Manitoba Committee Hansard — Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 15 (34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-ir15

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

lEGISlATIVE ASSEMBlY OF MANITO BA THE STANDING CO MMITTEE ON INDUSTRiAl RElATIONS Th ursda y, March 1, 1990. TIME - 8 p.m. LOCATION - Winnip eg, Manitoba CHAIRM AN- Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli) ATTENDANCE - 10 - QUORU M - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Me ssrs. Derka ch, Enns, Hon. Mr s. Hammond Messrs. Asht on, Burrell, Cheema, Helwer, Plohman, Rose, Ms. Wasylycia-leis WITNESSES: Mr. Paul Williamson, Priv ate Citizen Mr. George Smith, Canad ian Federat ion of la bour, Local 111 Ms. Lorraine Whiffen, Pr ivate Cit izen Mr. Art Demong, Pr ivate Citizen Mr. Gr ant Ogono wsk i, Pr ivate Citizen Ms.

Shelley Spak, Priv ate Citizen Mr. Terry Turcan , Priv ate Citizen Ms. Shirley Hamilton, Pr ivate Citizen MAT TERS UNDER DISCU SSION: Bill No. 31- The la bour Rela tions Amendment Act Cle rk of Com mittees (M s. Pat ricia Ch ay chuk Fitzpatric k): Order , please. Will the Committee on Industrial Relations please come to order? I have before me the resignation of Parker Burrell as Chairp erson of this committee. Are there any nominations for the position of Chairp erson? Mr. Burrel l. Mr. Parker Burreli (Swan River): I nominate Ed Helwer. Madam Cl erk: Mr. Helwer has been nominated .

Are there any other nominations? Seeing ther e are no further nomina tions, Mr. Helwer is elected Chairper son. Mr.

Ch airman: This evening the Stan ding Com mittee on Industria l Relations will resu me hearings, public pr esenta ti ons on Bill 31, The la bour Rela tions Amendment Act If there are any members of the public who wish to check to see if they are reg istered to speak to the committee, the list of presenters is posted just outside the committee room. if members of the public would like to be added to the list to gi ve a presenta tion to the commit tee, th ey can conta ct the Clerk of 290 Committees, and she will see that they are added to the list.

If we ha ve any out -of-town pr es enters, or any presenters who are unable to return for subsequent meetings, please ident ify yourselves to the Committee Clerk, and she will see that your names are brought forward to the committee as soon as possible. Just prior to resu ming public presenta tions this evening, did the committee wish to indicate to the members of the public how long the committee will sit this evening? What is the will of the committee? Shall we aim for eleven o'clock then at the latest? Okay. We have one presenter , who is No. 3 on the list, who has to leave as soon as possi ble.

Would it be the will of the committee if we ask him to present first ? Ms. Wasylycia-leis. Ms. Judy Wasylycia-leis (St. Johns): The quest ion, when we adjourned this morning, we were in the middle of a Mr. Paul Williamson's presentation and we were concluding our ques tioning. I am not sure how he feels, as long as I t hink he is up fairly early. Mr. Chairman: Okay, he is on the list here. Do we want to finish him before we start with this other one? Is that the will of the committee? Okay. Paul Williamson, would you like to come forward, please?

I believe you have made your presenta tion, but there were some questions by Ms. Wasylycia-leis, so please proceed. *

(2005) Ms. Wasyl ycia-leis: Mr. Chairp ers on, I believe when we adjourned we were in the process of discussing your comments, or I had at least raised your presenta tion and was seeking your views from your perspective as a north ender in Winnipeg. I think we were talking a bit about the trad ition in the north end of Winnipeg for prog ressive legislation and the kind of leader ship that community had provided generally in terms of labour management disputes and so on.

Perhaps, if we could pick up on that whole area- I am wondering if you could indicate if you sense that ther e is significant community support in the north end, at least in the community that you are familiar with in the north end, for final offer selection. Mr. Paul Will iamson (Private Citize n): Yes, I do. I am basi ng that on having through my involvement in the north end community becaus e I am a single parent with a 12 -year-old son who is inv olved in sports. I know many parents. I am involved in the community club and I am involved in many community affair s in the north end of Winnipeg.

I have taken the oppor tunit y, since I have taken on the task of dealing with the quest ion of FOS and in the past as well, but more specifically lately of talking to people about final offer

Thur sda y, March 1, 1990 selection, talking to them about it, as I said this morning, certainl y from my stan dpoint and my viewpoint, of the value of final offer selection. Many of the people tha t liv e and work in the community that I live in were involved in the Westfair situation because basically we have thr ee major food stores avai lable to us in the north end. There are three Safeways, ther e is a SuperValu and an Econo-Mart. There was good support in the north end for the Westfair pickete rs.

A lot of people in the north end still do not shop at Westfair stores because of their high involvement in the community and their basic social conscience that exists in the north end. I have talked to them about final offer select ion, their views of it. Certainly I have had some people admit to me privately that, in the last election they were kind of annoyed wit h the Party that was gove rning at the time.

Things like Auto pac and things like that come up, but that they did not vote for the people they voted for so that they could repeal a labour law that would potent ially assist in not creat ing another situation such as Westfair. I think there is good community support and I intend to pursue that further as a private cit izen, as a res ident of the north end, because I am extremely concerned about this. Ms .

Wasylycia -Lei s: Just follo wi ng up on tho se comments and given that the north end has been home of a lot of activism on the labour front, has cert ainly been the location for consid erable conflict around labour management issues, do you sense that there is a willing ness on the part of north end residents to try new ways in terms of resolving labour relations disputes, to seek new models through something like FOS that lend themselv es to more co-operative consensus building models and solutions? *

(2010) Mr. Will iamson: Most definitely. One of the reasons that I chose to live in the north end is exact ly for that reason . I am a labour act ivist. I ident ified myself as that this morning. I have lived in River Heights, I have lived in North Kildonan, I have lived in Charleswoo d. They are not exact ly hotbeds of unionism. They are not exactly hotb eds of labour act ivism. That is why I have chosen to live in the north end and raise my child in the north end because I do sense that community is much more aware of issues, much more innovative in terms of their appr oach, and much more willing to try things.

That is one of the reasons, only one of the reasons but certainly, a fairly significant reason in my life because of the way I live my lif e that I have chosen to live in the north end and yes, it defin itely exists. There is definitely support for things such as final offer selection. Ms.

Wasylycia-Leis: Could I take it from those remarks or could you comment on what I would sense, from what you have said and my own experience, that there is an interest on the part of residents in the north end and probably elsewher e to move towards, not only less conflict, but move away from prolon ged difficult stri kes 291 and to see if there are ways to resolve labour disputes on a more quic k , pleasant basis? Mr. Will iamson: Very emphati cally, yes. Ms.

Wasyly cia-Leis: You hinted at the politics in the north end and I think at the tr ad itio n for north enders vot ing for prog ressive individuals and how, when our polit ical Party do es not always live up to th ose stan dards, they are booted out of office. You also mentioned earlier in your remarks that north end people are tending to quest ion the kind of support they gave to the Liberal Party in the last election and, in particular, because of things like actions around repeal of final offer selection are concerned that Liberals are talking like New Democrats but act ing like Tories.

I want you to comment on that because we do have a Liberal Member from the north end here at the committee tonight, and I think there is a real concern , if not on- Mr. Chairman: I wonder if I could just remind you that we would like to keep the quest ions that pertain to the presenter's brie f and try to be as strai ghtforward as possible, to quest ion, not to get into a debate with the presenter . Ms . Wasylycia-Leis: Certainly, Mr. Chairper son. Mr. Will iamson: I did not consider that she was deba ting with me, if my opin ion counts. Ms.

Wasyly cia-Leis: I was quo ting from a comment that the presenter had made this morning in terms of the politic s around this issue. We have had many presentat ions that have focused on this issue from that aspect , because there is a feeling that they have pursued all other arguments and are hoping, by making some political arguments, that we may be able to change the minds of, perhaps not Conser vat ives, but hopefully Liberals on this matter.

My quest ion is simply, based on that, is it likely that this is a sign ificant political issue in the north end and th at it could ha ve major ramifica tions in terms of Liberal fortunes and that this issue will play quite seriously and in a major way in the next election? *

(2015) Mr. Willia mson: Yes, most definitely, and it is sort of almost a sweet and sour issue for me, because very clearly there was a Party I suppor ted , a Party I worked for, in many different elections and between elections as well, and I think it would be very easy to pred ict that on an issue such as final offer selection, if it does die, if the Liberals do not see their way clear to change their mind and have the courage to do so, that an election could be won by somebody else, by some other Party in the north en d. That is part of the equation for me.

There is another part of me that just generally, because I do support another Party, I would sort of like to see the Li berals lose under any condi tions, but not under losing it on final offer selection, because it is extremely important. I cannot lose sight of what I am, which is a labour act ivist. I cannot lose sight of the labour act ivity I have

Thur sday, March 1, 1990 been involved in; I can not lose sight of the hardsh ip that I have seen caused by labour strife. I cannot lose sight of the fact that final offer selection is an alterna tive to settle dis putes. lt is an alterna tive to dr ive parties towards a collective agreement achieved in a peaceful manner. lt is a good, innovative alterna tive, a good barg ain ing tool for both sides.

I do not want to lose sight of that Yes, most definitely, I think it is a hot political issue in the north end and I hope the Liberals see that, because if they do not, they are really looking at this thing through, I cannot use the word rose colour ed glasses, but they are cert ainly not seeing the issue as I do. Ms .

Wasylycia-Leis: Just on that whole issue of it being a fairly major hot political issue, would it be your opinion that it would be more of an issue, and more of a hot political matter, if it is seen by the people all over, but particularly in the north end , as something that is being taken away from them, something that they have had, that they are attempting to work with, and have had it pulled or yanked away from them before it has been given a decent trial run , as opposed to something that is allowed to at least live out a proper term , in terms of a trial kind of peri od?

I ask that because I think it is another area whe re perhaps we could be looking at , or trying to persuade Liberals in terms of movement on this issue. Is it more of an issue because right now it is something that cou ld be taken away from them as opposed to live out its term and live up to the sunset provisions? Mr.

Will iam son: 1t is such an issue that my personal commitment, which I made this morning, and it is a personal commitment -! am not talking on behalf of an organ ization -is that I am going to make sure that if final offer selection does go down the tubes as a result of Bill 31, and as a result of cer tainly the Memb er for the cons tituen cy I live in and neighbouring constit uencies in the north end, I am going to make sure that, with myself and some of my other political activist friends, we make sure that each and every household is informed in some fashion, be it a one page leaflet dr op that we do, that final offer selection has disappeared , and why, and who is resp onsible for it Ms.

Wasylycia-Leis: On that, would it be fair to say that, and I am raising this in the hopes that perhaps you can make a better appeal to the Liberal Party than we have been able to, that it would be less of a political issue if we could find some compromis e in terms of giving this legisla tion and this mechanism a proper lifetime existence, a proper trial run, a proper provision around a sunset clause? Mr. Willi amson: If it was massaged in the area of sunset clause, that does not totally make me hap py.

