Manitoba Committee Hansard — Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 12 (34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-ir12

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA THE STA NDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Tuesday, February 27, 1990 TIME - 8 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIR MAN - Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli) ATTEN DANCE -11 - QUORUM -6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mm es. Ham mond, Mitchelson Me ssrs. Ashton, Burrell, Gaud ry, Ms. Gray, Me ssrs. Harper, Helwer, Pank ratz, Patterson, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis WITNE SSES: Mr. Lorne Morrisseau, Private Citizen Mr. Ro bert Watson, Hu man Resou rce Mana gement Association Ms. Bev Seman, Private Citizen Mr. Rob De Groot, Private Citizen Ms. Jacque line Smi th, Private Citizen Ms.

Sharon Christensen, Private Citizen Mr. Pat McDon nell, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER DI SCUSSIO N: Bill No . 31- The Labour Relat ions Amend ment Act Mr . Chairm an: Okay, I call the Standing Committee on In dus trial Relat ions to orde r. This evening the committee will resume hearing public presentations on Bill 31, The Labour Relations Amendment Act. I will shortly read off the names of presenters where we left off this morning . If there are any mem bers of the public who wish to check to see if they are registered to speak to the Bill, the list of presenters is posted outside of the committee room.

If mem bers of the public would like to be added to the list to give a presentation to the com mittee, they can contact the Cle rk of Com mittees and she will see that they are added to the list. If we have any out-of-town presenters who have to leave shortly, or any presenters who are unable to return for su bseq uent meetings, the Clerk is going to come and -1 under stand we have one person from out of town and one who would like to leave shortly, so we will get their names.

Just prior to resuming public presentations, did the committee wish to indi cate to mem bers of the public how long the committee will be sitting this eveni ng? Mr. Ashton. Mr. Sieve Ashton (T hompson): I believe we have been sitti ng till eleven o'clock. 215 Mr . Chair man: Is that the will of the committee, eleven o'clock? An Hon our ab le Mem ber: Or sho rtly the re after, depending. Mr. Ashton: If we are in the middle of a presentation, obviously we would hear the person out, and not bring them back. I suggest we- *

(2005) Mr . Chairman: Eleven, that is fine. Okay, we have two presenters. One from out of town and one who would like to leave. The first one is Lorne Morrisseau, No. 20 on your list. Would you please come forward ? Ha ve you a written presenta tion, Mr. Morrisseau ? Mr . Lorne Morri sseau (Pr ivate Cit izen): Yes, I do, Sir. Mr . Chai rman: Would you like to distribu te it to the Clerk, please? Okay, you may proceed, Mr. Morrisseau . Mr. Morrisseau: Mr. Chairperson, I wish to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to express my opinions on final offer selection.

Who is able to say that they enjoy strikes and lo ckouts? I am convinced, Mr . Cha ir person and Mem bers of the committee, that you will agree with me that no one does. A nation-wide trend of third-party involvement in labour disputes appears to be emerging . lt may be seen by the increased use of mediato rs, arbitrators, conciliators, and other Government representatives in efforts to arrive at negotiated settlements.

There is now more and more reason to believe, therefore, that if and when im passes occur in upcoming negotiations in the private and in the public sector that the involvement of a third party will certainly occur. One of the methods now being examined as a means of resolving bargaining im passes is the process called final offer selection. Fi nal offer selection, while not a new idea , is being examined with renewed interest. Obviously, many approaches and evaluations of the collective bargaining process as it exists today must occur if eq uitable settlements are to be found in future negotiations.

Breakdowns in our bargaining process bring negative results to everyone concerned. Interruptions in earnings during strike periods cause economic hardship for the em ployees. By the end of a strike period, they may, but probably not, have achieved real benefits. The em ployer suffers loss of production and profit. The consumers of goods and services are compelled to

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 undergo hardships because of the rest ricti ons of service. Final offer selection seems to provide an alternative by encouraging effective bargaining up to the tradi tional strike point. When this point is reached, both parties are required to submi t their final offer. lt is impor tant, however, that this final offer be the one considered most reasonable in the circumstances, because the selector reviews both offers and ident ifies the offer that he or she will im pose upon the parties.

Instead of devising a compromise between the positions submitted by the parties, he accepts all of one offer and rejects all of the other. The tradi tio nal app roach in media tio n, conciliation and arbitration where it applies has been to devise mid points and compromise positions. In this procedure, both parties enjoy some degree of success with neit her party really satisfied. Both parties are forced to submi t their reasonable offer for fear the other party's offer is judged the most reasonable and is conseq uently im posed.

Final offer sel ection seems to prov ide an altern ative by encouraging effective bargaining without a lot of time wasting ritual up to the tradi tional strike point. * (20 10) The question that remains to be answered is whether the bene fits outwe igh the disadvan tages and this question cannot be properly answered until the FOS legislation has reached its five-year sunset date. FOS encou rages realis tic final offer posi tions elimi nating the tim e-wasting ri tual of last-ditch bargaining in which every so often the negotiati ng team with the most stam ina wins out.

FOS may prove to be the new gateway to satisfactory settlements. In short, Mr. Chairperson and committee, FOS is favourable over strikes. I urge the committee to recommend that Bi ll 31 be entirely withd rawn. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson and committ ee, for allowing me to appear before the com mittee . Respectfully submitted . Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Morrisseau. There are some questions for you probab ly. Mr. Ashton. Mr. Ashton: Right, I thank you for your presentation. One of the ite ms you dealt with is the cost of a strike.

One of the arguments that has been put forward in this comm ittee, an argument that I do not accept but has been put forward , is the suggestion that the 60- day windo w, that the second opportunity that exis ts to get into final offer selection is going to somehow lead people to go on strike for 60 days so that they can then access that window after the 60-day period . I am just wonde ring, given the kind of costs that you have referred to, do you think that is likely to happen if you accept that as an ar gument? This is one of the arguments that has been used to suggest that we get rid of final offer selection.

Mr. Morri sseau: In answer to your question, Sir, I guess we must rely on the Department of Labour's current 216 statistics that have been provided since final offer selection has been put into place. I believe , from the material that I have had the opportunity to peruse, there have been approximately 72 applications for final offer selection. A number of them have been achieved in resolution between the parties. The average period in ti me for some of the strikes is as low as six to nine day period and not the 60-day, 70-day time frame that has been spoken about.

The fearmongers that postulate the fact that there is going to be economic hardship for employers, I think the reverse is only provided in the information from the Province of Manitoba, Department of Labour and their own statistics. Mr. Ashton: You feel that, far from increasing the length of strikes, because that, by the way, has been the di rect suggestion by the Li beral Labou r Critic (Mr. Edwards) in particular, that this provision increases the length of strikes. You are suggesting it is quite the opposite.

That final offer selection, if anything, is helping reduce the number of da ys lost to strike, reducing the length of strikes and, according to your presentation, also in some cases providi ng alternative to strike totally. Mr . Morrisseau: Yes, in response to your question, Sir, the in formation tha t has been provided by the Department of Labour and their statistics will bear that fact out, that the encouragement of mutually satisfactory sel ective bargaining processes have reduced that lengthy period of the confrontation and adversarial of the traditional bargaining lockout strike situation.

I believe that im pacts quite forcefully in the period of time that we have had to exam ine FOS to this date. Mr . Ashton: One question I have been asking of many of the presenters is really something that follows from your point, which is very clearly stated. You believe that the existi ng final offer selection legislation should be given a chance. lt should at least be allowed to continue to the five-year sunset date. What I have been asking is, whether you have been contacted in any way, shape, or form by the Mi nister of Labour (M rs.

Hammond), who is proposing we get rid of final offer selection, by the Li beral Labour Critic (Mr . Edwards) who has also supported that? The reason I am asking is because this Bill does not even allow the final offer selection legislation to go the five-year period. lt is being brought in at a time now where it has only been in place for two years. lt is not even halfway through the process.

What I want to determine quite clearly from talking to the people making presentations is whether anybody bothered to ask you, before bringing in this Bill, because virtually ever ybody thus far has sa id they have not bee n contacted. I would like to ask you, were you contacted about your views on final offer selection by the Mi nister of Labour (Mr s. Hammond ) or the Li beral Labour Critic (Mr . Edwards)? Mr . Morris seau: In reply to your question, Sir, I am too quite surprised that the Min ister of Labour has not

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 contacted me for my feeli ngs, given the free and open democ ratic Government that we believe we have. When these major changes are being put forward, I believe that I am only entitled, like all citizens of the Province of Ma nitoba, to have my opinion solicited, and those were not done, Sir. * (20 15 ) Mr . Ashton: I think you have been doing a very good job tonight about giving your opinion across, and I would like to thank you for your presentation.

I hope that Mem bers of the committee will be listening to the presentations that you and the many other people we have seen at the committee have been making, that is, urging people to maintain final offer selection. Thank you. Mr. Morrisseau: Thank you, Sir. Mr . Chairm an: Are there any further questions? Mr. Patterson. Mr . Allan Pai:terson (R adisson): Mr. Morrisseau, Mr. Ashton has asked you if you have been contacted by anyone other than, I guess, the New Democratic Pa rty about your feeli ngs on this. I might ask, are you a union member? Mr. !\llorrisseau: Yes, I am. !\llr.

Patterson: Are you a mem ber of the executive of your union, shop steward or anything of that nature? Mr . !\llorrisseau: No, I am not, Sir. Mr. Patterson: Well, as I have stated earlier tod ay, our critic, Mr. Edwards , has spoken to some union people. I think you would agree, would you not, that Mr. Edwards or anyone else for that matter could have spoken to several union mem bers or executives, and in fact it would not necessarily follow that-let me rephrase that.

The fact that you say, and for that matter all presenters here say they have not been contacted, it does not necessar ily follow tha t other union mem bers or executive have not been contacted. Mr . Morrisseau: I cannot say who has been contacted. All I can say, Sir, is I know I have not been contacted. Mr. PaUerson: Yes, that is my point. You are only speaking for yourself, as every in dividua l who has been here. Others could have been contacted and you would not necessarily know about it. Is that not true? !\llr.

Morrisseau: That is also true and that is also none of my busine ss if they have been contacted or not, Sir. Mr. Patterson: Thank you, and thank you for your presentation, Mr. Morrisseau. Mr. Chairman: Are there any further questions? Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Mo rrisse au. Mr. Morrisseau: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson and Mem bers of your committee. 217 Mr. Chairman: Our next presenter, Bob Watson, No. 79 on your list. Have you a written presentation, Mr. Watson? Mr . Robert Watson (H uman Resour ce Management Asso ciation of Man itoba): No , I do not, Mr . Chairperson. Mr .

Chairman: That is fine. You may proceed. Mr . Watson: Mr . Cha irperson, Mem bers of the committee, I appear on behalf of the Human Resource Management Association of Manitoba. This is a group of people who are practitioners in the personnel and labour relations field. There are approxima tely 400 mem bers represent ing approx ima tely 13 5 diffe rent companies and organizati ons operating and em ploying persons in the Province of Manitoba. I am the legislative director of that association and as such appear before this committee.

The association represents almost every different type of business and organization in the Province of Manito ba and so we feel has a voice which is representative of the employer point of view on the final offer selection. Dealing with FOS from two points of view, firstly from the economic consequences point of view, I would like to make several points dealing with economics.

