you. Floor Comment: Sorry? Mr. Loewen: Mr. Chairperson, with regard to

section 76, I gather it is also your beliefs that the employee should have the democratic right to vote on whether some of their earnings will be used to support a political party or not? Ms. Reynolds: Yes, absolutely. Mr. Cha irperson: No other questions. Thank you, Ms. Reynolds, for your presentation here this evening. The next presenter on the list is Jan Speelman. Ms. Speelman, will you come forward? Mr. Darr en Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Just on a point of clarification, Mr.

Chair, I understand that the purpose of us allowing out-of-town presenters is because they are inconvenienced if they cannot drive through. Some years ago, the President of the Manitoba Teachers' Socie ty came from my riding, Linda York, and at that time I remember her telling me that the Socie ty provided for accommodation in Winnipeg. Just to clarify, in case there should be a question, I see Ms. Speelman is listed as an out-of-town presenter, perhaps just to clarify that point, to ensure that we are living within the rules. That is all that I ask. I know that when Ms.

York was president she had accommodation provided in Winnipeg and never used the out-of-town presenter provision. It may be diff erent now, just worth clarifying should there in fact be a question. That is all. Mr. Scott Smith (Brandon West): Mr. Chair, possibly if Mr. Praznik had been here earlier, we discussed this issue prior to the meeting's beginning and had gone over this. Ms. Speelman has put down that she is a presenter from outside of town. I believe her home is Brandon. If , in fact, there is a problem with other presenters after Ms.

Speelman, we could look at that, but she has been put down and called forth already. In fact, the question is well taken as it was prior by his colleagues before. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you, commit tee members. Ms. Speelman, you may proceed. Ms. Jan Speelman (President, Manitoba Teachers' Society): Well, I think you know my name is Jan Speelman, and I am President of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. We represent more than 14 000 public school teachers in the province of Manitoba. Our members work in every region of this province and are proud of

28 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 the work they do for Manitoba's 18 0 000 public school students. Less than three weeks ago I stood in this building before the legislative committee considering amendments to The Public Schools Act, Bill 42. Those amendments will signifi cantly improve fairness in the collective bargaining process between teachers and trustees. In 19 96, the previous government removed that fairness when it elimi nated teachers' rights to arbitrate many of their working conditions in what is known as Bill 72.

Those regressive changes soured relations between teachers and trustees. This poisoned atmosphere was not good for the employee employer relations, public school students or Manitoba taxpayers. The Manitoba Teachers' Socie ty is pleased that this government has lived up to its election commitment to restore the balance of power between teachers and trustees. Like the amendments to the PSA, Bill 44 is also an attempt to restore the balance of power between employees and employers. Bill 44 is important to members of the Manitoba Teachers' Socie ty.

At our annual general meetings in 19 98 and 19 99, teachers from around the province voted overwhelmingly in favour of moving under The Labour Relations Act. Every other employee group in the province bargains under The Labour Relations Act. Why should teachers be singled out? In fact, several school divisions at the Bill 42 commit tee hearings stated that it was their preference that teachers be included under The Labour Relations Act. Our members do not understand why teachers are treated dif ferently than doctors, nurses, university professors, Crown attorneys or the police.

While we are pleased with the changes that Bill 42 will make to teachers' bargaining rights, our goal is to be treated like everyone else. We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for fair treatment, just like the unions who you will be listening to this evening. Whi le the amendments to The Public Schools Act do not put teachers under the LRA, by incorporating the LRA by reference, Bill 42 gives teachers many of the rights that other employees have. As a result, any changes to the LRA are im portant to us.

By passing regressive labour legislation in 19 96, the previous government created an anti -union and anti worker climate in this province. It has not only altered the balance of power between teachers and trustees by amending the PSA , it amended the LRA to create an imbalance between employers and workers throughout the province. Those amendments were made to weaken organized labour and impair unions' ability to organize. By muzzling unions, their ability to effectively represent their members was hampered. Those changes were unfair.