What I would like to see happen with the sunset clause is the sunset clause dis appears and the legislation is just on the books. But if it is massaged in the area of the sunset clause, I would have to find that, No. 1, personally acceptable, and No. 2, it would not be as hot a political issue.

I think, no matter how long it is in place, it is going to stand the test of time and hopefully somewhere 292 down the road cooler heads will prevaiL Hopefully, they will prevail in the next few days or weeks, and hopefully they will prevail further down the road , and we will not be dealing with this issue agai n, because it is good legislation. lt is legislation that is friendly to workers. Ms .

Wasylycia-Leis: In your presentation this morning, you focused quite a bit on not only this FOS being a useful tool in terms of-and a creat ive, innovat ive way to go-in terms of labour relations, but you also talked a lot about family issues, and how trad itional labour di spute mechanisms can some time s be quite dest ructive on the family, and on the qua lity of life in the family and in our communities. I think that is also something that Liberals will have to think very seriously about because they do talk a lot about family values and about equal ity for all members in our society.

Could you elabor ate a bit on the impor tance of that in terms of this whole issue? *

(2020) Mr.

Will iam son: As I said this morning, one of the situations that never gets reported, and it is the type of issue where you have to be there to understand it, is in a labour dis pute there are family tensions to the extent, and I am aware of many family situa tions, where the family is split I am aware of many family situations where ttiat split has not yet been healed and may never be, on the basis of the fact that one of the people is involved in a labour dispute, and the partner and the child ren be it male or female, it does not really matter-really cannot relate to what that person is going through, and why they are doing this, and why there is a shortage of money and a shor tage of food, and calls from cred itor s, and things of that nature.

Things like that never get repor ted, and you read about stri kes in the media or you see strikes in the elect ronic media, or hear about them on the radio, and what you see is just the very peri pheral outside edge of a stri ke. There is a human price that is paid by ever ybody.

There is a human price and there is a family price that is paid. lt is somethi ng, and I cert ainly do not mind sharing my pers onal experience, it is something that I shared in 1978 because, as a person who was involved in a strike as a staff representative, my personal philosophy was that I chose to accept strike pay rather than regular pay because I do not believe you can lead people in a strike situation. So that was my perso nal philosophy, and it cer tainly put a very severe strain on my family, my childr en, and my then spouse.

I am not suggest ing, I ear lier said I am a single paren t, that my marria ge ended on that basis. There is probably a lot of reaso ns. I am probably really hard to live with as a labour act ivist, but that cer tainly put an incred ible strain on our situa tion. I have seen that time and time and time agai n. lt is a price that families split, brother s do not talk to brothers, sisters do not talk to sisters, parents become angr y with childr en, childr en become angr y with parents, and it just does not get reported . You have to be there.

I said earl ier, for the benefit of those of you who were not here this morning, that there may be some

Thursda y, March 1, 1990 people, I know Mr. Ashton, because I have heard him speak about it, has been involved in strike situa tion s, but probably most of the people in this ro om, or at least sitting at that table, have not. Ms. 'Wasylycia- leis: On a related , but broader issue. I am going to take a bit of a leap here and ask you a question about a thing that I have been focused in on. it does not really come out of your br ief, but I would like to hear your views.

I think that we are seeing everywhere, whether we are talking about the family, community, labour relations, polit ics, there is a gr owing sentiment and movement to find mor e co-operative consensus -building appr oaches to decision making. it seems to me that is happening as well that the tr ades union movement itself is going through that process , and I would see final offer selection as proof of that evolution in thinking and trying new app roaches.

Is it fair to say that the labour movement has done some soul search ing in terms of looking at trad itional ways of resolving labour disp utes and perhaps decided that maybe we have been a bit too much focused on competit ive, macho, conflictual-type relationships and not enough on co-operative consensus -building models and that, in fact, FOS does reflect some of that new thinki ng and could provide a leadersh ip to, not only management in terms of this issue, the other side of this equat ion, but also society more br oadly? Mr . 'Williamson: Yes, most definitely.

When the labour movement first started str uggling with the issue of final offer selection, I referred this morning to the struggle that we went through, and I referred to where we are at at the present time. Agai n, for the benefit of those who were not here this morning, my current task has been to co-ordinate some act ivity on behalf of the Federa tion of Labour in the area of final offer selection. I have surveyed and discussed and com municated with every one of the unions that was involved in the de bate in 19 85 and again in 1987 and to a union.

All unions are now opposed to the repeal of final offer selection, and many of them spoke long and spoke hard and spoke vehemently agai nst it in 1985 and at the Federal of Labour convention again in 1987. I think some of that, and only some of that-t here were reservat ions exp ressed by dif ferent organ izations -but some of that was that whole macho image that, we are tr ade union ists and all we really do to get our way is, if we cannot get it at the bargain ing table, then we get it on the picke t line. *

(2025) I know personally for myself as a person who has been involved for 25 years, it was not the easi est thing in the world to think of arbitra tion, because arbitr ation with respect to cont ract bargai ning is something that is totally foreign to me. lt is something that I find repugnant. lt is something I am not really interested in. So I cer tainly had to look at my inner self in terms of, again, the human price that is paid in a strike 293 situation. I have been involved in a number of them.

I only focused on one this mor ning, the Liqu or Commission strike, and I have talked a bit about the Westfair strike, where I did play a role. But the human price that is paid and not only by the people who are involved, but by the employers tha t we are dealing with, by the public who are being served by the particular entit y that we are dealing with, and I am excited that I and others were able to take that look. Call it a leap of fait h. Try something new, try something innovat ive, and the experien ce has been extremely good . Yes, most defi nitely, in answer to your question. Mr. Chairman: Ms.

Wasyiycia-Leis, before you pr oceed , I just want to advis e you, we have a number of other presenters who are here this evening who would like to leave ear ly. So just try to get your questions to the point. I think we are just going in cir cles on this one anyway, and we are adding nothing new to the record , so please ask your questions if they are important and let us try to move on. Mr . 'Will iamson: Well, actually, I thought I was saying all new stuff. Perhaps you are not listening. Ms .

Wasylycia -leis: Act ually, I have only been at a few of these hearings, so forgiv e me if I am repeat ing any issues, but I do not believe others have focused a great deal on the whole quest ion of the new values of the'90s in terms of co-operation and consensus building and the perspective that is being brought to this debate from the women's movement and the labour movement. At any rate, I was about to say that I have one further question to Mr. Williamson. Mr . 'Will iamson: I have one further answer. Mr. Chairm an: Please proceed then. I would appreciate if you would speak when I recognize you, Mr.

Williamson, so the mikes can be turned on. Thank you. !Ills. 'Wasylycia- leis: My final question, Mr. Wi!liamson. You just mentioned you work pr esently with the Federa tion of Labour . As an individual tr ade unionist, you have served many different positions and worked in a variety of different capacities. You presumably either were here for the brief or read the brief by the Manitoba Fede rat ion of Labour . I wanted to ask you your views on that brief in terms of the support offered by the Man itoba Federa tion of Labou r with respect to the present final offer selection legislation.

Mr. 'Will iamson: We like final offer selection just the way it is. The thing we hope to see at some point in time is that the sunset clause disappears and the legislation becomes part of the Act as it rightly should. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Rose, do you have a question? llll r. Bob Rose (St. Vital): Mr. Williamson, I listened to your presenta tion this morning- Mr. Chairman : Mr. Rose, I wonder if you could speak into the mike, please.

Thur sday, March 1, 1990 M r. Rose: Thank you for com ing out. Obvious ly you have done a lot of spade work on this subject and you have talked to a lot of people. I am going to ask you a couple of questions from a personal stan dpoint, not from perhaps a Party sta ndpoint. One thing that is worry ing me about this whole matter is the almost complete disin terest by the public on this. Usually when we get media and so much att ention to a Bill, there is feedback from the public. In saying that I want you to rec ognize that I represent St. Vital. There are pockets in St.

Vital that are not unlike the north end of Winnipeg and cer tainly a lot of reg ions of Winnipeg, especially if you get aro und -well I will not mention the distric ts, but I think you know what I mean. I must say that in my cri tic's role I spend a great deal of time in various parts of the city and

part icularly in the north end. As a matter of fact, if I get relie ved a little later on, I will attend a meeting in the north end. You did say there is a lot of support for FOS from the people you have talked to. I would like to kno w for my own edificat ion just what kind of numbers of people you are talking to, and if indeed, when you are appr oaching them, you are finding a disint erest in it or the sort of thing I find. When you say FOS, and the people say, what is that, and you say, final offer selection, and then you descr ibe it to them and they sort of shake their head.

I am talking about all walks of life. I am just wonde ring if you could enligh ten me as to what sort of atmosphere you are having and if you are coming across people, no matter what the numbers are, on both sides of the issue, or indeed neutral on the issue. *

(2030) Mr. Williamson: What I found is basica lly two types of situations.

I found people who have either direct ly or indirectly-and I am talking community-based now, I am not ta lking within the lab our mov ement, in terms of act ivists-been affected by final offer selection, ind irectly to the extent that a member of their family might have been involved in a situation where final offer selection was applied for and invoked and maybe went through to the end -1 have run into some of those or assisted in a situation where a collective ag reement was achieved prior to a selector being appoi nted or a decision being made. So they have some knowledge of final offer selection.

To the greatest degree I have run into a lack of knowledge of final offer select ion, I have then taken the time to explain to people how final offer select ion came about, what final offer selection is designed to do. I have cert ainly given them my point of view of final offer selection, and I have finished that off in all instances by telling them what is happening to final offer selection. lt is at that point that I feel very comfor table with the support base that exists with respect to final offer selection. Unfort unately, the vast majority of people find out what is happening in this

part icular building, and I am not knocking the media, but they find out by differe nt arm s of the media, and perhaps do not really underst and the issue. Also, I have run into some people where -and some people have-1 have suggested to 294 people that they register to speak to this committee. In some instances people have. In a lot of insta nces they are totally intimida ted by this process, and this building, and people such as yourself. I know you are just a Bob Rose wearing rose-coloured glasses . Mr.

Rose: I thank you for that answer, and I know the type of questions you have to-1 sort of do the same thing when I talk to people, except I do not give them my point of view, because then I would pro bably be gett ing a, you know, not an objective answer. I am sure that I am not cri ticizing you, but I am sure that you give them your point of view after you find out what their position is, and you sell them on that. We only differ in that regard. I was wonderi ng, we brought up the question of clerks, particularly cash iers at the major stores, Econo-Mart, SuperValu, and Safeway.

We know that the bargai ning process that went on last time and the very ugly strike they took

part in. I know I wit nessed many, many occas ions, pol ice cars and what have you. Have you had, Mr. Williamson, an opportun ity to quest ion those people that were on both sides of that, like, for an exam ple, ca sh iers at Sa fewa y and ca shi ers at SuperValu, to see how they feel about FOS, and indeed whether they have a knowledge of it and whether you have some sort of feeling directly from them -people who witnessed the whole situa tion first-hand wh!')n the strike was on? Mr. Will iamson: The answer is yes. First of all, with respect to Safeway workers, they have never accessed final offer selection.