Fi rstly, the economy, as any of you who study the emerging trends of business will know, is gradually turning toward a natio nal and global perspective, where we are trading and where we are competing with companies which are in the United States, across the oceans and in Third World cou ntries . We are com peti ng with those companies and those businesses for the same markets, for the same busine ss and for the same sales as what we compete with a Manitoba or Ontario company on. *

(2020) Those businesses are not fraught with the possibi lity of a third party ar bit rator impo si ng an economic settlement on them which they are unable to pay. That is, I be lie ve, an emerging trend in the economic development of the entire world, and that trend must be taken carefully into account when developing labour relations practices that will inhi bit, and we suggest inhi bit strongly, the methods of competition. lt is easy to say that FOS is fair, but it is not easy to say that FOS will encourage the abi lity of Manitoba busine sses to compete.

That is how we are going to exist in the next 10 to 15 years, that is on our abi lity to compete. Right now, we are not competitive. Our labour costs are too high. This has not imp roved them. That is the fi rst point I wou ld like to make with resp ect to economics.

In terms of inc ent ives and wha t I mig ht call disin centives to business, if a business looks at a place to locate, and they examine a number of different provinces in this country, they come upon some labour legislation in a little province out west called Manito ba, yhey first of all run into first contract legislation and are told by lawyers and are told by busine ss consultants-and I know, I practise in the field of labour and emplo yment law-that in this province you have two problems.

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 Fi rst, if you are unionized , you can have the Labour Relations Board write the first collective agreement for you. They are told the second problem you will face if you are unionized is that an arbitr ator can write every other agreement thereafter for you, and that one of the factors built into the legislation is Winnipeg cost of livi ng-CPI . They are told as well by people who are familiar with the arbitr ators who sit on these matters that the arbit rators do not have any trai ning in business, that the arbit rators do not have any knowled ge of the international business trends.

They are told that the arbitr ators can rarely take apart and put back together a financial statement of a company or unde rstand the guts of a company and how it op erates and how it makes money and makes a profit. If they cannot understand it and are not qualified to do so, how do they take into account the competitive need of the company when looking at FOS ? The answer is sim ple. They do not.

The answer to companie s who will say, should I locate in Ma nitoba, would that be a good place to come -the answer from my office and the answer from any labour lawyer who knows the legislation across the country is sim ple. If there is some other province that would better suit your marketing needs and your transportation needs, do no t come to Manitoba. Why? First contract legislation; secondly, FOS; thirdly, a piece of labour legislation that has about 15 0 different sections in it. Why do we operate with one 15 0 sections and Saskatchewan operates with 35 or 40?

We do not know, but we know for sure that this is not the place to advise business to locate. 1t was not the place when we had the payroll tax, and it is not the place when we have FOS. In terms of the economic development and how it affects companie s that are already located here, how it affects their ability to grow and expa nd, quite sim ply, would you invest a couple or $3 million if you had the possibility that a third party arbitrator with no knowledge of your business could manda te what you would pay? Would you invest $2 million, $3 million, $5 milli on, $10 milli on, $20 million of your own mone y?

I would suggest you would not. I would suggest that most people who press for FOS do no t have $1 million, $2 million , $3 million or $5 million or $10 million to invest in business. I would suggest they have not developed business in this country and in this province and are not like ly to. If you look at the economic aspects, I suggest there are only two conclus ions .

Firs tly , the eco nomic develo pment and attraction of compan ies outsid e to locate in Ma nitoba is virtually nil, based on your labour legislation and FOS is a good part of it; secondly, I would suggest that the ability for companies that are located here to com plete globally with the possibi lity of im position by FOS of what they will pay is not good. lt is a disi ncentive. *

(2025) If we look beyond the economics and a1 what the pro cess of FOS has done to the labour relations climate, I would like to start with what the object of the Act is. The object of the Act is supposedly, theoreti cally, to promote harmon ious relations through the practice and procedure of collective bargai ning. If you exam ine what hap pens in reality, FOS applications are made oftentimes without a first meeting for bargaining. Sometimes they are made after the first mee ting and proposals are exchanged.

Certai nly the FOS process does not encourage the obligations under the Act of good-faith bargaining and the obligation to make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement.

Instead , what it promotes is to make the FOS application and after having made that application, let us let the em ployer know that we have just initia ted the li ttle lever that is called FOS and that they should be remi nded that FOS says that CPI is one of the factors to be taken into account in the legislation and ask them whether they would like to go to Russian roulette or whether they would like to settle with us amia bly.

I would suggest to this commit tee that FOS is used quite simply as a lever in collective bargaining. lt is used as a legislatively obtaine d lever, a lever to put the parties on an unequal footing, a lever to put one party at an advantage in legislation instead of an equal playing ground. The practice of use of FOS certai nly does not encourage collective bargai ning. Why would you need to bargain if you can go to a final offer selector and obtain CPI or close to it?

Why would you need to bargain if you could use FOS as a lever to eke out, to squeeze out of the em ployer something that they could not afford but they would sooner not take the chance of an FOS arbitrator ruling in a way that would damage their business? The em ployer will not take the chance. 218 Of all of the applications you have seen filed, some 72 applications, very few of them have come to the point of a final offer selection de cision. Em ployers, like anybody who has been before an arbitrator or a judge, do not know what the outcome will be, but they are not pleased with the possibilit ies.

So instead of that, they take the second but again unpreferable alternative, which is to give as much as they can to try and avoid the process, to try and avoid having a third party decide their economic future for them. That is the process of final offer selection. In a recent round of bargaining, the first comment that was made was here are our proposals, some 20 pages of proposals, and if do not like them and you do not think you can agree to them all, just let us know, because we will apply to FOS. We do not really need to meet again until after the FOS hearing has convened.

Does tha t prom ote collect iv e bargai ning? Not in practice; not in procedu re. The main object of the Act is to promote the practice of collective bargaining. This is a disi ncentive to that practice. This is unequal footing. If you examine the two reasons that we subm it, one is the economics and one is the iong-term economic base of this province. The second is the use of a lever of an unequal footing, of a resort to practices other than collective bargai ning to obtain some thing in bargaining which the union without FOS would not obtain. we look at

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 We conclude quite sim ply that this process is not desirab le. If parties, the union and the employe rs, wished to have arbitr ation settle their differences, they could agree to have the aspects, all of them, the provisions of The Arbitr ation Act apply, and they could agree to arbitra tions under that Act to settle each and every outstand ing issue. You will find very few who have done that, em ployers and unions.

The union promotes it as such a good thing; the union thinks it is the best thing since sliced bread , but ask how many of the unions went to the em ployers before FOS and said look, let us agree under The Arb itration Act to submit all of our dis putes that we cannot settle to arbitra tion.

You will find very few of those. lt just was not a process that the parties were comfortable with because the outcome could favour one or the other to the dis advantage of the "lo sing party." In summa tion, for the reasons we have stated , the Hum an Resource Ma nagement Association is in favour of the repeal of this legislation. Thank you very much, Mr. Chai rperson, Mem bers of the comm ittee. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Watson. Mr. Ashton. Mr . Ashton: I want to deal with what you are saying in terms of the economic situation in Ma nitoba. I have asked this qu es tion previ ously in the com m ittee hearings.

There has been an advertisement put out in terms of Ma nitoba that states that we have a skilled and stable work force. lt goes on to state that we have a reliab le and productive work force plus consistently good labour-manageme nt relations, which have given Ma nitoba one of No rth America's best labour reputations. Are you saying -! am not trying to read anything into your presentation that you are not saying-that you would agree or di sagree with that statement? *

(2030) Mr . Watson: I would say, Mr. Ashton, quite simply that the brochure or information you are referring to is like the promises on a wedding night. lt all sounds very good until about three years after the marriage. When you get there and find out what the labour legislation is really like, you say, should we have invested several million dollars, and my answer is, the labour relations clima te is not sufficiently stable to warrant investment, firstly, and secondly, that the labour legislation is not su fficient ly neutr al to warrant in vest ment in this province. Mr.

Ashton: The reason I ask you is because that was put out in a number of business publications by the Minis ter of Indu stry, Trade and Tourism , Mr. Jim Ernst. lt is also endorsed by the Manitoba Indus try, Trade and Tourism Branch. lt is part of what they are telling people. lt does re flect, by the way, the statistical situation in Manitoba. You said that we do not have a stable situation in terms of labour relations.

But is it not a fact that last year we had the second lowest num ber of work days lost due to strikes in the country and the lowest number of work stoppages, in particular the lowest number of work days lost due to strikes in 17 219 years? How can you say we do not have a stable labour relations clima te when the statistics, and I belie ve this analysis, ind icate that we do? Mr. Watson: Mr. Ashton, if you have spent any time with an accountant, you will know that figures can be used for whatever purpose the purporter would like to use them for.

If you examine the process of looking at what the reasons are for the low strike situation, you fail in your analysis to take into account such things as the difficult economic environment in Manitoba , the fact that if unions in the past several years had pressed their positions at the bargaining table there would not have been some businesses and some jobs open. You fail to take into account probably 15 other things that reflect and have an im pact on the figures that you purport, and so in res ponse, quite sim ply, Mr. Chairperson, the analysis I would not agree with.

I would submit that there are many reasons for the figures that are quoted . Mr. Ashton: I am not denyi ng there are many reasons. I have said that in the comm ittee, but you said there was not a stable labour relations climate. You disagreed with the statement that we have one of the best labour reputations in Canada. What I am suggesting to you is that the statistics there may be 17 or 18 or 19 different reasons behind the statistics, but it is hard to look at the facts and say that we do not have a stable labour relations climate or one of the best labour reputations in Canada.

I have quoted to you the Conservative Governme nt's own view, this is the Minis ter of Indus try, Trade and Technology (Mr. Ernst). I quoted to you the statistics. Do you not feel, regardless of your opposition to final offer selection, and I recognize there is a philosophical difference we may have on it, that in actual fact we do have a pretty stable labour relations climate? We have consistently had a good record, and we have had one of the best records ever in 1989. Mr. Watson: As in any cross-examination, the person being examined is not obli ged to agree to the suggestions of the exam iner.

In this case, I di sagree with the suggestions of Mr. Ashton. Mr. Ashton: Quite obviously. Just as I said, it is not that often that I quote the Conservative Min ister of Ind ustry, Trade and Tourism. I believe- Mr. Watson: Only, I am sure, when it is to your advantage, Mr. Ashton. Mr. Ashton: Pard on me? Mr . Watson: Only, I am sure, when it is to your advantage. Mr. Ashton: I will quote what I consider in this case to be a pretty objective source, given the biases of that Mi nister. He is the one that has put out this document, and the statistics, I believe, show that.

I just want to de al further with what you are suggesting. I am having some di fficulties in dealing with

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 some of the concerns you have raised. You seem to have some great difficulty with the provisions in the Act. I have it before me,

Section 94.3(8), with the Consumer Price Index for the City of Winnipeg being one of the factors that is looked at. You have a difficulty with final offer selection because one of the factors it is based on is the cost of living? You mentioned the cost of livi ng several times as if it was a major, major problem. I was wondering if you would elaborate on what your concern is in terms of the CPI, as it is used in final offer selection. Mr . Watson: I think, quite sim ply, Mr.

Chairpers on, the use and the specification of CPI leads the arbitrator who is hearing it to focus on that factor. lt is the only factor other than ability to pay, which is specifically delineated. The others are very general. If the Act had gone on and said that the arbitrator shall take into account such things as the global economy, the positioning of the company, and the economic competitive situation in North Am erica and in its markets, and the arbitrator shall have such qualificati ons to be able to judge these matters, then maybe there would be some fairness in the application of the procedure.

Our disagreement goes far beyond that. lt goes to the point of saying, quite simply, how can you ensure you are going to be competitive globally if you can have a settlement impo sed back home? a settlemen t of your wages, a settlement of your ben efits, a settlement of all of your costs under the collective agreement, when your competitors have no such thing. Try and compete on those bases if the major costs of operating your business is personnel. Mr. Ashton, I am maybe speculating a little, but I would specu late you have not oper ated a ma jor business that is a competitor globally or interna tionally.