The Manitoba Teachers' Socie ty is pleased that this government is attempting to undo the damage done by the previous government. It is a small step towards restoring the balance of power between workers and employers. We are disappointed, however, that the fear-mongering of some members of the business community has caused this government to rethink some of those changes.

The restoration of the provision which permits union certification when 65 percent of employees have signed a union card would return Manitoba workers to a system which governed labour relations in Manitoba for more than four decades prior to 19 96. Reinstating this

section would place Manitoba with the majority of other Canadian provinces. The proposal to allow for an arbitration option to end strikes or lockouts which last more than 60 days will promote good-faith bargaining. It will ensure Manitoba's economy is not dragged down by lengthy strikes or loc kouts. Why the business community is not in favour of this provision is a mystery to the teachers of Manitoba. * (20:20) Bill 44 also allows for the reinstatement of employees following a strike or lockout. MTS does not condone picket line violence.

However, because tension is often high during a strike or a lockout, it is a volatile situation for the workers. The provisions introduced by the previous government were designed to intimida te workers and make them reluctant to participate in a picket line. Remedies already exist to deal with truly criminal activities. They do not belong in the LRA .

August 14 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF l'vlANITOBA 29 At second reading of Bill 44, the Minis ter of Labour (Ms. Barrett) recalled that, during the election campaign, this government pledged to correct the imbalances in the rules governing labour-management relations. She stated that Manitobans voted to restore fairness to the relations between business and labour and to have unions and employers conduct their affairs within parameters that are fair and reasonable.

The scare tactics recently engaged in by some members of the business communi ty demon strate just how outlandish and unreasonable some employers may be. We must not let improvements to our labour laws be stymied by this group. Good labour legislation promotes peace in the workplace and helps workers exercise their rights in a way that is fair and is equita ble. Bill 44 is a step towards elim inating some of the employer intimida tion and coercion that has occurred over the past four years. It is a good start at re-establishing fairness and returning labour peace to Manitoba.

Madam Mini ster, you got it right the first time. Last September, Manitobans voted to restore fairness in labour relations. Please do not allow the vocal opposition to Bill 44 by some members of the business community to change the mandate that Manitoba voters gave you. Thank you for the opportunity to present this evening. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you, Ms. Speelman. Ms. Barrett: Thank you for your presentation.

I particularly like your choice of words of "fair" and "balanced." They are words that I have used a great deal in the discussions that we have undertaken in the last few months on this piece of legislation. I appreciate your comments about some of the elements in the legislation. We are looking for as much comment as we can from a variety of perspectives, so I appreciate having a perspective from the Teachers' Socie ty. Mr. Schuler: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Jan. Twice in your presentation, you mention fearmongering by members of the business community.

Would you also agree with Rob Hilliard, who referred to the business community as lunatic fringe? They are nuts; they are crazy people. Would you go so far as to agree with him on his statements? Ms. Speelman: No, I would not. Mr. Schuler: That is very reassuring to hear. I would like to thank Ms. Speelman. She has not just presented today. She also presented and stayed late on Bi ll 42. You have certainly shown your commi tment to your cause, and I appreciate the presentation. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Chairman, have you polled your members on this issue? Ms.

Speelman: Polled our members on the Bill 44 issue? [interjection] Yes, our members are in support of what is happening. Mr. Loewen: I asked if you had polled them all individually. Ms. Speelman: No, we have not. We speak for our members. Four members of the teachers in Manitoba do not belong to the Manitoba Teachers' Socie ty out of close to 15 000. We speak for the members of the Teachers' Society. Mr. Loewen: Just for clarification, I understand you say you speak for all the members, but you have not polled them. Ms. Speelman: No. Mr. Cha irperson: Any other questions? Mr.