The last strike, in my memory, in Safeway, was in 1978. However, with respect to Westfair, there was the very ugly strike of 1987. What I did in my current role, which I t ook on a few weeks ago on behalf of the Manitoba Federa tion of Labour , to do some co-ordination in the area of final offer selection, was I made it my business to, No. 1, refamiliarize myself with a lot of the people that I met in my role as a strike suppo rt co-ordinator during the Westfair strike, to talk to them about their views of final offer selection now that it does exist.

I also, as I indicated this mor ning-and I am sorry for repeating myself, but I am doing it for the benefit of the Memb er who was not here this morning-played a role, as limited as it might have been, in the last Unicity strike, where final offer selection was applied for in the 60-to 70-day windo w. They were not eligible for final offer selection, part of that because the contract expiry date and the enactment of the law did not allow for an applicat ion prior to the expiry of the collective agre ement.

I played a role in that particular strike as the chairpe rson of the strike support commit tee for the Winnipeg Labour Council. I took the opportunity to talk to people about their feelings about being on strike, and their feelings about final offer selection. So yes, I have talked to lots of people; I have talked to lots of workers. I have also sat here most morni ngs, evenings and weekends, listening to the presenters. There have been a litany of presenters who have been involved in Unicity, in Westfair. We have had a couple of people from Safeway who, as members of Local 832 , were involved in some

Thur sda y, Mar ch 1, 1990 fashion, in a kind of an indir ect fashion, in both those situa tions that I have referred to. So, yes, I have spoken to many people. Their attitude about final offer selection is, do not take it away. Mr. Rose: Mr. Williamson, this is just an aside. I talked tod ay, by accident, to both sides of the people on the Unicity strike, and they both told me they did not like FOS, but we do have an unusual labour relations problem at that particular comp any.

I guess what I was really trying to zero on is that after the SuperValu strike there were employees that were employed to fill in durin g the strike, and they cont inued on because many of the employees had found other jobs, or what have you. They continued on, and I know there was a lot of strif e between them and a lot of bad feelings. As a matter of fact, we heard from some Su perValu employees last night who said that some of the wounds any way were healed and th ere was a better camarad erie.

I just wondered if you were talking to th ose people, if you could distinguish from such that if those people who were not previous to the strike members of the union at Super Valu, if they have the same sort of feeling for FOS at the present time as those employees who were on strike. I know that is a rather unfair quest ion, but if you could answer it, I would appr eciate it. Mr.

Williamson: Let me start my answer by sayi ng that I have spoken to people who were involved in the strike from both sides in 1987, those who were walking the picket line-tho se are the good peopl e-and the sca bs-tho se are bad peo ple-who remai n as employees of Westfair Foods. The common theme that runs from those people is that Westfai r is not the gr eatest place to work, even toda y in 1990. I think some of those sca bs have found out why those people were out on a picke t line in 1987.

A lot of those people have become very support ive of the union that exists at Westfair Foods, Local 832 of the Un ited Food and Com mercial Workers, and are interested in the upcoming rou nd of bargai ning and are extremely inter ested in final offer selection as an alterna tive, because those who picketed and those who crossed do not want to go through another situa tion such as they went through in 1987. They see final offer select ion as being a bargai ning tool, an alterna tive to avoid an ugly situa tion. The struggle does continue, and I said that this morning and you have heard that from Westfair people.

The struggle does continue. lt is not a bed of roses. I do not know why I keep using the word "ros e", ta lking to Bob Rose. Sorr y, Pat. Mr. Ch airman: Are ther e any further quest ions? Mr. Rose. Mr. Rose: lt was not really a question, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to thank Mr. Williamson for com ing and very much for your candid answers. I appr eciate that. Mr. Ch airma n: Thank you very much for your presenta tion, Mr. Williamson. Our next presenter is Geor ge Smith, who has to leave early, so we will take him first here.

He is No. 3 on the lis t of your presenters. 295 Just wait till we distribute your brief and then you may start , Mr. Smith. Okay, everyo ne has your brief. Please proceed, Mr. Smith. Mr. George Smith (Canadian Federation of Labour , Local 111 ): My presentation here toda y has been to paint, with a broad brush, the gr owing and fasci nating social phenomenon of alterna tive dispute reso lution cal led ADR. ADR gr ew out of the ne ed to find alterna tives to the high human and economic costs assoc iated with cour t trials and stri kes as a means of reso lving dis putes.

The alterna tives are now generally under stood under three broad categ ories of negotiation, mediation and adjud ica tion-c our t or arbitra tion-w ith dozens of types of hybrids of these thr ee major forms. Final offer selection in Manit oba is a prime example of AD R. ADR has gr own to be applied from interperso nal to interna tional matters, including collective bargai ning, and is gaining acceptance and prominence in industries on a universal sca le. *

(2040) In its most rece nt histor y, the ADR movement in the United States is acknowledged to be an extension of the legal reform movement of the 1960s, including creat ion of legal aid clinics and many proced ural reforms. Citizen-based programs began to emerge as people input ways to resolve their own disagre ements and those with merchants in a more commonsense manner. In the '70s broader quest ions were raised about the suitability of the litigation process itself, due to intolerable delays and costs in corpo rate commercial business relations both with other businesses and customers.

School-based mediation and conflict skills curric ulum began to appear. In 1976, a major confere nce was held which focused on these issues followed by declara tions of support for finding alterna tives from persons of stature, including the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, who made his famous declara tion, "There must be a better way," when he was referring to disputes.

The modern Government then began to encompass an even more prof ound look at the nega t ive con sequences of the adversarial att itude to personal relat ions in the corpor ate commercial world and to finding alterna tives to res pect the dign ity of ongoing relations with other business and their customers. In the public realm, the alterna tive dispute resolution process and pri nciples found their way into helping se ttle dif ferences between the corpo rate and Gov ernment sectors of the community. That builds the backdrop that brings me here tod ay.

There are over 50 private organ izations now supplying ADR services, over 40 states with legislation, and hundr eds of community-based gr oups. Almost half of the senior executives of the top 2,000 fortune compan ies have signed ADR pledges seek ing to sett le, not sue, upon strife. Indeed , business leaders, especia lly in franch ising, contend that the commercial world is essential towards achieving world peace. With the labour management relations so connected to the entir e spectrum of the business community, the

Thur sday, March 1, 1990 opportuni ty for this Go ver nme nt, this Man itoba Government, to take the lead in helping to make this effort more coherent, is very entici ng. lt should also be enti cing for the Mem bers opposite. The unde rstan ding gr ew to in clude execu tiv es implementing the se developments within their own indus tr ies.

Conflict resolution as a theme became adopted as a socially useful goal, benefitt ing all tiers of soci ety, with various industry leaders pioneering reforms and programs in their own spheres of influence, with positiv e ec onomi c and personal re sults for themselves, employees and consume rs in recog nition of their social cons ciousness. Union management-the USA is an experien ce I wou ld like to refer to.

A leading example is in the coal indus try where wild cat strikes by United Mi ne Workers plagued the industry in the '70s, and by March 1980, labour management relations at Coney Creek in eastern Kentucky were a problem. lt was probably the most strif e-torn at the time.

Dispute resol ution experts were retai ned , and after condu cting di spute an alysis accord ing to the expertise developed in the new field, advi sed as to new procedures which eventually resulted in a gr eat reduc tion of strikes, almost an elimina tion of gri evance back log and improved employer-employee relati onships descri bed by one official as a 98 percent improvement.

By the analysis of the cause of the disputes, both in terms of events, cir cumsta nces and individua ls in the designing of an appropria te and effective dispute resolution system, that particu lar mine not only became more profitable, but the mistakes and experiences were then applied to others in the coal industry and then to union management issues general ly. Again, this industry history provide s example for others.

As the experts involved concluded, in a book dedicated to this sto ry, they believe the field of dispute resolution system design is in its infancy, and other professiona ls will soon realize tha t it will be in their best interest to make dispute res olution metho ds , both negotiation, media tion, arbitr ation and their many forms, such as FOS, an esse ntial tool in the hand ling of disputes in their indus tries.

In Canada in 1979, a conference took place to invest igate the question of costs and to better the admi nistr ation of justice, the underlying issue in these matters being an improvement of people's access to justice. Again, however, in Canada the questions are on the wave of being elevated to a search for not only a better quality of justice, but a better quality of life. Accord ingly, involvement of leaders of business, labour, legal , Gov ernment and com mun ity are bec oming increa singly important and respe cted . The dispute resolution clause in the Canada -U.S. Free Trade Agreement gained wide coverage.

Every province in Canada ha s now ado pted the United Na tion s Interna tio nal Arbitr ation Model law. In Toronto in 1988, the Attorne y General of Ontario convened the most complete conference on these questions ever held in Canada , indeed one of the most comprehensive in the western wo rld. Quebec and British Columbia each house newly completed interna tional arbitr ation cent res, which cause dis ruption to the harmony and effe ctive 296 enjoyment of day-to-day living in all of-1 am sor ry, this is typed incor rectly.

In August of 1989, the Cana dian Bar Associ atio n's special task fo rce on ADR submit ted its report endorsing the entir e ADR movement, supporting the inv olvement of the legal pr ofessio n as an int erd isci plina ry app roa ch to probl em-solving and encou rag ing all ind ustrie s to apply the att itude s, principles and processes inherent in the ADR philosophy to their own spheres of influence, which for some is already compa ti ble. Un derlyi ng this whole field is enh anced communicat ion skills and a change of att itude.

In the world of industrial relatio ns, the thesis wi ll be that the new approache s, creat ive ideas, skills and processes emerging from the methods of negotiation, mediation and arbitra tion already well known in that field will be of exceptional benefit to tho se in the industry. People in industry are looking at ADR as a method for improving profit, for improving the industrial relations and for improving relations with their employees with their customer s, with everbody that they do business with.

In a larger sense, these new models to old ideas will help point out the way for labour-management relations to become a major participant in the goal towards a more stabil ized society and world peace-interesting typograph ical error -by appropria te adopt ion of state of-the-art conflict resolution principl es and processes. There is a lack of prog ress iveness in Canada with respect to ADR , specific ally in the field of labour relat ions, and that is another reason why I am here. lt is very important. This is a prog ress ive piece of legislation that we have before you tod ay.

Apart from some limited preventa tive mediation projects, there is no real leadership in Canada for ADR , with the exception of the FOS legislation now before this committee, currently in the process of being repealed. There is no leadersh ip in Canada , with the exc eption of thie legislation. To date, 72 applicat ions received, with the status as follows. I am sure this commit tee has seen these stat istic s, and I will spare you the time, but clearly by our own statistic s-and when I say own, they belong to all of us in Manitob a-ADR is work ing in Manitoba through the process of final offer selection.

In the aforementioned August 1989 Canadian Bar Association task force, the author s of the Alterna tive Dispute Resolution: A Canad ian Perspective, all leading experts in Canada , pointed to a disapp ointing dichoto my.

On one hand the re is sign ificance to labour relations cont ribution to a healthy Canadian society, since it is not surprising that "labou r-management co-operation has long been entrenched in the vocabulary of Canadian industrial relat ions," but on the other hand, "despite this ideal there is widespr ead acceptance that Canada's labour relations system has been extremely advers arial in nature. " The report ident ifies some preventative grie vance mediation programs which exclude lawyers and quality of work ing life prog rams, both laudable but with limited success.