I would suspect that you have not been involved from a point of view of labour relations, and have not been involved from a point of view of determining what the problems are in applying the legislation. I would suggest quite simply that it is easy to be an armchair labour relations person but more difficult to be a person who is on the firi ng li nes, operating a company. Mr . Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I have also been through two strikes and do not want to see a lot of people go through the ex perience that I had to go through.

I do not know if you have had that experience and I am not suggesting that I have had the greatest amount of experience of that either. I do not want to personalize it , but I would suggest perhaps that you might want to look at the situation that faced some of the presenters before the committee, for exam ple, people who came here from Su perValu and went for months on end and saw their liveli hood taken away, by people who saw their savings wiped out. We had a presenter from Shoppers Drug Mart here this morning who talked about the experience in the 1985 strike at Shoppers Drug Mart.

If you want to get into personal experiences you can say what you want in terms of my own background. I would be glad to sit down with you personally and explain why I have come to the conclusions I have on 220 labour relations and on this particular Bill, but I would suggest that you might also want to ask you rself that, because I believe that is something that we all should look at: the experie nce, not just our own experience, but the experie nce of other people and wha t they have gone through. *

(2040) One of the reasons I am asking you these questions is because you made a very blunt comment. You said you had a problem with the Consumer Price Index. You have now mentio ned that there is-and I want to quote the section, it refers specifically to the employer's ability to pay. Other factors that are included are obviously the terms and conditions of the existing and previous collective agreement-it says right in the Act. Other factors that are included are the terms and conditio ns of employment, if any, negotiated through collective bargaini ng for employees performing the same or similar functions in the same or similar circumstances as the em ployees in the unit , and a specific

section which talks about fair and reasonable being the selector's respons ib ility -to de termine the mo st fair and reasonable offer. I am having a bit of difficulty here. You said you had concerns about CPI because of the global situation, but the Act itself includes provisions to protect the company in terms of the employer's ability to pay and in terms of work performed by other em ployees in similar circumstances and also makes specific reference to being fair and reasonable. Why in your presentation did you have such a great concern about the CPI?

Why did you not refer to the other factors which, to my mind, balance it as equa lly from the bUsi ness sid e? lt specifically says in there the ability to pay is one of the major factors that is taken into account. Mr . Watson: I think, Mr. Chairperson, quite sim ply, the legislati on I am quite familiar with.

When you examin e the legislati on and then go and exa mine the awards that have been published on FOS and ask yourself: do these awards take into account such things as the competitive position of the business; do they take into account their abilit y to compete in the province or nation ally or internationally; do they take into account such things as whether the business will be financially viab le; do they take into account such things as, do the em ployees really want what is in the FOS offer; do they take into account such things as, will the settlement promote the objects of the Act; will the decision of the arbitrator promote the object of the Act to promote harmonious relations? -take into account some of those factors, you will see, if that was his basis of an award , the CPI would not accomplish some of those things. lt is only a partial factor, only a small factor to be taken into account, but would not accomplish, in our respectful submission, those things which I suggest.

There are many more. Mr. Ashton: One of the other things you suggest is that we somehow have high labour costs in Man itoba. Are you suggesting that we have higher labour costs than other provinces-Ontario, for examp le, Quebec? Because I have seen the statistics in terms of incomes

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 in Man itoba and we have trad itionally been somewhat below the nationa l average, not substantially below, but somewhat below the national average. I am just wondering what you are basing that observation on. Are you suggesting that we some how have high labour costs here in Ma nitoba compared to other provinces? Mr . Wa tson: My suggestion was qu ite clear, Mr. Chairp erson. We are need ing to compete in a national, international and global economy.

The wage rates we pay in Manitoba for products that can be produced, whether it is in Peru , whether it is in China, whether it is in Ja pan or whether it is in the southern States, the product prices that we produce them at take into account a much higher labour cost.

Granted there are some provinces in Canada that have higher rates and also granted there are some provinces that have significantly lower rates. look at the Ma riti mes, for exam ple, it is not just the wage rates in Canada, it is the wage rates nationally, internationally and globally. it is not any more a proper description o! the business clima te to say that we are on an island in Man itoba, that we do not stray off the islan d. We must be able to compete with all of the other islands or else we will be a vacant one, businesswise. Mr.

Asllton: Well, I find it interesting, because when I was listening to your presentation I thought you were arguing that we had high labour costs. Now you are suggesting we are higher perhaps in some provinces and lower in others. I thought that was the connection with final offer selection. I am wondering now, you have said there are other provinces which have a higher labour cost than we do, some which have a lower, none of them have final offer selection. Obviously final offer selection is not the real reason. You are comparing the labour costs with, you menti oned , Peru and China.

Now I have not been to Peru and I have not been to China, but I belie ve the wages the re, you would be lucky to get what our minimum wage is right now, about $4.70 an hour, in one day. Are you suggesting that we should someho w be structuring our labour rela tions leg isla tion to "com pete globally" with Peru and Chi na? I am just wondering , I mean if we are going to not have final offer selection so that we are going to have to compete with Peru and China what else do we want to elimi nate. You mentioned first contract. You mentioned you do not like our labour relations Act, the 13 5 provisions.

I just want to ask really where do you draw the line? How far do we keep going so that we can be competitive with-and you use the example s of Peru and China. What do you want to see us do besides get rid of final offer selection? Mr . Watson: I think quite simply the position is tha t we must compete nationally, internationally and globally. I did not compare just China and Peru . I also made reference to the United States.

If you sell a piece of fu rniture in Man itoba that is produced in Mani toba, that can be produced in the United States for three-quarters of the cost, and if the labour cost component of that is significantly higher 221 in Manitoba, the production will be done in the United States. lt will not be done here. Canada does not have, and neither does Manitoba in particular have, a lot of natural resource. lt has its people as its resource.

I am suggesting quite sim ply that the labour legislation must be drafted and must be put together to take into account and allow businesses to compete globally, not just to com pete provincially or interprovincially but to compete globally. Mr. Ashton: Perhaps you have not had the opportunity to tr avel in northern Ma nitoba, and I can assure you we do have a lot of natural resources. Mr. Watson: I have been there many times, Mr. Ashton. Mr. Ashion: Well, you just said we do not have a lot of natural resources and as a representative from Thompson I can point to an excellent exam ple of what we do have.

If we want to get into specific examples, if one wants to look at the situation inco-workers at lnco earn $14 -$15 an hour and upwards. I suppose lnco's plant in Ind onesia probably pays less than that , but we have one of the most competit ive nickel mines in the world for a number of reasons. One is technology, and the second is-and I think it is probably the second last time I am going to have to agree with the Min ister of Indus try, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Ernst) from the Conservative Government-but we have a skilled and stable work force.

I would submit to you, we can compete and it is because we have a skilled and stable work force. I would submit, we can compete far better when we have legislation such as final offer selection which leads to a stable labour relations climate. I would also submit to you that really you are not here to oppose final offer selection, as I understand it; you are here to talk about a substantially di fferent view of the world. Really you are here I think to oppose virtually everything in The labour Rela tions Act tha t has been in trod uced , probably-! do not know how far you want to go back.

You want to repeal by your comments today everything we have introduced in the 1980s. lt seems you probably want to go back to the 1972 law. I really ask that question quite seriously because, how far do you want to draw the line? How far back do you want to go? How much of The labour Relations Act do you think we have to repeal to be competitive? You me ntioned the southern United States. Sure, they do not have final offer selection; they do not have first contract; they have right to work legislation, which in ma ny cases preve nts people from being able to unionize.

They have minimum wages there that are half to two-thirds of what we have. I am trying to get some picture of where you want to draw the line and what further you feel needs to be done. How much more should we be rolling The Labour Relations Act back, in your opinion? *

(2050) Mr. Watson: Mr. Chai rperson, the comments that we make today are dir ected to final offer selection. I will not be making any comments beyond that, nor will I be asking or answering any questions beyond that.

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 Mr. Ashton: That is fair enough . I recogn ize that we are not the United States yet . We do not have the Fifth Amendment. But I appreciate that . You do not have to answer that question , but I did ask it quit e seriously because you are talking about this global economy. I assume you are also prefacing that in terms of the impact of the Free Trade Agreement. That has been one issue that has been brought before this committee earlier.

But I did want to ask you-we have had many presentations from people in committee and you talked about having an "equal playing ground ." You have said that final offer selection does not encourage bargaining . Most of the people who have come to the committee said in many cases it has. We had an individual who came here who was opposed by the way to fina l offer sele ction initially, who indicated that in his expe rience in several cases it probably saved the plant , because the alternative was a strike situation that could have continued indefinitely.

He said in his experi ence, and this is by the way from somebody who opposed final offer selection initially , that as many as 400 jobs could have been saved . I am wondering if you have talked to any of these companies in terms of what has happened or talked to the people involved in those contracts , because you have talked about jobs and the global economy. Surely, do you not feel that saving jobs , as that particular individual pointed out happened under final offer selection , is important, or are you suggesting that there are other factors? You do not feel that is something we should be looking at? Mr.

Watson: If I have the deta ils correct, Mr. Ashton , you are talking about some meat processing or packing plants . Is that correct? Mr. Ashton: There was also another plant which was not in that field . Mr. Watson: But the primary thrust of the information as I understand it that was presented was in respect of meat processing plants. I would go on to say quite simply in respect to the meat processing plants , the submission as I understand it was made by a union and was to the effect that FOS had saved these jobs because they had not gone on strike.

I do not have all of the details , but my response to your question will be very simple. It is a matter of opinion whether FOS saves positions. If you ask someone on the union side, they would say it saves many positions when it would benefit them to maintain legislation. If you ask somebody on the employer's side , they might say that the process of FOS was the only realistic alternative because they could not agre e with the union's position in bargaining. There are many different points of view on the subject and how it was applied and what it really meant about saving jobs.

I think that I would be very hard-pressed to find an example of an employer in this province that would say FOS saved positions and FOS saved their company . Mr. Ashton: Actually what had happ enea ,11 rha l particular case is the company and the union 1,dd gone 222 from a position of absolute confrontation in terms of labour relations, they have been through a lengthy strike, final offer selection really helped them get back to the bargain ing table, and they are currently involved in a program of improving labour relations . It has been recognized by all that was the case .

I raised this by the way because the presenter indicated quite clearly that he had been opposed to final offer selection, so it was comi ng from that perspective, not from someone who had supported it right from the start. I just want to go a little bit further, and I know that you do not want to get into the question of where we draw the line. You have talked about final offer selection and first contract really in the same breath , so obviously you have a particular concern of that nature .

Wha t I do want to ask though is-a nd this was a point that was raised by the presenter from the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce actually. He said he was not really questioning what final offer selection did in terms of providing a reasonable settlement . That was not really the question . I am just asking you in that same situation just to be fair, because we did get into this a bit earlier , are you disagreeing with that statement?

His concern was more in terms of the proce ss, the potential situation of a settlement being developed by an outside party, which has happened in five of 72 applications but that was not really being conte nded . Do you agree with that statement from the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, or do you still feel that despite the fact that it is in the Act that final offer selection does not result in reasonable settlements? Mr. Watson: Quite simply, I feel that the FOS impo siti on does not result in some cases in settlements which the company has the ability to pay. Mr.