Loewen: Well, it is interesting that your presentation highlights the fact that good labour legislation promotes peace in the workplace and helps workers exercise their right. Would you say that the results of this legislation thus far have been peace in the workplace? Ms. Speelman: Pardon me? Mr. Loewen: Well, do you think the reaction to this legislation, thus far, has been to see peace in the workplace? Ms. Speelman: I think that this legislation will give the employees a feeling of more ownership, more participation. From my situation as a teacher, that certainly promotes a better

30 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 relationship in the workplace. I have not only worked as a teacher. I have worked in other businesses, and I feel the same way. I have worked in the banks. I have worked for Air Canada. I feel it is the same in that. When the employer is feeling that they are valued and that they have some say in what is happening within the company, that it is a better workplace, and it is better for everyone. Mrs. Smith: How do you feel, Jan, about the right of a secret ballot for any union to take a vote? Ms.

Speelman: I think if 65 percent of the members have signed up, have agreed to join the union, I cannot see any reason to have to do that. Mrs. Smith: Have you polled the teachers who also own businesses? I know I have. Have you talked to any of them? Have you got their opinion about Bill 44? Because you said you speak for all teachers. I would take you to task on that. I do not think you do, so I am just asking that question. Ms.

Speelma n: We speak on behalf of our members and maybe there will be a few members who do not agree with everything that we do, but we do speak on behalf of our members as employees, just as the employees that are affected by this legislation. Mrs. Smith: Have the teachers and the teachers who own businesses asked you to come here tonight to defend Bill 44, since you are speaking for teachers? Ms. Speelman: Certainly, many of our members are aware that we are here tonight presenting. We have not had any of them say we should not present. Mrs. Smith: Have you asked them the quest ion : Should you present? Ms.

Speelman: No. answered that question previously, and said no. Mr. Chai rperson: Thank you, Ms. Speelman, for your presentation here this evening. Next presenter on our list is Edward Zink. Is Edward Zink in the audience? Mr. Zink will be unable to present, then. His name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. The next out-of-town presenter on the list is Heather Ostop. I hope I have pronounced that name right. Is Heather Ostop in the audience here this evening? We will wait. Mr. Loewen: In the interests of time, do we have no objection to moving on to the next presenter and then returning to Ms.

Ostop when she returns? Mr. Cha irperson: If that is the will of the Commit tee, although it is my understanding that the presenter is in the next room and has been summoned. We will just give a mi nute, perhaps. Perhaps, if it is the will of the Commit tee, we will proceed with the next presenter. The next presenter on the list is Linda Fulmore. Ms. Fulmore, are you in the audience this evening? If it is the wiii of the Commit tee, then, we will proceed to the next name on the list. If Ms. Fulmore appears in a few moments, after the next presenter, perhaps, we can then proceed.

The next name I have on the list is Roy Eyjolfson. Is Mr. Eyjolfson in the audience here this evening? I hope I have pronounced your name correctly, sir? Mr. Roy Eyjolfson (Seagrarn Company Limited): Close enough. Mr. Chair person: Do you have a written presentation for the Committee? Mr. Eyjolfson: Yes, I do. Mr. Cha irperson: You may proceed, sir. * (20:30) Mr. Eyjolfson: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Madam Minister, members of the standing committee and the audience. My name is Roy Eyjolfson. I am the manager at the Seagram distill ery in Gimli. I will just read what I have written.

August 14 , 2000 LEGIS LATIVE ASS EMBLY OF W.ANITOBA 31 The Seagram Company is a global corporation that has interests in spirits and wines, filmed entertainment and music. The company made a significa nt investment in Manitoba when the disti llery was built in Gimli in 19 68. This plant currently employs 72 people with an annual payroll, including benefits, of almost $4 million. The plant processes over 69 000 tonnes of grains in the production of beverage alcohol.

These raw materials, energy requirements in the form of electricity and natural gas and all other purchases are to support the plant, are solicited from Manitoba retailers and wholesalers. The operation is situated on two quarters of land and is comprised of a production building, barrel filling and dumping, and 46 warehouses to store the maturing whiskies. The plant and its people are responsible for providing the company's global Canadian whisky requirement. As can be seen, this operation makes a considerable contribution to the local and the provincial economy.