The implicat ions are profound and more pro-activist measures are encouraged by leaders in this field. *

(2050) Thursday, March 1, 1990 I hereby appeal to this Gov ernment and to this committee to maintain this prog ressive legislation, because it is prog ressive in Canada; it is on the leading edge of somet hing that has been known for some time in the United States, and I would sugge st, which I have already suggested to the Min ister perso nally before, that the major users of The Labour Relations Act form an advis ory commit tee to study the current legislation and if necessary recommend impr ovements to the legislation that all parties can live with. lt is the objective of the Canad ian Federa tion of Labour to work with busi ness and Gov ernment to make ADR work in Mani toba through FOS .

I would like to point out that the first biannua l Canadian Conflict Reso lution Forum is going to be held in Canada in July of 1990. I really believe, Mr. Chairman, that to reject this legislation now would be folly. lt is working and it is another tool that can be used by both side s to the collectiv e bar gaining process. I would si ncerely hope th at this Go ve rnment can take a leadersh ip role and the Members opposite can take a leadersh ip role in this prog ressiv e legislation by mainta ining it until the sunset provisi ons and forming committees to work where there seem to be some differences.

I have never heard anybody really say that the whole piece of legislation is no good, it is gar bage. lt is good legislation. lt is an alternat ive to stri kes. lt is an alterna tive to ab use. lt is an alterna tive to hurt feelings and what goes on on the picket lines. You have a golden opportun ity to do something positiv e with it, not to app ear to be anti-labour or anti-people or anti prog ressive methods . At first blush, when this legislation was introd uced, I was one of the people not in favour of it.

We did not necessarily act ively speak out against it because ther e were mixed feelings within the labour community, but I personally was totally against this Bill, simply because I felt that it weakened labour 's hand at the bargai ning table-not strengthened it, weakened it. But you know if we are going to prog ress and we are going to look for ways to make labour legislation that fits both busi ness and workers and Government, then ma ybe we have to look to ways of alternate methods, ADR , to strike s and conflicts. lt is interest ing, I have had one experienc e with this legislation.

I was bargai ning a collective agre ement and the lawyer who was act ing on behalf of the company who will forever remain un named-was David Newman. David Newman really hates this legislation and I can tell you why. The issues that were before us on the bargai ning table were simple issues to resolve, but the company was depending on M r. Newman's advice as to the bad prop osals on the table and I could see a long drawn-out set of negotiations . I could see my members being locked out or possibly having to take a stri ke. In this industry we have never had a strike. I applied for FOS.

At the very next meeting I got a sett lement with Mr . Newman and the compa ny. You know, it reminded me of a cartoon I once saw. lt was a cartoon of a cow, and at the front of the cow labour was pulling on the cow, tryi ng to move it ahead . At 297 the back of the cow was management holding it by the tail, pulling it back. In the centr e was a batch of lawyers milking that cow.

I have to tell you, I just get the feeling someti mes from some of the quarters and from some of the presentations that they really do not have the best interests of the people of Man itoba in mind, and what is good for the people of Man itoba . I am not just talking about the nor thender s. I grew up in the north end. I know what it is like to live in the north end. The sentiment my brother expressed, coming from the north end, also comes from St. Vital, where I now live.

My members and the council of labour I represent have prom pted me to come here toda y to speak to this issue in posit ive ways and try to encourage this committee and this Gov ernment to make changes. I wou ld encou rage the Li berals to re think their position, because we do not want a political or emotional decision made with this piece of legislation. We want an intellectual one. That is all I have to say. Mr. Ch airman: Thank you. Mr. Ashton. Mr. Rose. Mr. Rose: Thank you for your presenta tion, Mr. Smith. I am sure glad I did not go through to be a lawyer.

In the last page of your brie f you say that you would recommend an advisory committee to study the current legisla tion and re commend impr ovements to the legislation that all Parties can live with. I would be interested in knowing your thoughts on what kind of an advisory committee you would envision when you make that statement. Mr .

Smith: A com mit tee made up of equa l rep rese ntativ es of both labour , management , Gover nment and int erested parties that could study the legislation and make recommendations to the House and to the Government as to where areas may be impr oved, change d or amende d, not ripped apart. Maybe that committee will come back after it has been in for another two or three years and reco mmend to leave it alone because it is working. We are now faci ng in Ma nitoba , I read in the newspaper, the heaviest set of collective barg aining com ing up January 1, major collective bargai ning in this provi nc e.

Why wo uld you want to ho ist thi s legislation before that bar gaining is through? If you really want an honest reading, let it sit. Let the

partie s use the legislation to assist them in arriving at a fair and honest collective agreement. Mr. Rose: Mr. Smith, you say that you at first were agains t FOS and now when you have seen it in practice you are in favour of it, certainl y very much so from your comments . You would think there would be a advis ory committee. In your close perusal of what has gone on so far with final offer selection-and I hope this is not unfair questioning, and I am not going to ask you to cite specific exam ples-do you al ready , by your own comment s, see in your own mind some places where you would like to see changes and improvements on

Thurs day, March 1, 1990 either side? Would you be interested in sharing those with us if so? •

(2100) Mr. Smith: I like the legislation the way it presently reads, perso nally, because it is obvious to me from the sta tistic ai data that it is work ing. Tha t shoul d not pr eclude any Min ister or any Government because it ap pears that this has become such a political issue. Clearly it is a political issue, it is not a common sense issue, it is clearly political.

To say anything else would be not exactly telling it like it is, but because it has become such a political issue, I think it could be incumbent on the Government to set up an advi sory body to come up and study the areas where people who have presented here, who oppose the legislatio n, can sit down with people in an honest forum and say, this is why it is not working, or this is why it is working.

In the time that the legislation has been in place, and I know many other labour rep rese ntativ es, and in fact management representatives that I speak with from time to time, kind of begrudgingly in some cases, have to admit that the legislation appears to be work ing. Why hoist it now when we are facing the heaviest set of bargai ning in this provinc e over the next year or 18 months? Mr. Chairman: Are there any further questions? Mr. Ashton. Mr.

Steve Ashton {Thompson): I just want to ask you to give some backg round to the Canadian Federat ion o! labour. if you can indicate how many people in Man itoba are with unions affiliated with the Canad ian Federat ion of Labour , just if you could explain something ab out the backg roun d? Mr. Smith: The Canadian Feder ation of Labour In Canada represents approxi mately 250,000 people. In Ma nitob a, we represent roughly 11,500 people who are affiliated with our central labour body. Mr.

Ashtcm: I want to ask just one question too, because as you said, at least in terms of this committee, it does have overtones of being a political issue- Mr. Chairman: Could you speak into the mike, please, Mr. Ashton ? Mr. AsMon: Yes, Mr . Chai rper son. lt do es ha ve overt ones of being a political issue, and you have indicated quite clearly that you are not here for politic al reasons, you are here in terms of the issue itself. I would just like to ask ol the Canadian Federat ion of Lab our. what its political affiliation is, if any? Mr.

Smith: The Canadian Fede ration of labour has gone on record, and its position paper No. 1 ado pted at its 1984 founding convention is that we are apolit ical, we are not affiliated with any political Party, and we work very hard to striv e in that direction. This is not to say we do not necessarily have people with in our ran ks who are suppor ti ve of the New 298 Democrats. By the same token, we have people within our ranks who are support ive of both Liberals and Conservat ives. So clearly we are apolitical, working very hard at trying to remain apolit ical in terms of non align ment with any political Party.

Clearly l want to stress to this committee that although I am a labour rep res entativ e in the Provi nc e of Manit oba, and I am the president of the provincial council, I do not want anybody on this committee, or in this room, to think for one second tha t because my associ ation or our council is coming out now in favour of mainta ining the legislation that it is because the New Democrats are in suppor t of it.

I am here appealing more to the Li berals, to the Govern ment, and to the Minis ter, sugges ting that this is very progre ssive, cutting, leading-edge legislation that we have, and maybe for politic al reasons, both the Government and the Liberals do not like the way it came about, and in tact campaigned against it. There is nothing that would raise my respect for any politicia n to admit that maybe, maybe we were wrong. Maybe it is working, maybe we should give it a second chance. Do you kn ow what? That is wha t the Manitobans are looking for, they are looking for some honesty in their elected representativ es.

Mr. Ashton: To you, Mr. Smith, I appreciate your honesty because you have come to the committee and said that you were initially not in favour of final offer selection. After having seen the experie nce, and for no political reasons, reaso ns only related to the fact that you feel it is working and contri buting toward a more prog ressive labour rela tions cli mate, you are now suppor ting it. I would like to ask you what react ion you are gett ing from other people you are talking to. I am talking about people within the CF L, people within the com munity.

I have had a difficult time as we have gone th roughout this co mmittee tr ying to dete rmine where this grounds well of suppor t is to dismantle something that you I think quite accurately have said is working. What is your sense of the mood out ther e in terms of final offer selection? Mr. Smith: I guess the best way for me to answer is to say this: I have been read ing the ne wspaper; I have picked up some of the brie fs at the back of the room, and I see a gr oundswell of suppo rt from a lot of interest groups for this legislation.

I can only assume that they are in support of the legislation becaus e after read ing the statistics and hear ing other presentat ions they have fo rmulated an opinion that it is working and that it is reso lving the ques tion of lengthy strikes and hur t feelings and meanness at the bargaining table and is bringing a sense of fair play to the negotia tion process. I only have to remind you of my own personal experience with it.

You know, that one experience with that one set of collective bargai ning where we should not ha ve been in any dispute-in fact, with that employer we never even had to go to conci liation in the past, ever. We alwa ys sa t do wn and arr ived at a colle ctive agreement and we walked away from the table as friends , never had a grie vance with this compan y.

Thur sday, March 1, 1990 I am not going to mention it, because it is not fair to them; they are not here. Mr . Newman became their negotiator for the very first time, and I found myself and the people I represented in hot water. And you know, I applied for FOS, and at the very next meeting I concluded a collective agreem ent. Just think of that cow when you are voting. Mr. Ashton: Without making any editorial comments, I can really identi fy with the frustr ation you must have had wi th a com pany that norm ally , under most circums tances, had no difficulty in reaching res olution . I

part icularly was inter ested in your comments on our adversarial system. As I pointed out to this committee a couple of night ago, statistic ally we have the seco nd highest strike rate of any cou ntr y in the world on a per capita basis. I think the only countr y that has had a higher rate of strikes traditionally has been Italy. We have heard a lot about Britai n, we have heard a lot about some of the Euro pean countr ies, but we beat them all. lt is very inter est ing in terms of your

part icular focus on that . I take it from your comments that you are suggesting if more provinces used final offer selection, and you are saying it has worked here, and 1 think the statistics bear that out, if more provinces were to follow our lead instead of our going back that we might be able to lower the incide nce of strikes. I am not saying that we would have no stri kes; obviously we would. You are sugge sting we would have a far better labour relations climate. Mr. Smith: I think it would. This is something new in Canad a. We do not have a good record in Canada for ADR.