Ashton: Although the ability to pay is right in the Act, why would the settlements be developed in terms of final offe r selection without an ability to pay whe n it is right in the Act ,

Section 94.3(8)

(4) Subsection (e)? Mr. Watson: It cou ld be, Mr. Ashton, for many reasons . It could be, for example, tha t the arbit rator cannot read a financial statement . It could be that the arbitrator has no training in business . It could be that the arbitrator does not understand business . It cou ld be th at the arbitrator had a position where he had a wage decrease offered by an emp loyer and a wage increase offered by the union and took something on what he thought was the fair side, a wage increase, but still not within the ability to pay.

It could be that the arbitrator simply was not qualified to judge the business 's abil ity to pay. There are many reasons why it could be. Mr. Ashton: The problem then as I see it accor din g to your view is not so much final offer selection but the arbitrators. It seems to me that you could just as easily take the argument that you have made and say we need better arbitrators rather than getting rid of a law , an entire law, because of that. You are really sayi ng that it is not a questio n of what is in the Act , your concern has been in terms of how it has been dealt with. had

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 Mr. Watson: Mr. Ashton, you might like to reduce the submis sion to that single point, but I would not agree with such a red uction, nor would I agree with your suggesti on. Mr. Ashton: I was just tryi ng to follow from what you have been saying, but I am having some di fficulty because it seems from your comme nts to me and the comm ents on this that you feel somehow that the only people who are really capable of com menting on this are people who have $2 million or $3 million to invest in a busine ss. I am involved in a small business, and other people at this table are.

I make no bones about that. I have worked , gone on strike, and make no bones about that. Do you not feel that there is room in this whole de bate and di scussion for looking at what has been happening in a lot of these work places? You talked about the 72 situations. Only five of them have gone to the selector stage.

The vast majority of other cases have continued with collective bargaining. lf final offer selection is so negative, in your view, why have only five gone to the selector stage, and out of those, why have we ended up with a situation where it has been even? lt has been three and two throughout the whole process. lt has been one and one, two and two. I belie ve it is three and two now, in terms of the applications.

I am just trying to determine, apart from your global concerns about where you draw the line, what your real problem is with a mechanism that by most defi nitions appears to have allowed collective bargaining to continue. Five out of seven to the selector stage means 67 out of 72 have been resolved. Mr . Watson: Mr. Chai rperson, the question of why more have not gone to the selector decision stage is an interesting one. lt involves some analysis from the company's point of view of the reasons why they chose to settle before FOS.

Having been involved in the process, I would suggest that some of the reasons are the same as some of the rea sons why parties to a di spute do not go to court. They have no idea of what the judge will rule, as in the final offer selection process, they have no ide a of what the arbitr ator will rule. lt is a Russian roulette process. Instead of facing Russian rou lette, the emplo yer says, let us get the best settlement we can.

Some times we believe that we cannot afford it, but let us take it because it is certainty rather than taking the uncertai nty of having a much higher settlement that we certainly would not be able to live with. There are many reasons. Those are some of them. Mr. Ashton: Is there not also the other side? I know you have categorized the employee side as squeezing out money from the employers. You talked about your concerns in terms of CPl. We have seen contracts where the company's offer has been zero. We had a presenter come in and say the company offered three dolla rs less an hour .

We have heard people come before the comm ittee and say that they have been in situations where the company has said , you will receive no guarantee of hours. That was one of the big di sputes at Su perValu. These people then ha ve the choice of accepting that contract or going on strike, and then sitting there tor 223 three months or four months, seeing people cross the picket line take their job away.

I just do not see how you can talk about employees as one-sidedly squeezing out, whether it be the CPI, which I by the way do not consider to be that unreasonable, receivi ng a pay increase which is tied to the cost of livi ng, but is there not also the other side? Are they not also faced with the risk? Is it not perhaps the fact that we have 67 out of 72 settled before it has gone to the final offer selection stage, more of a reflection of the fact that both sides have to make some very tough choices? Both sides have to be very reasonable and put in offers that they feel are fair and reasonable.

That is what final offer selection was intended for. I just do not see how you can portray this as being so one-sided when the employees face as many difficult situations, difficult choices as the employers do. * (2 10 0) Mr. Watson: Well, I think simply, Mr. Chai rperson, this is now devolving into an expression of advocacy on the part of Mr. Ashton that relates to philosophical differences, and that is the only way in which I would respond to that. Mr. Ashton: My intention really was not to talk about it in terms of philosophy.

We have had a lot of people come before this commit tee who certainly have been talking about philosophy. They have been talking about the real situation they have been through, and I was just trying to give the opportunity to add ress that. We have had many people come here and say they support the mai ntenance of final offer selection, not because it give them the abil ity to squeeze something out of employers, but because it has given them an alternative to a strike situation that they felt was not in the best interest of anyone.

In cidentall y, we had people come before this committee who walked the picket line for SuperValu. We have had people come before this comm ittee and say, it was not just the people who were on strike, it was the strikeb reakers, who said they wanted another way, a more reasonable way. I apologize if you took it as being strictly a philosophical de bate. I was really trying to deal with what I saw as the balance. I just want to ind icate tha t we obviousl y do have a di sagreement. I do not believe it is a dis agreement of philosophy, I belie ve it is more fundamental than that.

I do not believe we should be shifting that line. I do not believe that we should be going to the lowest common denomina tor in labour relations, trying to be like Peru or China . I do not mean to be unfair to you in your arguments, but those were the count ries you did use. Yes, we are going to have some disagreements, but I would hope that you would respect- Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashton, I wonder if I could call you to order, and if you could question the presenter rather than get into a de bate with him- Mr. Ashton: I am not getting into a deba te. Mr.

Chairman: Yo u are here to qu estion his presentation, and we would like you to stick to that format, please.

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 Mr. Ashton: I was just concluding my remarks, Mr. Chai rperson, by saying that while some of us do not have $2 milli on or $3 million to invest globally, perhaps some of us do not have what you would consider the ideal background to comment on this, we do live in a demo cratic society. I respect your right to come before this comm ittee and make your presentation. I hope you will respect the views of the others who made their presenta tions and tho se of us who are on the comm ittee. By the way, it is not a philosophical issue for me, it is a fundamental issue of fair ness.

I appreciate your coming before the comm ittee, and I do hope perhaps that you will take the time to listen to some of us who perhaps do not meet all your criteria in terms of what you feel is ne cessary in deal ing with this issue, but I belie ve our views are just as valid. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Patterso n, do you have a question? Mr. Patterson: Yes, Mr.

Watson, you and a couple of previous presenters have mentioned, it may or may not be a reality, but you say it is at least a perception out there that potential investors outside the province seem to be scared off, is what you are saying, from investing in Manitoba by the general labour relations climate of which FOS of course has been a part the last couple of years. Do you know first-hand of any such organizations or any data available from others that could ind icate that let us say in fact we did lose two or six or 20 potential investors over the last few years? Mr . Watson: I kno w fi rst-hand, Mr.

Patter son, of approxima tely eight first-hand who have not come to this province to set up business for reasons related to labour relations, including final offer selection. I know first-hand of those that final offer selection was a significant factor in their decision, because I had advised them on The Labour Relations Act of Man itoba and what it contained and what their obligations were. I know in ad dition to tha t from busi ness conta cts, approxima tely one dozen further in the last two years who have decli ned to locate in Ma nitoba , again for the same reasons. Mr. Patterson: Thank you, Mr.

Watson, and thank you for your presentation. Mr. Chairman: Are there any further questions? Ms. Judy Wasylycia-leis (St. Johns): I have just a couple of questions following up the line of questioning from my colleague, Mr. Ashton. I am not an expert on labour laws, and I will not profess to understand all the issues inside and out, but it seems to me that you have expressed opposition to a couple of areas or issues that are very im portant to equal ity for women.

From my perspective, I have heard this many time s over, that first contract legislation and final offer selection have been very critical in terms of moving us closer toward equal ity between women and men in our society, have been very im portant tools for developing the full human potential of working women in our society. I am a little 224 concerned in terms of your presentation. Can you comment on the im pact of your remarks and your opposition to both FOS and first contract legislation in terms of I presume a goal we all share in seeking greater equal ity between women and men? Mr.

Watson: I could comment on it, Mr. Chai rperson, but I will not. The issue of who is equal and who is not equal, whether it is a mino rity, whether you are Ukr ainian, Fren ch, female, male or somewhere in between, in my view has nothing with respect to the issue to do with final offer selection and therefore warrants no comment. Ms.

Wasylycia-leis: I am actually-to be that technical about it then, raising these issues from the perspective of a group that actually is a majority in our society, women certainly I do not think would want to be considered a mi nority group and would like to have the full benefit of progressive legislation to become equal participating mem bers in our society. My question on that same theme would be then , would we not want-you are the di rector of Human Resources Management Association, and you have talked primarily and only as far as I can tell about attracting businesses and about competition.

Do we not want to be attracting businesses to Manitoba who want to also help de velop the human potential in this province to its fullest? Mr. Watson: I do not disagree with that as an admirable objective. However, I think that it must be fitted within the realities of business, not just in Mani toba, but in all other locations.

The realities of business are, first of all, you must operate the business and be able to make a profit, otherwise there is no business; second of all, you must be able to operate in an environment in which the legislative sanctions, whether they are in labour relations, whether they are provision sanctions, whatever they might be in labour relations, taxation, any other area of legislation is at least neutral, at least it puts people on a fair and equal footing. From a business point of view, FOS does not.

In addition, relating to your comments, just to clarify, I accept your comments based on your analysis of the population, but I would also say quite simply that it would not matter whether it was a majority, a mi nority or some other group, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the FOS process. Ms. Wasylycia-leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. From my perspective, I think women have suffered for a long tim e and are unequal players in our society because of a system that is not neutral. lt has not been free of bias in terms of the way in which women are treated and dealt with.

So it would seem to me that anything we can do to even out the equation and bring some neutrality through tools !ike first contract legislation and final offer selection, which actually help achieve equality, is an im portant thing to do, and I would ha ve thought as a di rector of Human Resource Management Association that would be one im portant part of your work. If we do not have the tools of first contract legislation and final offer selection and other women

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 progressive labour tools and labour relations tools, how do you view the struggle for equality between women and men and how do you propose then that we begin to close the gap and deal with those inequities and make it more neutral? * (2 11 0) Mr . Watson: Mr. Chai rperson, I think the Honourable Membe r would like me to take a walk down the path of inequal itie s and the path of women 's rights.

That is a path that has nothing to do with the presentation in my opinion, with respect, and it is a path which I will not be walking down this evening, whether it is with the Honourable Mem ber or any other Mem ber. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Well, obviously we have different views. I suggest to Mr. Watson that in fact this whole issue has everyt hing to do with women 's equalit y. lt is a very im portant ende avour in terms of trying to close the gap in our society and try to ensure greater equa lity between women and men.

I really have no further questioning except to say that I hope that, as a Human Resource Management Association, you are looking at not only attracting business to the province, but also businesses that want to develop our human resource potential to its fullest. Mr . Watson: I can assure the Honourable Mem ber we look at many different factors and facets. However, this evening I am here to dis cuss only one. Mr. Chairman: Are there any further questions? If not, I want to thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Watson. Mr. Watson: Thank you. Mr .

Chairman: We will start again from the top of our list and our first presenter that we have here is No. 4, Ms. Bev Seman. Perhaps I will read out the names first though, starting from the top. Mr. David Ryzebol, Mr. Sidney Green, Mr. George Smith, Ms. Bev Seman . Do you have a written presentation , Ms. Seman? Please proceed. Ms. Bev Seman (Pr ivate Citizen): Mr. Chair person, comm ittee Mem bers, I welcome the chance to speak to you tonight on FOS. The reason I wanted to speak on final offer selection is because I feel very strongly that we need it in today's society to better be able to work with employers- Mr.