In brief, we have the same concerns with respect to Bill 44 as many employers and businesses in Manitoba. These are elimina ting the vote requirement from the certifica tion process; unilateral settlement of collective agreements by arbitration after a work stoppage; and the inability to discipline or discharge an employee for miscondu ct during a strike or lockout. We share the view that these three changes will upset the balance between business and labour that is presently in place.

The potential negative influence of these alterations is sig nifica nt with respect to the Manitoba economy and subsequently all Manitobans. Unions have an important role to play in our economy, and they provide the necessary balance in the workplace. Time has proven that they can sustain their own existence and should not have to depend on government to implement laws that unbalance the relationship. Even the perception of an advantage could be damaging. Manitoba cannot lose any advantage, no matter how small, to the global competition that exists in today's business climate.

The certification process, elimi nation of the voting requirement: This particular issue does not apply to Seagram in Gimli. However, it is felt that the current system works and is effective. Why change it in favour of a system that could create an atmosphere where indi viduals could feel pressured into voting a certain direction? The secret ballot, like all areas of our electoral process, should prevail and enable workers to vote in the direction of their choice without any chance of repercussions.

Additionally, if employees choose by secret ballot that they wish to be represented by a union, then in our view employers are more than inclined to accept that result and begin the collective bargaining process. Two, unilateral arbitrated settlement of agreements after a work stoppage. This proposed change undermines many of the fundamental foundations of collective bargaining. Both sides of the bargaining table lose in a prolonged strike or lockout situation, in both cases, the loss of revenue, wages for the employee and production and subsequent sales for the employer.

This has and should continue to encourage an expeditious settlement of a labour dispute. When one considers that no other juris diction in Canada or the United State s has such a system, why would the legislators of Manitoba consider implementing this concept? No one would argue that collective bargaining, where it is in place, works, and most employers and unions are able to resolve their issues without resorting to work stoppage.

Nevertheless, the right to initia te a work stoppage is a critical element in compelling both employers and unions to negotiate in good faith and with the view of reaching a collective bargaining agreement. Three, discipline or discharge resulting from misconduct during a strike or a lockout. Unlawful behaviour cannot be condoned at any time. Granted, emotions run high in times of labour strife and unrest, but control of emotions and our subsequent actions is necessary at all levels within our society. Malicious intent followed by wilful damage cannot be condoned.

32 LEGISL ATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 We are in general agreement with other businesses that submit that the provisions cur rently in the Act are balanced and fair for employers, unions and employees. In conclusion, as mentioned above, one of the above issues does not apply to Seagram, as we already work with a bargaining unit. The remaining two, however, could have an impact in the future. In closing, all Manitobans must ensure that the global business community does not perceive Manitoba in an unfavourable light.

The result of that perception would be less investment in our province, fewer good jobs, and as a result all citizens will have reduced opportunities for a healthy standard of living, and our governments will have less opportunity to pay for the services all citizens expect. The changes proposed in this bill do not enhance labour relations and for this reason should not be proceeded into law. That is my presentation. Mr. Ch airperson: Thank you, Mr. Eyjolfson. Mr. Schuler: Thank you to the presenter. Basically, what you are asking for in this presentation is that the Bi ll be withdrawn? Mr.

Eyjolf son: Essentially, yes. At least amended a significant amount. It is working. Essentially, the collective bargaining process is functioning. Why rock the boat? Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Minister of Indus try, Trade and Mines): Thank you for your presentation. I wanted to ask if you were aware that seven of the eleven clauses were agreed to by both management and labour in committee. Mr. Eyjolfson: No, I was not aware of that. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I would just like to thank the presenter.

I notice in your presentation you made reference to the secret ballot and you make the statement that employers would be more inclined to accept that result because it was in fact a secret ballot. One of the points that we have made to this Minis ter of Labour over and over again, that although we recognize the secret ballot changes few if any of the certifi cations where 65 percent of the cards have been signed, the great benefit has been in fact that it has said to that employer that there was no doubt whatsoever that their employees wanted that union.