I would only remind the committee and sugge st that maybe some of the committee Mem bers, if they could find the time, go to the first biannual Canad ian conflict resolution in Canada and take

part in the intera ction for conflict reso lution. In fact , it is called Interact ion 1990. I believe that you will find other prog ressive thin kers in the labour relati ons field will say -on both sides of the issue, labour and management and Government progressive thinke rs will say, you know, you guys, if we are going to make this countr y work and put it on the road to prosperity agai n, we have to look for alternat ives to lengthy strikes and lockouts because it is no n-productive. That is the issue. That is the issue before this committee.

Do not politici ze it. lt would be a heck of a mistake. * (2 11 0) Mr. Ashton: The point that you have referenced to, I think is particula rly appropr iate, because one of the reasons we have had the seco nd highest strike rate in the world is we have had a tradition of lengthy strikes. One of the things final offer selection does do is provi de the 60-day window and I just want to deal with this. I want to raise this quest ion because it has been raised as an argument for repealing final offer selection. 1t has been sugge sted somehow people are going to go on strike for 60 days.

They are going to sil out for that period of time so they can , after 60 days, take 299 advantage of final offer select ion and, because of that scena rio, th ere is a sug ges tion that it someho w lengthens strik es. I have looked at the statistics, I have talked to people. Everybody I have talked to says it shortens them, that it allows you something that might have gone a y ear or two years, to have some way out after 60 days. But I want to ask you, from your personal pers pective, do you believe the 60-day window lengthens strike s or provides an opportunity to shorten strikes? Mr.

Smith: That is a difficult quest ion because in this

part icular area you have asked for my personal opini on and I will gi ve you my personal opinion. I think if there is one flaw in the legisla tion, personally spea king, that might be it. Whether it should be made longer or shorter, it is a good subject for debate for the committee that I have suggested be struck. I am not offended as a labour representa tive when management says, you know, you guys want two kic ks at the cat . You want to vote for a strike and go out on strike and take us on a strike, and then when you are not winning the strike, vote for final offer selecti on.

I am somewhat sympathetic to that, but that would be, in my own personal opinion, one of the only areas that I would even consider making recommendat ion for change. Do you want to go on strike and resolve the issue on strike, then make your determinat ion at the outset and live or die by the decision that you make, and you know what ? My experienc e with labour people is, strik ing is a last resort and if they are faced with the quest ion of going out on strike or applying for a more kin der, gentler method , they probably will vote for FOS.

I think, if anything , it might enhance the legislation to take that 60 days out and cut it down shorter . That is my personal opinion. Mr.

Ashton: That was an inte rest ing sug ges tion because, with a 30-day window or something of that natur e, I think that would be the type of amendment th at one wo uld want to look at if one had the consu ltation process , or perhaps not even having the windo w in place, because I believe when one is into a strike situa tion, there are very few situations where there is a clear win-lose situa tion. lt is usually lose lose. lt is just a deg ree. lt may be in the long run necessa ry.

I had to go thro ugh the decisions and often you think, well, in the short run it ma y hurt; in the long run you have to do it, you have to maintain your economic position. But it is interest ing; I appr eciate your suggestion earlier in terms of a committee that might look at something like that. I just have one final quest ion though and I appreciate your comments in terms of the committee because in the Legislature we do get into some pretty heated political exchanges.

My hope person ally is that this committee will perform its function and listen to people such as yourself and make a decision based on the presentations and on the facts. But instead of me saying what I have been saying in the Legislature and will

Thur sday, March 1, 1990 continue to say, I would like to give you that opportunity. What would you say to the Mem bers of this committee, the Conservat ives, recog nizing of course that it is their Bill, tha t they may feel more committed to it-and to the Li berals? I do not mean to pick on one or the other Parties here, but the Li berals obviously did not introduce this Bill, are in an easier position to find some other way, some way that reflects what has been said here. What would you say to them to try and persuade them to give final offer select ion a chance? Mr.

Smith: I think I have already indicated the ans wer to your question. I think I have already very strongly suggested that they reconsider and make an intellectual decision, not an emotional and political one. M r. Chai rman: Mr. Smith-I am sor ry, who is our next quest ioner? Mr. Plohman. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphi n): Just a couple of shor t quest ions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Smith, you mentioned to this committee that you had made this recommendation to the Min ister previously. Could you indic ate how long ago that was, and what response you received? M r.

Smith: I think you are dr awing me into a political dis cussion here. I think I met with the Min ister on behalf of my federat ion and I expressed the concerns that I have elabo rated on tod ay. I would go on record as already indicating to the Government-just becaus e you did not read about it in the newspaper, it does not mean that we were not there, as I believe there are many other groups that may have made their way to the Min ister's office, and to the Go ve rnment sugges ting a different outcome. But I do not want to be dr awn into the political fray.

I am here clearly as an inde pendent labour body with prima ry interes ts, prima ry motivation for the people that I repres ent, and that is the labour movement and workers. On that basis I would like this legislation to rema in, at least until the sunset provisions, so that we have had a good solid look at it and can make an intelligent decision. Mr. Plohm an: I just asked that question, Mr. Smith, to ask you whether in fact you felt that you would get fair considera tion of that req uest from the Min ister, from the response that she gave you.

In any event, one other qu estion de alin g with your state ment tha t prog ressive thin kers, both in labour and management, are admitting that FOS is wor king-privately at least , at least to management, pr ivate ly. I do not see many of them at the committee, and not at the committee advoca ting that the Government back off from repeal of this legisla tion. Do you think there are a lot of prog ressive thinkers in the management side in Manitoba at this time? Is it a gr owing number, are seeing this priv ately as not such a bad thing, but just are not willing to come forward publicly to state that now? Mr.

Smith: I do have that feeling and, to answer your first question, the Min ister did give me a fair heari ng, and she did say she would actively consider our position. 300 But yes, I think th ere are a lot of people in management who are not here toda y because maybe they have other things that they consider to be more importan t, and they consider coming here a waste of time because it is only a fait acc ompli, because th ey have such tremendous support on the opposite side of the House.

I am here toda y at the urging of my constituents, as the president of the Ma nitoba counci l, to bring a new voice and maybe a slightly different approach to this whole debate, and try to get away from the emotional aspect that surrou nds it. That is not to say that the emotional aspect and the emotional concerns are not valid. I would like to bring you to-hopefully that you will make more of an intellectual decision, because this is prog ressive legislati on. I wou ld say this if the Conservat ives introduc ed the legislation, because the legislation is progressive.

I am not saying it because the NDP brou ght it in. lt just so happens -in fact when they brought it in, I spoke against it. I visited them and spoke against it. lt is work ing, with respect. Mr. Plohm an: Mr. Chairman, just in closing, I think from what you have said then, you might want to consider sugge sting to some of those people that you have talked to that are on management 's side that they might want to appear before this committee, because I think they would get a good hearing. I think Mem bers of the Liberal Party have indicated that they are still listening, and are prepared to listen.

I do not think that anyone should feel that the case is closed , until it is closed . Mr. Chairm an: Are there any further questions? If not, thank you very much, Mr. Smith. Okay, we will complete-go down our list. We will go down to No. 75, Mr. Paul Williamson. Oh, he was called, okay, Mr. Robert Hilliard , Ms. Lorraine Whiffen. We will go back to No. 1.-(interject ion)-Yes, what i� the name, sor ry. Ms . Lorraine Whiffen (Private Citizen): I am Lorraine Whiffen- Mr. Chai rman: Oh, okay. Ms . Whiffen: -and I work for Unicity Taxi. Mr. Chai rman: Do you have a written brief? * (2 12 0) Ms .

Whiffen: No, I do not have a written brie f. I am just going to speak briefly. I have been with Unicity Taxi since 1981. When I first went to work for the company, it was a very good company. I am very, very happy with my job there, but the board of dir ectors we had in 1985 were very, very bad . They just tr ied to take every thing away from us that we did have, which was not very much. We had no alterna tive then, but to go out on strike. That strike only lasted about a week and a half. lt was in November , it was very cold. We were harra ssed by many of the shareholders. We were told that we

Th ursday, March 1, 1990 were going to be locked out, and threatened in many ways . The manager that we had then was a very decent man. He was one of the founders of the compan y, and he had a lot of respect for his staff. So he did a little bit of persuasion with the board of di rectors to bring us in off the street . lt does not matter even if you work there for 20 or 25 years, our top salary is $7.8 0 an hour. That is the ceiling, and they are still tryi ng to take that away on us. The only reason we have any benefits in our company, it is through our union.

If it was not for our union, we would not have any benefits. Through our union, at least if we are ill, if we are off sick for four days, we can get two-thirds of our pay. In our last strike that we had in 1989, it was really terri ble. They did not want us back in. The shareholders, some of them, they brought all their families in to work. Some of the people were really prospering by seei ng us out on the street . They did not want us back in. The manager was trying to persuade them back in. He said, just give them a few little things and bring them in.

A lot of these women are single mothers, they are supporting their childr en on their own. Some of us were losing our apart ments. A lot of people had bills to pay. Their debts fell into bad credit. I had to move out of my apartment; I was fortunate I could move in with my sister , but there were people who got behind in the rent, they lost their apar tments and things. If it had not been for final offer selection, we would sti ll be out on the street . When we applied for final offer selection, it was finally settled.

At the beginning of last Februar y, we were called. lt was all explained to us, and we found it all quite reaso nable. As soon as we-see, we were back in there work ing-as soon as we came back from the meeting, and it had been explai ned to us why we had won the strike, immedia tely they were sayi ng, wait until next year. Wait until next year. Final offer select ion will be out the door. You know it is going, do you not. You know it is going. Then we have really got you in the corner . You will not be work ing here any more. This is what we have to put up with work ing there.

Now, that is going on at our compan y. I can not really relate what is going on in other companies. In our company we are not treated with digni ty or respect. We usually get managers who do not have too much business etique tte; for instance, if we are very abrupt, we are told to shut our mouth, which I do not think goes on in too many places. If people wanted you to do something, you wo uld think they would have a more classified way of speak ing to the staff. The manager who was on our side-he was not really on our side, he was just trying to be fair to both sides they fired him.

They h ad another manager after that who is since out the door , as of last September . Now they are worki ng on a thir d manager . They have fired the acco untant that we had ther e for 35 years. Those people do not belong to the union. Now if you let final offer selection go, we are all going to be gone. A lot of the people that work in our office, like the only job that a lot of people have: they do not have a lot of other tra ining, to go out and -probably a lot of these people will end up on welfare if final offer 301 select ion is gone.

I think thr ough final offer select ion it does help people to become more agreea ble. lt is sort of a threat to both sides, actually, because you real ly do not know which package they are going to choose. lt all depends on which is most fair and most reaso nable of all. My own broth er, who was a very strong Liberal, has left the Liberal Party over his views on final offer selection. He campaigned very hard in his constituency and he won out in his constituenc y, and he has left over his viewpoints, because he is a work ing man; he is a businessman; he has gone to university.

He was a boilermaker; he has worked for big construction firms. He knows that unions are very, very important . Without unions there would not be safety in the work place. A lot of people used to lose their lives work ing. There were laws for the rich, laws for the poor. The rich people were really taken care of on their job. A poor person could get electrocuted on their job. They were very done away with. With unions this does not happen.