Chairman: Perhaps you could bend your mik es down so you get closer to them, so we can hear you better. Thank you. Ms. Seman: -instead of beating our heads against brick walls and struggling due to strikes and lockouts in this province. I am only talking about Ma nitoba, nothing else. I also feel that, with having FOS as legislation, it makes companies and unions bargain better and in good faith rather than ask ing for outrageous demands and concessions on either side. I have had personal experienc es on pic ket lines.

I know that at times it can be very frustrating and even 225 demor alizi ng to strikers on the picket lines and to workers and their families. These are the nineties, so let us not take a step backwards and have thi s legislation repealed, but let us strive for a better working relationship. So let us keep FOS. We only have another three years to try. That is it. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Are there any questions for the presenter? Mr . Ashton: I am not going to ask you if you have $2 mi llion or $3 million to invest in a global business. You ma ke a comment on final offer selection.

I want to ask you about your own perso nal experience. Yo u ment ioned- Ms. Seman: Well, I have been on strike. Mr . Ashton: Perhaps if you could just outline to the comm ittee what your experience has been in terms of pickets and strike situations you have been through. Ms. Seman: In '78 I was on strike with Canada Safeway. ln'87 I walked the picket line with the SuperValu strikers. I belie ve it was'84 or'85 I walked the Burns picket line. I was on the Fisons picket line. I go where all the workers need help on picket lines. Mr. Ashton: I want to ask you a question.

I have raised this, and you have probably heard me ask this question before, based on one of the arguments that is bei ng used on final offer settlement by both the Min ister of Labour (M rs. Hammond) and the Li beral Labour Critic (Mr . Edwards). lt is on the 60-day windo w because we do have two options to deal with final offer selection. I think it is particularly appropriate. You have talked obviously to the workers at Fisons who tried to use that after 60 days. They ran into some legal difficulties that kept them going for 21 days after that.

I just want to ask you, based on your experience of having talked to many people who have been through a strike situation and from your own situati on, do you belie ve it is in any way reasonable to suggest that this 60-day windo w has led people to go on strike for 60 days so they can sit out, collect strike pay, lose their income in the meantime, potentially lose their savings and their house, so that they can then come in after 60 days and apply for the 60-day window on final offer selection? Ms. Seman: I do not think so, in my person al expe rience on a picket line I got paid $15 a week.

I do not think I want to stay out on strike for an extra 60 days. Mr. Ashton: That was $15 a week? Ms. Seman: $1 5 a wee k. Mr . Ashton: I raise the question because one of the problems we run into a lot of time s is it is very easy for someone who has never been through it to talk about it. But I just cannot ima gine anyone, unde r any circumstances, going out on a 60-day strike-it may

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 not be $15 a week; I realize that was a few years ago, but I am ·s ure the strike pay has not increased that much during that time-a nd then applying for final offer selection after the 60-day windo w. I just want to go a little bit further and ask you you have been through the situation yourself, you have made it your business to talk to a lot of other people who have been through some pretty bitter strikes. I mean, you mentioned Fisons, you mentioned SuperValu, you mentioned Burns.

What are the people you have talked to saying, the people who have been through those strikes, about final offer selection? We have had people come here and suggest that-and the interesting thing is, in the SuperValu case, for example, it is not just the strikers, but people who cross the picket lines, the strikebr eakers who now are talking about final offer selection as being a very positive alternative to strikes. But what is your experience? What are people out there saying about final offer selection? Ms.

Seman: They want to keep it in legislation because it is an alternative to having to go out there and striking. We do not want to get rid of the collective bargaining tool, we want that as a right. But FOS should be another right, another alternative to make both side s bargain fairly and honestly with each other, instead of banging your head against a brick wall, as I mentio ned before, and the employer says, well, to hell with you, go out on strike. lt also makes the unions bargain more fairly.

They do not ask for ridicu lous demands, they ask for more rea sonable things, and just go for the absolute essentials, in my opinion. Mr. Ashton: So you feel, you really dis agree with the previous presenter , who suggested that someho w employees are using final offer selection to squeeze money out of employers that they cannot afford. You are suggesting tha t it leads to not just the employer but the employees bei ng reasonable in their contract demands. * (2 1 20) Ms. Seman: Very much so.

As I have mentioned before, with FOS , the way I feel, it makes the employer and the employees or the union, or the bargaining unit, bargain more fairly and ask for less, and ask for more reasonable demands. Mr. Ashton: There has been a lot of talk in this comm ittee about balanc e in labour rela tions. Yo u mentioned the Sa fewa y strike that you had been through, you mentio ned Burns, you menti oned Fisons, you mentioned Su perValu. What occurred in those strikes in terms of the use of strike breakers, people crossing the picket lines to continue the operation of the plant?

I am just trying to find out how many of those strikes that you have either been involved with yourself, or you have seen first-hand in terms of the picket lines, how many of them involved emp loyers who were hiring people to cross the picket line to continue the operation of the plant while people sat out on the picket lines? 226 Ms. Sem an: From personal experience, Safeway hired scabs or replacement workers, whichever you want to use, and SuperValu hired scabs. Fisons hired scabs.

I am not positive about Burns, but I know exactly how the workers on the picket lines felt, having these people cross their lines, being bused in, protected by the company, because they felt they needed protection from people who are fighting for their livelihood , and their jobs. Mr.

Ashton: So the majority of the cases, once people had gone on strike, they had withd rawn their labour, they were in the situation that even though they were on a legal strike, the employer was able to hire-I am using perhaps the sanitized terms here; I would probably use the word scabs, quite frankly; let us call them replacement workers, let us use that term -in the majority of the cases they continued the operation of the plant. You mentioned SuperValu. I assume in the other cases as well there was a great deal of frustration, a fairly significant number of incidents involving confrontation.

I know that SuperValu-1 was there myself on the picket line and supported the workers, and I remem ber what happened in terms of the mass picket. I just want to ask you on that point what your experience was and what the experiences of the workers were in terms of what they ran into. You mention about some of the incide nts. I was wonde ring if you could elabor ate the kind of situations they found themselves in, not just the workers I guess, anybody who came in contact with that, the customers, various other people. Ms.

Seman: As I mentio ned , it is really dem oralizing on a picket line, because you not only have to contend with your bosses going by and saying little insinuations to you, trying to demoral ize you, trying to get you to cross the picket line and take what little self-respect you might have left, because you are not only on that picket line fighting them , but you are also fighting the public who comes by. They call you names, they may reach out and hit you. You may get threatening phone calls at home from other replacement workers, as you call it, or management.

That has been my personal experience on a picket line. I know SuperValu people went through the same thing. As well they are fighting the banks, they are fighting credit card people, because they do not have the money or the abili ty to pay their bills. So it is not only the public on the picket line but it is also the companies that want their money, and you just do not have it to give. I mentioned I got $15 a week on a Safeway picket line. The SuperValu people got $10 0, and they had to picket so many hours a week to get that.

They could not go out and get another job because they had to be on that picket line, and your job means something to you. You are not out there because you want to be, you are out there because the company forces you out there. Mr . Ashton: I appreciate your relaying to the comm ittee your experiences. One of the arguments we have been using in terms of our suggestion that we maintain final offer selection is that it provides a way of avoiding the

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 confronta tion. Quite frank ly, I have di fficu lty sometime s-maybe people want the confrontation. Perhaps in Peru and China they have-well, I guess in China they have confrontation, but we see what they do when they have it. Perhaps I digress. What I want to ask you is: you are suggesting to this comm ittee that final offer selection can prevent some of these strikes and yet still provide people with a fair and reasonable contract settlement. Ms. Seman: I feel so, because as I said before, both sides are free to put any ridiculous demands on the table.

We know one is going to be picked , and if we put anything too ridic ulous on the table, being a union or the mem bers, then you know that the arbitr ator is going to pick the company's side. On the other hand, the company will not put anything really ridiculous because they know the union side will be picked then, so it makes you both be reasonable and fair. Mr. Ashton: Your experiences-you mentioned this earlier-and particularly people who have been through strikes such as that is that they strongly support the mai ntenance of final offer selection.

The reason I am ask ing th at is because ther e was some concern expressed originally when it was introduced that it might somehow erode the relationship between between the leader ship of the unions and the member ship. We still heard this from the Li berals for example. They are suggesting that somehow perhaps if people out there are not saying, they know better, that this is not in the best interests of the working people themselves.

You are saying to this comm ittee that the people you know who have gone through those strikes are strongly in support of having FOS as an option, another alternative to the strike situation. Ms. Seman: Yes, that is what I am saying, and I am also saying that I feel personally it has made a better working relationship with management at the work site. Mr. Ashton: lt is interesting you should mention that, because the Li berals have suggested that someho w final offer select ion leads to di vision wit hin the workplace-qui te the opposite.

So you are saying that final offer selection, if anything, contributes to an imp roved situation in the workplace both with the emp loyees them selves and also with the empl oyer. Ms. Seman: That is the way I feel personally, and that is the way I see it at my work site personally, because they know we are being reasonable. We are not asking them for every cent they have got, and they are not asking us to take concessions all the time. Yes, FOS is a threat, just like strike is a threat, but it is only a threat for them to bargain more fairly with us, to treat us like human beings. That is all we ask. Mr .

Ashton: Of course, it is a threat that works both ways because you are in difficulty if you are not being reasonable as an employee. You are faced with the potential situatior.� of havi ng the emp loyer's offer selected . So you are saying what it really does is it pushes people towards a contract rather than pulling them away from it. 227 Ms. Seman: Yes, tha t is what I am saying. Mr . Ashton: There has been a lot of talk about the im pact final offer selection has had on women. I know my colleague, our critic for the Status of Women just asked a few questions earlier.

I note that the Women's Agenda, for example, which represents 35 women's organizations, two-thirds of those organizations have suppor ted mai ntai ning FOS. Only one of the organizations actually voted against that. You have menti oned a number of companie s; you mentioned Safeway; you mentioned SuperValu where obviously the majority of emp loyees are women. I just want to ask you, going back to those strikes, and going back to the on e you were involved in, if you could outline the kind of situation that people were faced with, particularly the women, particularly those who were supporting families.

What kind of im pact did the strikes that they went through have on them in terms of their fina ncial situation , their family sit uati on, and their personal situation? Ms. Seman: In a lot of cases, a woman is not there as extra money any more. She is out there because she has to have a second wage coming into the house to be able to live in today's society. During the Safeway strike in '78, it was the same thing. Prices were going up, and it was starting that you could not afford to only have one salary in the home, so financia lly you needed a second wage.

As a women, the stress of bei ng on a picket line, wanting to do your fair share and stand up for what you belie ve in and stand up for your rights, you go home and you do not always have a significant other or whatever there that unde rstands the way you feel on a picket line, and understands-well, I am not really good with words-the crap you take on the picket line from the public, okay. You have also got small kids you go home to. You still have to do your duties as a mother that you did whether you are on a picket line or not, or you take your kids on the picket line.

In today's society, if I had had small childr en in'87, I certainly would not have taken them on the SuperValu picket line because of the way the public was reacting to us. lt was not the picketers doing anything. lt was the public doing things to the picketers. You are on a picket line fighting for your job, not being able to say anything to the public, but they can do and say whatever they darn well feel like to you because they are the public. Belie ve me, that is demora lizing, and you do not want children on picket lines like that. * (2 13 0) Mr.

Ashton: I think you have very eloquently said what it is like to go through that, and I appreciate your relaying it to us. I dis agree, I think you are doing quite well in terms of the words and relaying it, and probably doing a better job than a thousand and one more sanitized academic views we get of a strike situation, because I have been through it, and quite frankly, I was single, I did not have as much at stake. I can only imagine what it was like for yourself and other people, and the people you have talked to on other picket lines.