It removed any question of legitima cy, any question of doubt and allowed the employer, in his own mind, to get on with bargaining the first contract, that the real benefit of that provision was very much to say to the whole world, particularly the employer, that is what the employees had voted for without intimid ation by anybody and that the employer should accept that.

Would you agree with that statement, and would that be your advice to this government, that that is one of the real benef its to employers and to the whole community in fact of the value of a secret ballot vote, that it gives legitima cy and clarity without question? Mr. Eyjolfson: Yes, I would agree with that. That is my personal view. When the ballot is totally held in secret, it forms the whole basis of our entire electoral process. as I said in here. It is a democratic process that should not be removed. Mr. Jim Rondeau (Assiniboia): Just a question. You mentioned that you worked with a bargaining unit.

I was just wondering whether your place of business ever had a strike that lasted over 60 days. Mr. Eyjolfson: No, we have not. Ms. Barrett: Just a question. I just wondered if you were aware of the fact that in half the jurisdictions in the country and in Manitoba for the last 50 years. with the exception of the last four years, there was a form of automatic certification for union certification, and that this amendment in Bill 44 is a reflection of that activity in Manitoba over three former Conservative governments, two NDP govern ments and even a Liberal government I think. It shows how far back it goes.

If you had any comments on that? Mr. Eyjolfson: I do not have any comme nts on that. The only consideration I have, again, is that

August I4, 2000 LEGISL ATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 33 those workers, the direction they indi cated they wanted to go was conduct it in a secret ballot, was it not? Mr. Eons: Mr. Chair, I do not present myself to you or to the presenter as any expert on labour legislation. I first of all want to thank the presenter for the 68 000 tonnes of grain your company consumes on behalf of the farmers in Manitoba, that we do not have to pay the exorbitant freight rates on to get it to saltwater ports. As I read the legislation, it puzzles me and it astounds me.

I read it as a dimin ution; it is taking away workers' right to strike, workers' right to withdraw their service, which seems to me so fundamental, and indeed also management's right to lockout. It seems a gross intrusion on the part of government into the collective bargaining process. Mr. Eyjolfson: I would have to agree with that. * (20:40) Ms. Barrett: Just a quick comment to you in response to what the Member for Lakeside has said. This legislation does not take away the workers' right to strike, nor does it take away the employers' right to lockout. I just wanted to put clarification on the record.

Point of Order Mr. Praznik: Fir st of all, it is time for questions, and I appreciate there are statements, but this minis ter is bringing in a piece of legislation that diminis hes the right to strike of workers to legally withdraw their labour after 60 days, if an application is made by the employer to go through her binding arbitration process. She talked about the amendment before the House today. That clearly diminishes the workers' right to strike, and I think if she is going to tell presenters what her bill does, she should be factual about it, Mr. Chair. Mr.

Cha irperson: The Honourable Member does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. * * * Mr. Loewen: Thank you for your presentation. Seagram is obviously a large company, operates in a global environment. Would you agree that part of making investments in any jurisdiction that certainly the labour legislation would be high on the list, in terms of research as to whether to make an investment in one jurisdiction or another? Mr. Eyjolfson: I would have to answer yes to that, not just the labour relations, the labour climate in general. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr.

Eyjolfson, time for questions has expired. Thank you for your presentation. As previously agreed by committee members, we will revert back to Heather Ostop. I hope I have pronounced that name correctly. Is Ms. Ostop in the audience here? Please come forward. Do you have a written presentation? Ms. Heather Ostop (Private Citizen): Just some notes. Mr. Chai rperson: Please proceed. Ms. Ostop: My name is Heather Ostop and I am in support of Bill 44. I am a union organizer and have been for five years. The increase of intimida tion, coercion and harassment has increased substantially.