I can say agai n, my brother has left the Liberal Party and I know he will campaign in the next election where he lives and, the Party that he has selected, I know he will win all those people over to his side. And this is really about all I have to say about it. Mr. Ashton: I appr eciate your giving us a perspective, some of the tensions that are ongoing at Unicity.

I just want to ask you in terms of what you went through, if you just could elabor ate a bit on that, I think you gave a fairly good pictur e of what the company is like to work for, and some of the comments that have been made about the fact that final offer selection is no longer going to be there, and not avai lable to you. You mentioned your own situation where you were caught in a strike, how would you descri be to Mem bers of this committee who have never perhaps had a situation of being on strike? I have been through two, although I was single once, and I was married without childr en the second time.

I would be the first to say that I was not impacted anywhere near as much as other people were. How would you explain what it was like to be on that picke t line to the Members of this comm ittee who perhaps have never had to go thr ough that? Ms. Whif fen: Well, it was really, really bad . lt was in the summer, it was very, very hot. We had a shaded area of the building, with trees coming over us and we would bring soft drink s and we would take turns going arou nd the building and would sit down. We were polite strikers. We were only out there with our pic ket signs to show tha t we were on strike.

We were not rude to anybody . What do they do? They start chopping down the trees that have been there-1 guess from the beginni ng of time. So we would ha ve to sweat it out. They used all kinds of devious nasty methods to get at us. lt was just like, if you want to sit out there, tortu re. Laugh in our face. They could not give us a raise. They could not give us anything. All these people that they have, their families, in there work ing for us. Chinese food being delivered to them. Dinners at Chi Chi's. Really, I am not lying. lt is a proven fact. And they could not do anything for us.

We are very, very dedicated workers. This past New Year's who worked all night, New Year's night? Myself

Thur sd ay, March 1, 1990 and thr ee other unio n ladie s. lt was not the shareholders' wives that came in to work. No, they went out and they enjoyed their evening. lt was the ded icated people like myself that went in and worked very hard on New Year's Eve, the busiest night of your year. But we do not get any respect or gra titude for that. And I do not know what we can do with the compa ny if they do th row out final offer selection. They do not care about how ded icated we are. We will all be out on the street . We will be without a job and they are just waiting for it.

Right now we are presently covered because we got in on time, but next year when it is time to negotia te again, we will be out. lt will be the end of us. Mr . Ashton: So for those 60 days that you were out on the picket line, it was only because of the fortuna te timing that final offer selection came along. But 60 days th roughout th at period the company continue d opera ting. You menti oned the fam ilies of the sharehold ers continued opera ting-taking over your jobs essential ly, while you were on legal strike. Ms. Whiffen: That was exactly it. Act ually, a lot of the shareholders prospered by the strike.

We sat on the street and we ate very little and, as I say, we had deb ts piling up on us. If it had not been for final offer selection, well, we would have been out of a job. • (2 130) Mr .

Ashton: One of the concerns that has been expressed about final offer selection -! know you have probably heard it tonight, so I will not go into detai ls, but the suggestion that because of the second windo w which you had accessed , although you did not have the chance to use final offer selection before the strike occurred, but the concern has been expressed that it lengthens strikes because somehow people are going to go on strike for 60 days, wait for 60 days and then go and access final offer selection.

I want to ask you, if you were in that situation where final offer selection was still available, do you think it would be likely at all tha t someone would go on strike for 60 days to use final offer selection so that they could use right from the start - Ms. Whiffen: Being on strike is much more difficult than work ing. I would much rather go in and do a day's work; it is not easy being out on a picke t line. lt is very boring and it is very hard on you. lt is just like a no word game.

When we have gone to the meetings to take a strike vote, you will hear the people in our office saying there is no way we are going out on strike, we cannot afford to, there is no way. Yet when we get there and we hear the company's final proposals, 100 percent vote in favour of strike. I cannot see anybody that would want to go on strike, not with the people that I have worked with anyway. Mr.

Ashton: I appreci ate relating this to committee, because as I said, one of the problems I know is a lot of people have not had to go through that and it is 302 someti mes very easy to have a san itized view of it and some of the argument that has been put forward against final offer selection seems to come from very much that sort of sta ndpoint.

What I want to ask you, in terms of your experienc e with final offer selection is the relationship you had in terms of the union and yourself because one of the criticisms about final offer selection that I certai nly cannot accept, but it has been made is that final offer selection somehow weakens unions and weakens the accou ntability of the leadersh ip of unions to its members. I have never quite figured that one out, but I just want to ask you, you have been thr ough a situation, you have used final offer selection, do you believe that has occurred in your par ticular case? Ms.

Whiffen: No, I do not think it has. I would dis agree with that. Mr. Ashton: The reason I am asking these questions is because I am hopeful that Members of this committee will go thr ough each and every one of the arg uments, and not accept my word as Labour Critic for the New Democ rat ic Par ty, but accept the word of people who have been through it, such as yourself. What I want to ask, just as one further question on your experiences, and I have asked this of other pe ople. I know you have touched on it, to a certain extent, in your presentation.

But I want to give you one more chance to do perhaps what we have been trying to do with Members of the committee. Thus far, perhaps they have indicated they may have an open mind, but have not they indicated that they will vote to save final offer selection, something we would like to see happen. What would you say to them to try and convince them to save the final offer selection procedur e, and in your case, help resolve a strike. We have heard people sugge st that strike could have gone on for years.

What would your sugge stion be to them as to what they should do in terms of the way they vote on this when we do vote on this? Ms. Whiffen: lt was implemented for a five-year trial period, and I think they should allow it to run its course and then review it to find out if it really has proven itself. I do not think they should repeal it without letting it run its five-year cycle, and then I think they should start looking at reviewing it. Mr . Chairman: Any further questions? If not, thank you very much, Ms. Whif fen. We will start up with the front top of the order agai n. Mr. David Ryzebol, Mr.

Sid ney Green, Ms. Buffie Burr ell, Mr. Ken Crawford, Ms. Linda Fletcher, Mr. lrvine Ferris, Mr. Randy Porter , Mr. Bob Bayer, Mr. Michael Campbeii-Balagas, Mr. Art Demong -is he he re? Do you have a written presenta tion , Mr. Demong? Mr. Art Demong (Private Citizen ): No, I do not. Mr. Chairman: Please proceed then. Mr. Demong: First of all, I would like to thank the committee for the opportun ity to make this presentation.

Thu rsda y, March 1, 1990 S�Qdly , I would like to apolog ize to the committee for not having a written statement . I llave been away on holidays, and I did not have the opportunity to prepare myself properly, so I may be babbling a bit. Of course I do not have a written statement for the committee. Final offer sele ction and what it means to me is when I am look ing for bargai ning proposals to prepare for a round of bargai ning, first of all, final offer select ion makes sure that I have reasonable bargaining proposals to pr esent to the bargai ning committee when we are making presenta tions.

I also feel that it also ensures that management and the people I am bargai ning with also are compelled to have reasonable bargai ning pro posals insofar as that if in fact we do go to final offer selection, one of the proposals is chosen, and the arbi trator or the selector makes a select ion on one of the proposals. I have been out on strike. This is many years ago. I know what a hell of a situation that is.

I know what it is like to come home and have two little childr en and a wife say, how long are you going to be out on strike yet; there is not enough food, we do not know when we are going to have enough; how long we are going to have enough food or milk on the table? I know that with final offer selection ther e is a deadline. I know ther e is a time frame. If nothing else, you can gauge yourself before you go into bargai ning. I may be out on strike for 60 days but you know ther e is a cutoff point at some point in time. That, to me, who has walked the picket line, is an extremely important thing.

There is a point where you know when it is going to be over and you can go back to work. As the previous speaker pointed out, I do not think there is anyone who has ever been out on strike who enjoys it for a moment. lt is a very, very nasty situa tion to be in. If you are forced into that kind of a situa tion, as I say, you are forced at some point in time, you do not have an alterna tive. For th e life of me, I do not under sta nd why Go ver nments, when there is good sound legislation on the books, tha t they choose to take it away for some re!lson or another. I do not understand that at all. Thank you. Mr.

Ch airm an: Thank you, M r. Demong . Mr. Ashton. Mr. Ashton: I thank you for coming forwa rd , and actu�! IY I do not feel you were hampered in any way by not having a written presentation. We have had many people come forwa rd . One of the posit ive things about this committee I think has been is that it has given peo ple a chance to come up and talk from the heart , talk direct ly to Mem bers of the comm ittee, and try and persuade them of their particular views. I have asked people before to really try and give Mem bers of this committee a chance to put themselves in their shoes.

You are just doing it -1 know in terms of the kind of situation you run into and the kind of thoughts that go thr ough people's heads and the kinds of decisions that have to be made and what goes on in terms of bargai ning. I woulq just like to ask you, by the way, in terms of final offer select ion, some people have suggested that in some way it weakens the accountabil ity of unions, especially union leadersh ip to their members. I have asked other people for that. I would like to ask your opinion. Do you believe that is a legitima te point? Does that happen with final offer selection?

In some way it weakens the- Mr. Chairma n: If you would, just wait until I recog nize you, please, so they could turn on the mikes. Mr. Demong, please proceed now. 303 Mr. Demong: I apolog ize. You are asking if the final offer selection weakens the position of a union? I do not believe it does, I think it is a prog ressive move, it is support ive to the bargai ning process. * (2 140) Mr. Ashton: The reason I am asking is because the suggestion has somehow been made, and it was , by the way, expressed in 1987 as a concern by some people within unions, although since many people I think have moved away from that.

The sug gest ion was tha t somehow final offer sel ect ion makes people less respo nsible. I just want your opinion on that as well, because that word has been used. 1t has been suggested that somehow people are less responsible because they get somebody else to make the decision for them. I can not quite understand the reasonin g on that myself, but do you feel that the final after selection process either moves people closer to a negotiated settlement or ends up with them being in a more difficult situa tion in terms of bargai ning? Mr .

Dem ong: I believe it supports and makes peop le go to the bargai ning table a whole lot closer toget her than they may have if the y did not have final offer selection. Mr. Asht on: Once agai n, this was what was said would happen. The statistics show that has happened , only 5 out of 72 cases have gone to the final stage, so your view is certai nly cons istent with the stat istics. I would l ike to ask you another question as we ll in terms Of final offer selection, and just in t�rms of your sense of what people ar� saying about it.

I have indicated to the committee prior, I find it puzzling sometimes, because it seems to be such a rush to get rid of final offer selection. I am not hear ing a big grounds well of people who are saying get rid of it. Let us not forget this legislation is in place and the Bill that we are dealing with is trying to repe(ll it. I would like to ask you in terms of your discussions with people you work with, with friends and neighbour s, have you heard a lot of people saying get rid of final offer select ion? Mr. Demon g: Definitely not.

I think that usually when something comes to pass and is law you do not hear much about it. As soon as there is a move underfoot as there is right now to get rid of final offer selection, then the people start coming forward and making comments for or agains t it. I have not heard any

Thursday, March 1, 1990 comments against final offer selection on any of the conversations that I have had. It has all been positiv e and for final offer selection. Mr. Ashton: That is interesting because once again surveys have been conducted which show that as many as 80 percent of people who have an opinion on final offer selection support it, so it is certainly consistent with what you are finding. I could run through many of the other arguments that have been put forward , supposedly, in terms of final offer selection.