Tuesda y, February 27, 1990 The reason I am asking these questions is because want Mem bers of this com mit tee to kno w parad oxicall y -it is fun ny, we had the Ma ni toba Cham ber of Comm erce ask whatever happened to the heroic strikes as if-he had this idea that working people want to go on strike, that it is something that they want to go on strike in each and every situation. lt surprises him that does not happen, when most people have been coming before this comm ittee and saying that most people go on strike as a last resort, not that they are not proud to be fighting out there for their jobs and what they believe in, but it is a last resort.

Essentially you are saying to this comm ittee, even having been through a strike and havi ng seen those strikes, essentially what you are saying is-not that you are in any way ashamed of taking a stand-you are saying in the 1990s there are better ways of havi ng people treated than the kind of situatio ns that Safeway or Fisons or SuperValu, where people went out on strike, where their jobs were taken away, where their savings suffered , or they lost their homes, all the family and personal pressures. You are saying that final offer selection is a far better way of resolving dis putes. Ms.

Seman: Yes, I feel there are better ways. I feel FOS is the answer. You know what they say about a dog; you kick it and it will bite you, you pat it and it will be your best friend. Mr . Ashton: That is an interesting way to end off. We hope there will be some old dogs, to quote one of the previous presenters, who will learn some new tricks on this one. We are hoping this comm ittee will listen to people such as you rself, lis ten to your pers onal experiences, what you have been through, and what you are saying to this comm ittee, which is to save FOS. Thank you. Mr. Chairma n: Are there any further questions?

If not, I want to thank you very much, Ms. Seman, for your presentation. On down the list, Ms. Buffie Burrell, Mr. Ken Crawford, Ms. Linda Fletcher, Mr. lrvine Ferris, Mr. Randy Porter, Mr. Bob Bayer, Mr. Mi chael Camp bei i-Balagas, Mr. Art Dem ong, Mr. Wayne Andon, Mr. Alain Trudeau, Mr. Eugene Fontaine, Mr. Grant Ogonowski, Mr. Robert Olien, Ms. Heather Orton, Mr. Art Barnson, Mrs. Jan Malanowich, Mr. Bill Comsto ck, Mr. Patrick Joyce, Mr. Larry Rumancik, Mr. David Hisco, Mr. Colin Lang, Mrs. Christine Woloshen, Ms. Annette Malone y, Ms. Monika Fei st, Mr. Chris Monk, Ms. Joanne Maciag, Mr.

Welland Ritcher, Mr. Dale Neal , Mr. Terry Turcan, Mr. Rob De Groot. Do you have a written presentation, Mr. De Groot? Mr. Rob De Groot (Pr ivate Citizen): No, I do not. Mr. Chair man: Would you like to pass them to the Clerk ? Oh, you do not, I am sorry. Plea se proceed , Mr. De Groot. Mr. De Gr6ot: Fi rst, I would like to start by thanking you for giving me this opportunity to speak on this 228 im portant piece of legislation. I would like to state that the se opinions are opinions of my own and not necessarily those of anyone else.

I do not know if any of you have seen today's paper, but I would like to ma ke a comment on this on the pred iction that it is going to be tough wage bargaining this year, partly because of a number of things that are coming up, including GST, the FTA, a number of other things. FOS is a piece of legislation desig ned to reduce and at times to elimi nate the negative consequences of labour dis putes to workers, businesses, and society as a whole. lt is intende d not to replace the collective bargai ning process, but to enhance that same process by encouraging both parties to negotiate realistically.

This is done by using the same incentive which the threat of a strike or a lockout uses, which is the threat of financial harm being incurred by both parties, as well as the lack of control over the final position of any outstanding issues. Nobod y, neither the employees nor the employer, wants a contract im posed upon them. Final offer selection does nothing to prevent the two parties from coming to a consensus and concluding an agreement on their own.

The only way that a party could deem FOS as an impedi ment to the collective bargaining process is if a party wishes to engage in surface bargai ning, that is, not to bargain at all, to bargain in bad faith. Prior to the introduction of FOS, the labour relations climate of Manitoba, as has been stated, was as good as, if not superior to, the rest of the provinces. In fact, Ma nitoba had one of the best in North America. The introduction of FOS has not changed this. Legislation is introduced to provide society with continui ty in social conditions, employment, as well as the supply of goods and services.

Less frequent and shorter strikes and lockouts are condu cive to ensuring that continuity to the em ployees in terms of income, to society in terms of constant supply of goods and services. Laws are designed, I feel, to protect the weak segments of our society from the strong, not just one segment, but all segments. In this case, workers, I feel, represent the weak segment and the employer the strong. I say this because the em ployer holds the power of the workers' standard of li vi ng, and jus t as im portantly, the working conditions.

The pream ble to The Labour Relations Act, which was talked about earli er-The Labour Relations Act of Manitoba states that it is in the public interest to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the use of the collectiv e bargaining process. Harmonious relations, !looked this up in the dic tio nary. "Ha rmonio us" is defined as manifesting agreement and concordant views, attitudes, feelings, etc., free from di ssension. "R elations" is defined as the position of one person with respect to another, i.e., a ruler to a subject, or I might add an employer to an em ployee.

"Ha rmonious relations" would therefore be defined as the position of one person with respect to another which shows agreement and concordant views, attitudes, feelings, etc. Taking this into account, I feel that FOS, as well as any other legisla tion which promo tes harmonio us

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 relat ions by encouraging dis cussion, is what collective bargai ning is all about. Discussion is a step forward. What we need is a labour rela tions clima te based on co-operation, not confrontation, between employers and emplo yees. I feel that FOS is a step in that dir ection. The mere fact that it is avai lable puts pressure on both

partie s to try to reach an agreement on their own. Once the prelimina ry posturing, and there is always posturing when you start collective bargaining, is finis hed , both sides know that reasonable and realistic proposals must become evi dent as the proc ess proceeds. While I would never suggest that workers abrogate their right to strike, I do believe that there must be an alterna tive to that recourse. Prior to FOS, workers had no choice other than to strike against an unreasonable emplo yer if they wished to receive a fair share of the profits created from their labour.

I must stress, however, that I belie ve that the employer's financial situation as well as the state of the economy as a whole must be taken into account during negotiations. Unreasonable demands cannot be made if you want a successful collective bargaining process to progress. * (2 14 0) While this is not done in every case, in the majority of cases, unions examine all such aspects of information which is avai lable to them.

In most cases the employer is unwilling to allow the union to examine their books, thereby red ucing the union's abil ity to put forth a set of proposals based on knowledge of the employer's com plete financial condition. You cannot put forth realistic proposals if you do not know where the other side stands. That is where the di scussion comes in. You have to be able to discuss both sides. If an employer goes out of business, it is not in the empl oyees' or the union's best interest, so this is not an objective.

If an emplo yer goes out of business, who suffers? lt is the employer, yes, but it is also the employees who are then unemployed . With FOS in place, if a strike or lockout do es occur, nothing prevents the two parties from coming to an agreement on any or all issues privately and of their own accord. Ho wever , once a strike or lockout has be gun, agreement is often very di fficult and prolonged strike s inflict undue hardships on the workers, their families, the public and the employer. The real value of FOS is that it provides a windo w through which the parties can pass to get an im passe resolved.

But this windo w only opens for a brief period of time, between 60 and 70 days after the start of a strike or lockout. The other windo w is from 30 to 60 days prior to the expira tion of a contract. By the time the 60 days have passed , after the strike begins, if the two parties have not reached an agreement or are not at least getting close, the struggle tends to be one not based on compromis e and agreement but rather one in which the strong party is attem pting to wear down and punish the weaker party.

I previously stated which party I belie ve is the strong and which is the weak. it ha s been my observation that when a strike takes place, it is the la st resort for the workers, because they 229 have the most to lose. During a strike an employer's overhead is reduced -ie. wages, benefits-while the expens es incu rred by the worker continue uni nterru pted . If the emp loyer chooses to hir e replacement workers, as happens in the service industry often, then the employer does not even lose his/her income, or at least not all of it, while the empl oyee is losing his/her income.

This clearly puts the worker in the weaker and mo re vul nerable posi tion. This is especially so when the employer is a large corporation or conglomerate with extensive resources which enable it to starve the workers into accepting concessions. it sometimes is the objective of the emplo yer in prolonging a strike, and thus breaks the union. The employee may lose his/her home, et cetera, while the employer stan ds to lose his/her profits. As was stated by another speaker, as well, the employer may go out of business.

I ask the Mem bers of this commit tee to consider how they would be affected by the !oss of pay for one week, a month or even two months, which is the 60-day clause. Would it affect your security, the security of your fam ilies? Also consider how you would be affected by a loss of pay in excess of 60 days, as may be the case if FOS is repe aled. Ho w wou ld it affect your constituents? The average working person, in fact anyone I know would be devastated by a loss of pay for any length of time. Myself, I would notice a loss of one week's pay, never mind 60 days. l walked on a few picket line, not many but a few.

One thing I have noticed is that workers want to return to work. They do not want to stand out there. Given a chance at a fair and reasonable collective bargaining agreement, they would almost definitely vote for FOS, regard less of whether the application was made by the union or the employ er. But mo st imp ortantly, it is the workers who decide to use FOS , not the union officials nor the employer. By voting in favour of using FOS, the workers are in effect ratifying the use of the process.

I mention this because it was previously mentioned that it was taking the control away from the workers, as the collective bargaining gives them some control over the process. Another way of working that problem out would be that nothing prevents the workers from ratifying the actual final proposal package from the union, although this could be a problem to some extent if the company sees it ahead of time and are prepared. Recently I have heard business leaders as well as some politicians protest that FOS interferes with the collective bargaining process and on this basis alone must be repealed .

As I have stated, FOS does not detra ct from free collective bargaining, which we all seem to want mai ntained. Even the Cham ber of Commer ce and Mr. Newman seem to agree to this: we want colle ctive barga ining maintained. FOS enhances the process by providing yet another avenue toward concluding an agreement. lt must be remem bered that it was the business leaders pre-collective bargaining era in the '30s and '40s who opposed the collective bargaining process, claiming it would never work and businesses would fail

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 across the land. Today, as we have seen, it is proclaimed as a success. To change is not to fail; to change is to evolve. Anything that refuses to evolve, di es off. By this I refer to our society and economy. If we refuse to change to a system of co-operation from our present confrontational system, we are desti ned to fail as a society and an economy. I have been here for the last few days, actually. I missed yesterday morning; I had to work. I have listened to a number of speakers, both from the commit tee as well as some people up here.

I have come up with some positions on statements that were made. Mr. Grant Mi tchell was a very interesting person, seemed quite knowledge able. He seemed to feel that the FOS gave the employer access to the employees, as I have previously stated . He felt as well that FOS encouraged the parties to fail to di sclose their true positions, encouraging strikes because of the escape windo w, as he called it, which can be used if a strike is not going well. These are his words, the way he described what happens.

He also felt the employees do not have a chance to ratify the collective bargaining agreement when FOS is used . But, as I stated previously, employees ratify the process. I must stress that FOS only deals with outstanding issues. That means that if the two parties have agreed to 99 percent, and there is only one outstanding issue, then it only deals with that one outstanding issue. lt is not the whole contract; it is whatever is outstanding, whatever the two parties cannot agree upon.