With 90 percent of applications we make, we have to file unf air labour practices. If unions had the same amount of time with a captive audience and three to eight hours a day for 7 to I 0 days, it would become a fair, level, democratic playing field. Companies can hang up to 20 signs saying anti union information on company sign paper and hang them all over the workplace, including the washroom stalls, so that you do not get a break at all from reading it. Those hang for 7 to I 0 days before the actual vote takes place.

I have a very serious concern with the people's fair rights, free of intimi dation and harassment from the employers. Another instance is an employee working to help the union was fired and out of work for five months, unable to collect EI because of termination. The labour laws of Manitoba are there to protect employees. When I see employees, I assure them that the laws are there to protect them. How do I provide for these people who are being terminated?

34 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 The employees have trusted the labour laws of Manitoba only to be shown clearly the companies think they can do what they want. We end up in a labour dispute, six-month dispute, at the Labour Board. The Labour Board has become swamped with unfair labour practices. Companies have the upper hand because the employees are at work where they are continually subjected to verbal and written intimidation. At 65 percent, the employees have demonstrated a very solid choice of their democratic rights and wishes.

If a company's board of directors showed 65 percent in favour of restructuring or any other decisions, they would go with that. They would not think twice about whether they should have a vote on that; 65 percent would do it. Why then, when it comes to their employees' fair process, they believe 65 percent is not good enough for what they have accepted within their own standards? At 65 percent, employees have exercised their right, without any intimidation, coercion and harassment, to a majority call. Under 65 percent will still have the secret ballot vote.

Because of the intimidation and harassment from employers, 65 percent is a very hard goal to reach. And at what expense to the employees? When a 65 percent is reached, people must have their fair, democratic right of automatic certification. The union does an honest and above-board campaign. Unions do not get charged with unfair labour practice or intimidation, harassment and coercion. Companies spend a fortune on anti union campaigns, lawyers' costs, to fight all the unfair labour practices they commit, during and up to the vote.

It is too bad companies will not spend that kind of money on improvements and benefits for their employees, who are the ones that are making the money for the companies. In closing, I would like to say the vote process did not need fixing in 1996, but was changed anyway without the support. In 2000, the vote process needs to be fixed, so Manitobans have their fair and democratic rights represented and protected; 50 percent plus one has always been the majority. Let us not forget what maJority anything means. Once again, support Bill 44. Thank you. Mr. Cha irperson: Thank you, Ms. Ostop, for your presentation. Ms.

Barrett: Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate your having brought a new perspective in sharing your personal experiences as a worker and as an organizer with the Committee tonight. So I appreciate your having taken the time to come. Ms. Mihychuk: I was curious in your comment when you said that the Labour Board was swamped with unfair labour practices. Can you elaborate as to whether we have seen an increase, and in what part of the '90s that has occurred? Is it something that is recent, something that has happened because of the '96 legislation? Ms. Ostop: I cannot speak for the early '90s.

I can only speak for the last five years or so- Mr. Chai rperson: Sorry, Ms. Ostop. I have to recognize you for the recording system for our Hansard. Please proceed. Ms. Ostop: I cannot speak for the early '90s, but in the last five years, the last three years for sure, I cannot remember a company that we have organized that we have not ended up with unfair labour practices at the Board. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, the factual information on the Labour Board is available to the Minister's staff who is here.

I am sure they could provide it to the Minister or to the Committee on the accurate statistics. but I would just like to ask the presenter a question about the process again. Certainly the point she makes about intimidation, we know it exists. That is part of human nature, of people resisting something. It can happen among fellow employees, by employers, by people who are overzealous in their cause.

I want to ask her, though, if the problem that she has with the secret ballot vote in circumstances is the length of time between when a union would apply for certification with the Labour Board and the time the vote is held?

August 14 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 35 I mean I am sure she would agree that giving people the right to cast their ballot in a secret ballot vote, if people are committed to joining a union, as the case usually is when these things go to a vote and over 65 percent have signed cards, they express that with the ballot. Is her concern the time period between when the certification application is made and whe

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-1-ir3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 1st hansardpdf ir3.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9180abca96f7c025be9fd8defbee445607ba3be6

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