We have gone through that in detail on the committee, but rather than focus in on those arguments, I just want to give you the opportunity that I have given othe r people as well, to this committee, perhaps to ask if you could put in words that will be more effective than what we have been able to do. We have been trying to convince Members of this committee that final offer selection is working , that we should not get rid of it. We have heard people today say, it is a lousy year in particular, a lousy couple of years, to be getting rid of final offer selection with so many contracts coming up.

If you could sit down and talk privately, perhaps, with some of the Members of the committee, who would be most likely to have an open mind on this, who are not already in support of final offer selection , what would you say to them? What would you try to say to them to convince them to support final offer selection, to vote against this Bill? Mr. Demong: Quite frankly, I do not think I would say a whole hell of a lot.

I think I would get the person by the scruff of the neck and take him to the first strike that I saw , picket line, and have that person walk the picket line and see exactly what it is like out there. At the same time, I know I am talking about the worker, but I think that strikes are equally as distasteful to management-employers as they are to the workers. Mr. Ashton: We are hoping that perhaps, if that personal, direct experience is not available, that the expressions that you and many other people have made will remind people of what is at stake, because that really · is what is at stake.

It is a question of whether we want to have only the strike alternative there if you cannot reach a decent contract, or whether you want another alternative. That is all final offer selection is. It is 13n alternative to the right to strike that does not take away the right to strike. I thank you for your comments . Mr. Plohman: I just want to follow up, just briefly, with you on this. You seem to feel that it makes such common sense to retain this legislation that you cannot understand why a Government would want to take it away. Do you have any thoughts about why the Government wants to repeal this?

Strictly a campaign promise for political reasons only, a political issue to them-is that what you see it , as it is not reasonable from your perspective? Mr. Demong: I do not see it as anything other than an elect ion promise. I do not think it has been well thought-out by the Government. I think that they are acting on something that they promised they were going to do, and they are going to do it. Mr. Plohman: Do you think the people that they promised it to really think it is a big issue? Is it such an anti-business legislation that it keeps Manitoba from moving ahead econo mically , in your opinion? Mr.

Demong: Very definitely. Any strike is not economically good for any particular area. If it is a municipality, a province, or a country, or whatever , it is an economic disaster to have a strike. Mr. Plohman: So, in your mind then , FOS is quite the contrary. It actually should be viewed, do you belie ve it is viewed, by people who think about it a great deal as being progressive and assi sting in creating a bett er business climate in this province , as opposed to one that would drive businesses away from our province? Mr. Demong: Yes, I do not think that FOS has drive n any businesses out of this province .

I think that over the last couple of years , a lot of bus inesses have been driven out of the province , but I doubt very much if FOS has anything to do with it. I would be very surprised if somebody could show me an instance of any of the businesses that have left the province, if they in fact were driven out by FOS. Mr. Rose: I appreciate your comments and certain ly most of the time I appreciate people that do not have a presentation because they are usually more to the point and briefer. You had mentioned that you had the experience some time ago of being on strike. How long ago was that?

Could you tell me how lengthy the strike was and perhaps where? Mr. Demong: I cannot remember the year. It was quit e a while ago, back about 15, 16 years ago. The strike only lasted one week . Mr. Rose: Mr. Cha irm an, since that time 15, 16 years , did you continue to belong to the union? Mr. Demong: Yes, I do. 304 Mr. Rose: Then that involvement in the union , are you one of the officers of the union or a shop steward or something like that? Mr. Demong : Yes, I am. *

(2150) Mr. Rose: In your capacity as a union member, have you had any direct involvement in FOS negotiations , either directly on the job you have or in conjunction with some other associat ion you may have with unions? Mr. Demong: No, I have not . Mr. Rose: You continue to be a union member at the present time? Mr. Demong: Yes. Mr. Rose: Thank you, Mr. Chairman , thank you.

Thu rsday, Mar ch 1, 19 90 Mr. Chairman: Are ther e any further questions? Well, thank you very much for your presenta tion. Call Mr. Wayne Andon. Is he here? Mr. Alain Trudeau, Mr. Eugene Fontaine, Mr. Gr ant Ogonowsk i. Is he here? Would you lik e to dis tri bute his brief. Please pr oceed , Mr . Ogono wsk i. Mr. Grant Ogonowski (Private Ci tizen): Thank you. By way of introduction I have provided a copy of the brief, but I tend to like to use these things more as notes rather than anything else, but it is provided so you have a record of some of the views that I have.

I wish to first of all thank this committee for giving all of Manitob ans the oppo rtun ity to express their opin ions on this important piece of legislation. I wish to make it clear at the outset that I strongly oppose Bill 31, and that I support the rete ntion of final offer select ion as a potential means of aiding the collective barg aining process. Well, I am certain this committee has by this time heard almost every possible argument for and agai nst this legislation by many eloquent speakers.

I think somet imes it is necessary that one or two of us hear the same thing over and over again before it may finally sink in. (Mr . Parker Burrel l, Acting Chairman, in the Chair) In point form which follo ws, I support FOS for the following reasons, and I want to just make sure that you note that, although I am going to dweli primarily on FOS as an alternativ e in the collective bargai ning process, the other points that I raise are equally as important and I simply do not let them die.

First of all, in point form, FOS provides an option to arrive at reas onable sett lements witho ut the necessity of strik e or lockout or prolong st rike or lockout. Second ly, it forces each partici pant to put forward a well thought out reas onable offer which elimina tes the chicken dancing and the posturing that goes on in colle ctive bargai ning and rem oves unr easo nable demands. Third ly, it favour s neither labour nor management in my vi ew. Fourth ly, it promo tes and favours good-faith bargai ning.

Fifthly, it red uces the bitterne ss between the employer and the employees particu larly in prot racted strike or lockout situations. While I am a firm believer of the right to strike or lockout, I also firmly believe that these are alternat ives which may not always be the most appropria te at all times. I like to make analogies as I go, and sometimes the simplicity of analogies brings home a point. While United States and other world powers firmly believe in maintai ning nuclear weapons, they would under no circumstances whatsoever simply rely on those weapons alone.

Par ticula rly they must rely on other alterna tives to resolve problems. Other alter natives must be available. Several alterna tives must be available so that the most appropria te may be selected for the particular situa tion. Currently we have an impasse on Meech Lake. What is being done to resolv e it? Bri efly, I would like to say that we are look ing for reasonable alternativ es to help resolve the issues.

We are not successf ul at this point and it may be because either we have not found the 305 right alterna tives to resolve the impasse given the situa tion, or someone or some persons are refusing to recog nize that the pro posed alternativ es are legitima te. Power games and threats and retal iation are becoming more evident daily. We have communities that are now saying, we are Engl ish only. Pure bitterne ss is bound to follow, in my view. Collective bargai ning is no different. If the use of the nuclear warhead was the only alternative internat ional ly, it is unlikely we would be here tod ay.

If there are no or only a few inapprop riate alterna tives for Meech Lake, it is unlikely the issue will be resolv ed for Canadians. If we dimini sh our alterna tives we limit our oppor tuniti es to resolv e the issues amicab ly. Is that coffee for me too or-? Sure, can I get a cup of that, please? What Bill 31 prop oses to do is to withdr aw an alterna tive and limit the abil ity of

partie s to resolve issues. That is the bottom line of Bill 31. Just so that everybody has heard that, I will repeat it agai n. What it propo ses to do is withdr aw an alterna tive and limit the abi lity of the parties to resolve issues. I am a resident of Dauphin for 16 years. You kno w, that !own we once used to say was appro ximately 10,500-sure, I will have one of those, why not? Now that town is more like about 8,500 people. We are losing people left, right and centre.

This is a community, as any of you from a small community may well appreciate, where everybody seems to know two-thirds of the rest of the people in the village or the town. Every body is somewhat knowledgeable and friendly about others. cannot help but recall the bitterne ss and the hatred that was caused during the Blackwoods Beverages strike a number ol years ago. If there is anyone who is sitt ing around this tabie here tonight who believes that the workers wanted to go on that strike, then you have no right in my view to represent Ma nitobans, and I will be that blunt about it.

They no more wanted lo be on that strike line than Truman wanted to drop a bomb on Hir os hima, but th ere were no other alterna tives" That is the point. The deed was done. lawyers in that strike ran the clock, and I knew both of the la wyers involved in that strike and they ran up the clock. They got their vacat ions to Hawaii and so on and so fort h, but the workers walked in sub-zero temper atures for a number of weeks-freezing cold, in the middle of winter . Scab labour was relied on. Bitter feelings and hatred were the result.

Friends who were friends for years in a small-town community, ok ay, still toda y will cross the street to avoid each other as a result. That is how bitter that was. Many in Da uphin toda y will not pur cha se a Blackwoocis Beverages product, and those who are on the other side of the is sue will buy nothing but Blackwoocis Beverages pr oducts. it is black and white. Ma ny of the employees never did return to their jobs in that strike. Mention Blackwoods Beverages and that strike in Dauphin and you will almost always get a react ion. People will not forget that strike in Dauphin.

Bitterne ss lingers on and I cannot help but ask was it

Thu rsd ay, March 1, 19 90 all necessa ry. What did Dauphin do to deserve the bitterne ss? Why were there not other alterna tives? I canno t help but wonder if that strike may have been averted if the bitterne ss and if the loss of employment and if the loss of produc tivity and the destruc tion of friendship would ha ve been averted if FOS would have existed at that time as an alternative. I firmly believe that it would have been averted because it would have made the parties sit down and put reasonable positions on the table.

Realizing how close they might have been , they might have resolved the dispute before it even was sett led by an arbit rator . Several years ago I watc hed a strike at St. Joseph's personal care home in Da uphin, frie ndships were destr oyed as neigh bours had to cr oss the pic ket line to take care of their parents. The bitter still lingers on. I can not help but wonder again if that strike and those issues could not have been averted had they had the option to resolve that perhaps by final offer selection. *

(2200) Dauphin and the surr ounding area has a very aging population and health care is critic al in that area; it is critical. A strike in the health care field could be totally devastat ing and yet it may be averted if there are proper alterna tives available for it. In a situation like that in any small community in this provinc e anywhere, the question is are you, the Govern ment, who is proposing this Bill 31, are you prepar ed to accept that you withd rew an alterna tive that may well ha ve been the right alterna tive to avoid a destruc tive fight.

Are the Liberals prepared to accept that responsi bility too? Think of the devastat ion particularly in the health care. While you here in the city may be cushioned from the effects of some of these stri kes or lockouts simply by the sheer numbers-some little group goes on strike and you do not even pay any att ention to it -we in the rural areas feel the de vastat ion of a str ike immediately in small communities. We lose the money into the economy. The friendships are destroyed. Now I firmly believe this next parag raph at the top of page 5, obviously I believe that this is politically motivated .

While you here are politi cally beholding to busine ss interests, and that was a promise that was made dur ing the election campaigns, we in the small communities really suffer the consequenc es of having limited reasonable alterna tives available to resolve issues as was the case in Blackwoods Beverages. End the perimeter vision. I wish I had my button here that I used to wear, end the perimeter vision . Some of the stats you have probably heard several times already over and over again in these hearings; undou bted ly by this point you have heard them all.