I think that is crucially impo rtant. lt is not everything; it is not the whole ball of wax. lt is just whatever they cannot agree upon. If they can agree upon it, fine; you have got a contract. Obviously, there is no impa sse if they have agreed to everything. Mr. Ross Martin seemed to think that we should repeal this now, because he feels it is not working. I must emp hasize tha t there is a su nset clause on thi s legislation. lt is only two years into its existence, and it has only three to go.

We do not really have a clear picture of how well it will work, and I feel that it should be left to ex pire to the end of the sunset clause so it can be assessed. Two years is not a long enough period to properly assess the function of it.

There was a lot of talk about lack of unity by the labour movement in favour of FOS, but as was stated , and I know I have talked to a numb er of people, because, as I said, I have walked on a few picket lines not many, but a few-and so you get to know a few people from this union or that union-! mean you would get to know that as well just from knowing people but even the people who were against FOS at the 1985 NFL convention, they have come onside and either supporting it or at least speaking against the repeal. * (2 15 0) As I said, Mr. Newman is an interesting fellow.

He has represented the Chamber of Comme rce. He stated before this comm ittee that the forced relationship of FOS , or, that is, forced by FOS on the employer and on the employee, is rem iniscent of slavery. This brings 230 to mind the master-servant relationship, as it is called in law, which covers everybody else that is not covered by a union contract. He also stated that FOS has a potential for forcing employers to accept provisions in a collective bargaining agreement which they do not agree to.

If that means that employers must try to negotiate fairly and on a jointly agreed upon collective bargaining agreem ent, then so be it. I know employees have always had to settle on things they did not agree with. He also made some obscure comment to the effect that FOS promotes unions to maintain the status quo. Then he went on to say, and make gains for their mem bers. Now, I do not know, maybe I am not smart, but if he is mainta ining status quo, how are you making gains? Mr. Newm an's response to Mr.

Ashton (Thompson) on a question, and I have to apologize because I did not get the question down when I was writing these notes, impli ed that the Legislature should not put in place laws which are an impedi ment to business, that both parties would be better off if these laws did not exist. I would suggest Mr. Newman will only be happy if we re turn to the pre-union recognition period of the 19th Century. Business could operate with regard to profits only and with no regard to the health and welfare and living conditions of workers. The issue of replacement scab workers during strikes was brought up by Mr.

Patter son. Mr. Ne wm an's response that Manitoba's business make-up is of small businesses, 50 employees or less, for the majority, with few large businesses with many employees, suggests that if only 50 employees suffer at a time, it is okay, that it does not really matter. I would suggest that within Mani toba there are large businesses which use scabs to replace hundreds of employees, which we have heard with the Supe rValu strike. I would also state that even if only 50 employees suffer in this province at a tim e, it is too many. lt is not right. After listening to Mr.

Gardn er, the same advantage that he fears FOS gives to unions, that is the abil ity to reduce the risks of a strike by allowing it to bai l out if the strike is going badly, seems to be al ready given to the emplo yers by the abili ty to hir e sca bs or replacement workers and thus reduce their loss during a strike or lockout. Lockout wou ld not be included in there, I guess. lt would just be during strikes. Mr. Edwards (St. James)-and actually I am sorry he is not here. I was looking forward to him questioning me on some of his questions. In response to Mr.

Edward s' question as to whether FOS does not make the decision to go out on strike somewhat easier, and he seemed to be quite adamant on this. He asked of, I am sure, the one about three or four tim es, because he did not get the answer he wanted and he asked a numb er of them. The availabil ity of FOS does not make the decision to go on strike any easier, any easier than the

section in The Labour Relations Act which manda tes that a strike-it does not make it any easier for the employees to go on strike than the

section in The Labour Relations

Tuesday, Fe bruary 27, 1990 Act which mandates that after a strike, employees must be rein stated to the empl oyer. Mr. Patterson pointed out that arbitra tion is already avai lable to the parties prior to FOS and I agree it is avai lable, but it must be ag reed to by both sides; otherwise there is not the availabil ity and, if one side decide s to bargain in bad faith, they are not surely going to agree to arbitra tion. (Mr. Helmut Pankra!z, Acting Chairman, in the Chair) Another comment made by Mr. Edw ards (St. Ja mes) related the abili ty of the mem bers of a union to enact FOS to handing the unions a gun.

Again I would like to make a comparison, that bei ng between the abil ity of FOS and the abil ity of the emplo yer to hire replacement workers. The employer imp lements the hiring of replacement workers at the beginning of a strike, thus maintaining their income and/or profits while the employee loses income from the onset. I would suggest that if anyone has a gun it is the employer. Then we come back to Mr. Newm an. He suggested that the supporters of FOS get emotional about issues such as FOS.

He seemed to feel that all emotion must be removed from all issues and impure economic theory which calls for the maxim izing of profits without regard for all else. I would suggest that protecting one's standard of living and one's family is an emotional issue. Mr. Newman 's adamant position against FOS and sim ilar legislation, to use his words, since 19 72 seems to show emotion on his part as well.

There was another reference to FOS not being needed due to the availability of arbitration but, as I have stated, if one party decides not to agree to it it is not available, and this I feel would have been the case in the Westfair strike and ii would not have made any di fference; in fact it did not.

To conclude, I feel that FOS is a law geared to people to imp rove and protect the lot in life of people by increasing stability and continuity in emplo yment for the emplo yees of a business, the consumers who deal with that business, any others who would be negatively affected by a labour di spute, as well as the business itself.

Si nce the record oi FOS , although not conclusive at this point, ind icates that FOS is working, or at least not doing any harm , the only conclusion I can draw as to the reason for the position of the Progressive Conservatives and the Li beral Mem bers is that the repeal of FOS is an election promise from 1988. I cannot see any reason for repealing it. There is a sunset clause on it; it is going to be re-evaluated . There is no reason to repeal it at this point. If it is not working in'93- which is I do belie ve the time it comes up-either change it, make amend ments, or th row it out at that point in time.

To throw it out now is premature; it is not responsible. Now to end, I urge that you all reconsider your positions on this matter. I feel to vote the repeal of FOS is to vote against the best interests of your constituents. Thank you very much. The Acting Chairman (Mr , Pan kratz): Thank you, Mr. De Groot. Any questions? Mr. Ashton. 231 Mr . Ashton: First of all, 1 would like to commend you for your presentation.

I should perhaps mention to the comm ittee that we ran into each other in the hall yesterd ay and I know you were here prepared to make a presentation yesterday and, of course, we did not sit so I think that shows how important you feel this issue is, the fact that you have been here, as you said, virtually every comm ittee hearing. You have had to mi ss a couple, obviously because of work reasons, but I certai nly commend you for following the dis cussions and I am hoping that Mem bers of the Legislature will pay as much attention, to what has been said as you have.

What I want to deal with is some of the points that you raised . You mentione d at the beginning the

article in today's paper, and I read the same

article that you did and interestingly enough the same connection came to mind. We are in a difficult bargaining year, there are a lot of contracts up. I take by the fact that you referenced that before you began your remarks, you are essentially of the opinion that final offer selection can help in a number of those cases, achieve fair settlements and also potentially avoid strikes. I would like to ask you to perhaps elaborate on that, because I know you had mentioned it just briefly at the beginning of your comments as to how you think final offer selection comes into play in a year such as 1990 when you have many contracts coming up. *

(2200) Mr . De Gr oot: The reason I brought that up was tonight I actually took my two sons to hockey, and I had the paper with me so I was reading it. I happened to be talking to one of the moms who happens to be a nurse, and their contract comes up this year. Without even saying anything about what the paper was about or anything about me coming down here, she made the comment that there would be a nurses' strike this year. lt really threw me off because I do not know if she knew I was coming down here. Perhaps I had made a comment at a previous game.

I do not think so. it just threw me off that she would make a comment like that, and they really have not gotten into anything, but she feels that because of the budget cuts from the federal budget that there will be a nurses' strike. I expressed to her that if FOS is still on the books that perhaps it would be of some use to resolve an impasse, get a contract, maintain our health system, the stability of it and the avai lability of it to all of us. Mr . Asllton: it is interesting you mention that because we have many presenters.

I know you have heard many of them talk about past strike situations and what happened to people, the ind ividuals, the kind of sacrifices that people made, the kind of confrontation that took place. You are essentially saying to this comm ittee that in 1990, of all years, when we have a large number of contracts up, a large number of potential situations that could lead not just to a strike, I suppose, but to a lockout because many employers have used the lockout provisions. You are saying that 1990, of all years,

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 this should be the year that final offer selection should not only not be repealed but should be in place so that it can be used if necessary. Mr . De Gr oot: Yes, that is what I am saying. I feel that this year is vitally im portant because of the large number of contracts coming up, because of the budget cuts that we are receivi ng, because of a number of factors which I stated before, the GST imp lementation which seems to be defi nite, even though it has not been passed through the Legislature completely, the FTA, the Free Trade Agreement.

Even the report by Winnipeg Concept 2000, I do belie ve it was, states that the FTA is going to hurt us a lot, mainly in the man ufacturing which is my understand ing from read ing the paper. The report on it was tha t a large percentage of our employees are employed in the man ufacturing sector. They stated that was going to be particularly hard hit. I do not feel that it should be repealed . If it is going to be repealed this year, I think it will just as bad next year. As I said, it has a sunset clause. There is no reason to repe al, it is working. The least you can say is it is not doing any harm.

To use an old adage, if it ain't broke, don't fix it; if it is broke, well, then fix it. Mr. Ashton: lt is an interesting analogy. Essentially that is what those of us who are arguing for its retention are saying. That, if anything, it has been shown to be working the first two years, so it should be given the chance. I want to deal with another of the points you made though. You referenced, for exam ple, tonight you were talking to somebody while you were taking your sons down to play hockey.

I take my son down every Saturday, and I know when you are sitting there for an hour and a half in a cold arena, it is interesting the topics that do come up. I want to just go a little bit further in terms of your di scussions with people. You said tonight you were speaking on your own behalf, but you obviously talked to some people about final offer selection in general and what is happening this year. What I am trying to get some ide a of is what people are saying out there. I am trying to figur e out why the Libe ral and Conservative Parties are so adamant on killing this Bill.

I will ask you di rectly, the people you have talked to, do you sense there are a lot of people out there that want to get rid of final offer selection? Are you running into a lot of people that are saying that this is a terrible thing, that we should get rid of it now before the five years are up? What are people saying, the people that you are talking to, about final offer selection? Mr . De Gr oot: Well, anyone I have talked to has stated that it should be there.

I have talked to a few people at work and a few friends saying that I was planning on coming here, and some of them really did not know what it was about. I explained to them about the process, the windo ws, the application, the fact that the employees must ratify the use of it. I also related to them the issue of replacement workers and how I felt, that, if anything, it is equali zi ng the situation a little bit. lt is no t loading one side. No body that I have talked 232 to, and that includes a few management people, has stated that they feel it should be repealed . Nob ody. Mr.

Ashton: Has anybody asked you for your opinion, or the people that you have talked to? Has the Min ister of Labour (Mr s. Hammond), has the Li beral Labour Critic asked you and the people that you have talked to, for your opinions on final offer selection? Mr. De Groot: Myself, personally? No, no one has asked me. Mr . Ashton: I raise that because there is a consistent pattern we are getting in the presentations. By the way, I am glad that the Min ister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Ernst) is at the back of the room.

He missed earlier when I agreed with his comments, one of the few ti mes I have agreed with Conservative Minis ters on anyth ing, and I thank him for his contribution in the deba te on final offer selection. He may not have realized it, but I think he has given those of us who want to save final offer select ion a major deba ting point and a major point we are going to take to the people of Manitoba. I thank him for that. I see he is at the back of the room. The reason I am asking you, Mr.

De Groot, is here we are in a scenario where two Parties out of three in this Legislature are bound and dete rmin ed to get rid of final offer selection. You are saying that the people you have talked to support it-keeping final offer selection -that when it is explained to them and they in particular support it, you are saying that you and the people you ha ve not talked to have not been dis cussed. Do you feel tha t is the way we should be making legislation in Ma nitoba?

Do you think that is fair that, on something such as this, the Conservatives and the Li berals as well should be moving ahead without finding out what is actually happening out there and what people such as yourself are saying? Mr. De Gr oot: No, I do not. I think there should be a policy of consultation. I will say that I think that it is typical, considering what the federal Gov ernment is doing with the GST. In my opinion the FTA was very simila r. Mind you, they did get a majority of seats, but they did not have the majority of the popular vote.

If they were going to im plement something like this, that is going to be so far reaching in our society, our country, I feel they should have had popular vote to support it, not just majority of seats. Mr. Ashton: I find it also interesting, you talked about election promises because we pointed to many election promises the Government has not kept and we have suggested - An Honourable Member: Which? Mr . Ashton: Well, the Min ister of Indus try, Trade and Technology (Mr. Ernst) after those fine words I just said about his comments is now saying which ones.

The health care field, they have kept one out of eight promises. The Acting Chairman (Mr . Pankratz): Would you keep the questions to the presenter, please?

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 Mr. Ashton: Perhaps, Mr. Acting Chairman, if you can ask the Min ister of Indus try, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Ernst) not to di vert. I was just talking about how many election promises the Conservatives have not kept. What I was saying, I think you are probably right, this is sort of a comm itment that was made and in this case I still do not see a ground swell of support for it. I see very few people that have come forward even to this comm ittee, and very few people out there on the street that are talking about getting rid of final offer selection.

I just want to ask you once again from your perspective. You are saying, keep it for the five-year sunset period . You are saying, keep it for another three years and then look at it. You are suggesting that it needs a chance. lt deserves those extra few years to see if it is working. Mr . De Gr oot: Yes, that is what I am saying. As in any piece of legislation, new law, that is newly introd uced, I feel it needs a chance to show that it is going to work. I mean even the FTA, we are not going to know what the full effect of it is for a number of years.

I am personally opposed to it, but who knows, maybe it will be the best thing since sliced bread , to quote another speaker here. Mr . Parker Burrell (S wan River): I object to you, Mr. Acting Chairman, badgeri ng Mr. Ashton. He has not been anywhere near the point all night. I feel that it is unfair of you to keep trying to keep him on the agenda. Mr . Ashton: I apologize. Ever since I talke d about Conservative election promises this commit tee has mana ged to fall apart so I apologize sincerely and I will not mention that the Conservatives do not always keep their election promises, Mr. Acting Chairperson.

I will continue my questioning and it is relevant. I have asked a very di rect question about the five-year period. Quite frankly, to the presenter, I wish the Free Trade Agreement was on a five-year sunset, because I think we would all be a lot better off. I do not believe it is going to work. In terms of final offer selection, in terms of where we head in the 1990s and particularly in a very difficult year, I just want to thank you for your comme nts because you have been talking on very relevant points, Mr . Acting Chairp ers on, tonight about your own personal experie nce.

That is what this comm ittee is about. I commend you. I mentio ned before that you have been here, and I have seen you. I ran into you in the hal lway yesterday when we were not even sitting so if that is not dedica tion I do not know what is. Thank you very much. * (22 10) The Acting Chairman (Mr . Pan kratz): Thank you, Mr. De Groot. No more questions? Thank you for your presentation. The next person on the list, Ms. Beat rice Bruske. Next one Mr. Dan Good man, Ms. Kathy Kraychuk, Ms. Nell Clarke, Mr. Jerry Kies, Ms. Toffler, Ms. Susan Koo, Mr. Erskine Lord, Mr. Luc Jegues, Mr. Gilb ert Lorteau , Mr.

Bernard LeBianc, Ms. Jacqueline 233 Smit h. Ms. Jacqueline Smith please. Do you have copies of your presentation. Ms. Jacqueline Smith (P rivate Citizen): Yes. No copies, no, no. The Acting Chairman (Mr . Pankratz): Okay. Thank you. Go ahead Ms. Jacqueline Smith. (Mr. Chairman in the Chair) Ms. Smith: Mr . Chairman and mem bers of the comm ittee, I will be very brief. I have come to state my opinion on the removal of FOS. I am strongly comm itted to the principle that any dis agreement, that is any disagreement, can be settled fairly and amicably by the people who will act in good faith.

I feel that most people have reached a degree of sophistication in their growth and experience that precludes the necessity of strikes. There were time s in the pa st when the strike was the only effective weapon a worker had, but times and people have changed and we have come to see that there is a more civilized way to deal with disagreements. Strikes today can increase rancorous feelings between worker and management. They can cause wounds that never heal, and they can even divide families. This is not constructive.

Certai nly we all must realize that arbitration by honourable and objective parties must and can be more satisfactory than arousing the latent and disru ptive passions in all that are affected by a strike. 1 am in favour of any legislation that would encourage both parties to stay at the negotiating table and reasonably and di spassionately solve their differences. This legislation as far as I have observed, has produced labour peace. This itself has to be a good thing.

Strikes affect not only the protagonists, but the general public who in many cases have no real knowledge of the issues at stake, but feel compelled to take sides. Both parties can be winners if they bargain in good faith. As a working person, I have dis cussed my beliefs with my eo-workers who have an equal dis taste for stri kes. We are not greedy . We only wish a fai r dis tribution that will enable us to keep up with the ever rising costs of living. We do not wish or seek to get into a confrontation with our employers whereby we would have to resort to a strike to maintain our advantage.

I urge you the committee to maintain the very civilizing effect of final offer selection, and I thank you for your generous attention. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Smith. Before you leave, there could be some questions, just a minu te. Are there any questions for Ms. Smith? Mr . Ashton: I just wanted to ask one basic question and I appreciate your coming forward. I know for a lot of people it is a rather intim idating experienc e in terms of coming before this. I really commend you for being here. You mention in terms of the people you have talked to, what their view is. I am just wonderi ng if you could

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 elaborate a bit more for the comm ittee-the people you are talking to in your work place, your friends, your neighbour s, what is their vie w of final offer selection? Do they think it should be voted out, which is what this Bill will do, or do they want to see it kept in place? Ms. Smith: I can only speak for myself and for my opinion of what they have said to me, but most people in my mil ieu prefer not to have strikes, but to sit down and to dis cuss differences. They would go to alm ost any lengths not to have strikes.

Therefore, to answer your question, most of the people I speak with where I work are in favour of final offer selection. Mr. Ashton: Just one further question because I have asked this of other presenters. The question basically is, whether you or other people in your work place in any way, shape or form- Mr. Chai rman: Mr. Ashton, I wonder if you could speak into your mike so we could- Mr . Ashton: Sorry, Mr. Chai rperson. -in any way, shape or form, have been asked for your opinion by the Min ister of Labour (Mr s. Hammond) , by the Li beral Labour Critic, by the people who are trying to push it? Ms.

Smith: Not to the best of my knowledge. Mr. Ashton: In other words, even though people in your workplace are clearly saying, keep final offer selection, no one seems to be interested in finding out. This really, I guess, is one of the good things about this comm ittee; your voice is finally being heard. I just hope people are listening. Thank you. Ms. Smith: Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Are there any further questions then? No further questions. Thank you, Ms. Smith. Our next presenter -Ms. Debbie Oram, Mr. Cliff Beaulieu, Ms. Anne Goodman, Ms. Joyce Hill, Mr. Robert Schick, Ms. Teresa Biu beau, Ms.

Gail Sourisseau, Ms. Kathy Coulom be, Ms. Sharon Christensen, is she here? Okay. Ms. Shar on Chri stensen (Pri vate Cit izen): Good evening, Mr. Chai rperson, Mem bers of the commit tee. Mr. Chair man: Have you a written brief? Ms. Chri stensen: No, I do not, Sir. Mr. Chai rman: Okay, please proceed then. Ms. Chr istensen: I would like to talk to you tonight because I am against Bill 31. I have had personal experience in walking a picket line. The strike that I was involved in lasted 125 days. The im pact of a strike of this kind stays with you for the rest of your life.

The financial, mental and emotional hardship for all who are involved , whether company or labour, is very hard to describe. 234 I have seen eo-worker turn against eo-worker, friend against friend, and in some instances fam ily memb ers against each other. The effect of a strike can cause as much hardship on imme dia te family and friends as they are caught in the middle and must learn how to cope with all that is happening around them. lt has been almost two-and-a-half years since our strike ended. For some of us the strike is over.

Others, I know, are still trying to come to terms with what happened to them in the months of June to October, 1987. Unfortunately, there are some for whom the strike will never end. Most of the people involved have come to the conclusion that they never want to be faced with this type of situation again. This includes strikers, strike breakers and various levels of management, and all agree that companie s and labour mus t find a better answer than a strike. I strongly belie ve that FOS is tha t answer. lt is an option that companie s and labour should have, if need ed .

FOS forces both parties to make reasonable proposals that can be acceptable to all concerned. FOS can aid in the reduction of strikes, while most im portantly, it can considera bly reduce the hardships that all must go through whether they walk a picket line or whether they cross a picket line. Si nce FOS became effective on January 1, 19 88, it has been used by companies and labourers in many negotiations. FOS has proven to be a fair law and a successful option when implemented. At this time I would like to ask our Conservative Government to withd raw Bi11 31.

If this does not occur I would strongly urge all Li berals to vote no to Bill 31. I would like to thank all our NDP Mem bers in the Government today who support us in FOS . Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman: Are the re any qu estions for Ms. Christensen? Mr. Ashton. *

(2220) Mr. Ashton: Yes, you made an interesting comment. lt is a comment that was made before, I know by Karen Bell, another presenter, who went through the same strike situation; that the people you are talking to who are on various different sides of the strike, whether they be management or people who walk the picket line and even the people that cross the picket lines to go to work, the strike breakers, are saying many of them that they would like to see final offer selection preserved . They do not want to see Bill 31 pass. Ms. Christensen: That is correct.

A lot of people work wit h, and I am involved in union activities, and the ones I have spoken to, even at levels of management and strike breakers, do not want to go through this again. lt is just as hard for a strike breaker to go across a picket line as it is for a striker to walk a picket line. Financially , it is not as tough for them because they are still making their wages, but they st ill have to deal with the fact that they are going across a picket l ine against a friend or a eo-worker that they have gotten along with and respected for many years.

We have all made our decision and the longer that strike goes on,

Tuesday, February 27, 1990 for some reason, I guess because it is such an emotional issue, the respect seems to decrease between strikers and strike breakers; every thing starts to get jus t frustration and everything starts to get out of hand. lt is a very sad situation to be in because you have to go back to work, you do go back to work eventually. You have to start working with these people all over again and somehow you have to heal those wounds and like I say it has been two and a half years for me.

I walked the picket line and I still see people in those stores, in my store too, who just simply cannot seem to bridge the gap that the strike caused between them. Like I say, it is a very sad situation to be in. You do not want to see it happen again. Mr. Ashton: lt was mentioned before that ironically final offer selection di scussion is one of the issues that has brought some people who have not spoken to each other since that strike to actually start talking. it is an irony of what has happened. You are saying very clearly that the people no matter what their experien ces were are looking for alternatives.

They are looking for the type of alternative final offer selection provides. Ms. Christensen: Oh, d

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-ir12
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf ir12.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	df2aea7b2c4724a4ecb3564ce896c2674d349cfc

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