Since its inception 72 applications were made, and these are the best stats that I could get for the time, 14 are to the best of my knowledge pending, 49 cases were settled by parties prior to an arbitr ator deciding on them. Five cases were decided by a selector, three in favour of the employees, two in favour of the employers, four applications were dismissed .

Now with those kinds of stats I believe it not unfair to at least at a minimum state that even if the application for final offer selection 306 gave the parties the time, simply if it gave them nothing more than the time to review their respect ive positions without forcing a commitment to strike or lockout which resulted in the parties settling, then in my humble opinion this legislation is good service for Ma nitoba. lt is good for Ma nitobans if it has simply done that and 85 percent of those applications were resolved with out finally hitting an arbit rator .

This is good legislation for Man itobans. lt is an alterna tive for the people. When people are limited or they are corn ered or they are boxed in they come out swinging. That is natu ral human nature. Do not limit the colle ctive barga ining process. I believe that it is fair to state that the stat istics at this point in time speak favourably of this legis lation. (Mr. Chairman in the Chair) With respect to unions, a lot of opponents of this legislation argued that not all unions were in favour of the legislation and therefore it should be removed.

While it is true that there were a few unions that were skeptical at first, that view has changed , and I am sure you have heard that in these hearings time and time agai n. There was a fear by some unions that this legislation was a prelude to giving up the right to strike. That was clearly argued by a number of unions. lt was a fear, and it is an understan dable fear. Those unions now see that the labour movement in this provinc e will never give up their righ t to strike, will never.

The labour movement is not so shallow, however, as to not recognize that the never-ending need to find new and innovative alterna tives is necessary to resolve issues amicably. Unions have a long and proud histor y of fighting to improve quality of life for workers. Some fights have unfortuna tely been bitter ones. They have the right to be skeptical and if they desir e they have the right to conti nue to be skeptical in my view. The argument that all unions are not for FOS is a redundant argument, I think it is a weak argument and now does no longer represent the true picture.

While I do not speak for the Dauphin District Labour Co-ordinating Committee, I am a member of that committee and can state without reserv ation that the member unions of the council are agains t Bill 31. I want to take a look at some of the thoughts that ran through my head , political here, that I believe in. I am going to answer -every person has been asked one quest ion by Mr. Ashton over and over again: if you had the opportunity to say something to the other Party to convince them, take your shot at them, what would it be?

I have written my shot here in the brief so it is there for your ever-ending record , I suppose. I believe that Bill 31 is solely the result of a beholding political situa tion. That is what I believe. While I can understand the Conservat ives' motivation, even though some of tha t motiva tion may be tongue-in-cheek support, I cannot understand how the Liberal Opposition refuses to oppose a bad Bill. They are by definition "opposition" and when a Bill is bad , you oppose it. Manito bans are being politically educated these days.

I believe that they are being shown that the Liberal alternat ive is inde ed not an alterna tive at all. I hate to

Thur sday, March 1, 19 90 say that, but un fortu nately I bel ieve tha t is the case. They are being sho wn tha t the Liberal Party inter est may well be with the Cham ber of Commerce. lt has been sa id, regretfu l ly, tha t when you priv atize or dereg ul ate a Cons ervat ive, you get a Liberal.

The actions of the Liberals in this in stance, I bel ieve, are limiting me to no other alterna tives but to agree with tha t state ment. lt amazes me tha t you both would repeal legislation th at sh ows itself in the first ins tance to be usefu l to Man itobans, even Mem bers of the Cham ber inclu ded , and second ly, which inclu des a sunset provision in it. Gi ve the legisla tion a full chance to work-t hat is what Manitobans are asking for -i ns tead of spending the public funds to dump it, especially when it is legislation which helps Ma ni tobans. Is it jus t being dump ed because the NDP conc eived it?

I hope not. One of the speakers who was here earlier , Mr. Smith, said I hope not to the same thing. lt should not be. If tha t is the reason, it should not be. Is somebody afraid tha t it will be said tha t the NDP are the Party tha t is truly inno vative and reas onable? I do not kn ow. Is tha t why it is being dump ed? I do not think so.-(int erjection) Yes, the Li beral Mem ber says I do not think so.

I hate to say it but in this instance -and I am appealing to the Li berals her e- perhaps Ma nitobans are being sho wn tha t the real Op position is the smal lest Opposition Party in this provinc e and in the Ho use. Perhaps th e Li berals are withd rawi ng, not one alterna tive but perhaps the Li berals are withd rawing two alterna tives in this exercise, thems elves and final offer select ion. Limit us, provide Manitobans with few alterna tiv es as huma n na ture has it, Ma nitobans will come out swinging. In conclusion , I bel ieve final offer select ion is a process which aids col lect ive bargai ning.

I belie ve final offer selec tion may be an appropria te alterna tive to strike or lockout, which everyone ag rees is not the most desirable resol ution, even though some time s it is the only resolution or sol ution. FOS is good for workers. lt is good for busi ness and Ma nitobans ergo it must also be good for politicians. Do not limit negotia tors at the table to only have to ch oose the bomb. Ple ase put political considerations asi de, ch oose in favour of, not agai nst, Ma nitobans in good legisla tion. I urge you to defeat Bill 31. Thank you. Mr . Ch airm an: Thank you , Mr . Ogono wski.

Mr Plohman. * (22 10 ) Mr. Ploh man: Yes, thank you, Mr. Ogo nowsk i. I am very pl eased to see a Dau phin cit izen making a presenta tion to the comm ittee on this issue. I think we have talk bra ss tacks here; you certainly ha ve done tha t in you r bri ef. I have to tell you th at I could not have said it better, and I have said many of tho se thi ngs in my speech.-(inter ject ion) - ! have made tha t poin t- mine was his neighbour , yes-b ut I have made tha t point in the House.

I want 307 to tell you tha t I am very pleased to have you make th ose sta tements here tod ay, because of the hi story of the strikes as you outlined in you r brie f, the Bla ckwoods Beverages strike and others. I think the concern th at the people in the Dauphin area have expressed in many cases about strike s in the health field for example as you outlined, in critical services, will have a devas tating im pact on our communi ty and the people th ere.

So I belie ve the people in Dauphin support any legislation tha t reduces the inc idenc e of st rike and labour -management strife and tha t is the position I am taking. That is why I have no problem suppor ting FOS. I do not view this as anti-business at all. I think iron ically, and I am going to ask you a qu estion after I have made this statem ent, the Cons ervatives and the Li berals belie ve other wise, that it is probably polit ically advantageous for them to suppor t FOS because th at will help them in Dauphin. Let us talk Dauphin, because tha t is where you are from and tha t is what I represent.

I would ask you this: Do you belie ve that the people of Dauphin, the people tha t you talk to regu larly -and you are represe nting you rself as a private citi zen here, but you form your opin ions talking to other s as well-do you feel tha t the average citizen in Dauphin views this as being strictly pro-labour legislation and some thing tha t is anti busine ss? Or do you think it is viewed at this point in time as being a positiv e force in bringing together labour and management? Or do you bel ieve most people just do not kno w what it is about? Mr.

Ogonows ki: The re are a lot of qu estions in the re and I sup pose a lot of ans wers. On the qu estion of the busi ness in Da uphin, we su ffered thr ough the Bla ckwoods Beverages situati on and it was a suf feri ng, th ere was no qu estion, for the people inv olved and for busi ness. I do not belie ve for one min ute that employees want to go out on strike. I think ther e has been some sugges tion i n the past tha t while the 60-day issue here and people are jus t going to whip out on strike and all tha t sort of stuff is absolutely lud icrous; nob ody wants to go out on strike.

No busi ness person, I belie ve, wants a labour dispute and wants to have a strike, if possibl e. You kno w, un fortuna tely, the coll ective bar gaining process is tha t there is a lot of chicken dancing th at goes on from time to time and a lot of posturing and so on and so forth.

One of the things this leg islation pr ovides th at I belie ve and this is bel ieved by busi ness men-! mean I do speak to a num ber of busi ness people on a regular basis in the Dauphin area for various reaso ns-e ven a Cons ervat ive, a previous candida te for the Conservative Party who runs a pizza busi ness in town and a restaurant busi ness, has very clearly stated to me tha t it is an alterna tive and it may wel l provide a solution to a problem to avoid devastat ion.

You kno w, we had the Sm itty's situation in Dau phin. lt is really kind of in teresting because everybody sai d, well, you kno w th at place went down the tu bes because a union was in volv ed in tha t place, but belie ve it or not, the busi ness people in tha t area did not necessarily

Thurs day, March 1, 1990 foll ow tha t line of thinking. The people I talked to out there, the y do not want strikes, th ey want alternat ives. I think that is the bottom line to the whole issue. They want the alterna tives. They want the abil ity to find the right solution under giv en certain circu mstances. Mr. Ploh man: I think tha t is the position tha t has to be taken here, tha t is the reality and tha t is what we hope the Li berals will realize in this particular exercise.

I think tha t you have made some very strong politic al statements in your brie f and tha t they are relevant in this particular ins tance. I thank you for that. Mr. Rose: Mr. Chairman - An Honourable Member: The Liberal gets his shot back now, eh? Mr. Rose: Actually , I am only going to ask you one qu estion and not because I am not inte rested in you r brief and tha t I have not been lis ten ing. I think it was in fact , I cong ratula te you on the br ief and your presenta tion. You have certainly- Mr. Ch airm an: Would you like to speak into the mike, Mr . Rose? Mr .

Rose: -ma de a concise position and representation of how you stand from the position of labour , particula rly in respect to rural labour , and we accept that. So I thank you for your presenta tion. I jus t have one qu estion . On page 5, at the top you sa id, "While you here are politi cally beh olding to busine ss in terests ". I wanted to qu estion you on that. When you say, "you here" are you referring to the New Democrats, or the Cons ervatives, or both? Mr. Ogonowsk i: I am referring to the movers of the Bill primari ly. I belie ve tha t the motivation for the movement of this Bill is pol itical. Mr.

Rose: Thank you . Mr. Ashton: Right. I appreciate your coming here toda y as wel l. I think it is imp ortant to get the perspective of people from outside of Winnip eg. I think you have really very effectively got across wha t it is lik e in a com mun ity like Dauphin. What you were talking about was very much what has ha ppened in Thomps on, the fact tha t impacts on everybody when you are into a strike situation. if th ere are ways of avoiding tha t situati on, tha t people, I think, feel it is a far better way of dea ling with it.

Wha t I would like to ask you , you said tha t there was a fair amount of sup port for final offer selec tion. I jus t want to reverse the coin. I kno w you have heard me ask this question before, but what has puzzled me and you may be right in terms of some of the reasons why the !egislation is her e-i s the lack of a grounds well of people sayi ng, gel rid of FOS . I go arou nd my constituenc y on a reg ular basis. I do not hear anybody saying get rid of final offer selection. The Memb er for Dauphin (Mr . Plohman) jus t talked in Dauphin.

Are you picking up anyone out th ere real ly- any real 308 groun dswell of people who are saying bring in Bill 31, get rid of final offer select ion? Mr. Ogonowski: I am certainly not picking up any groun dswell of people saying we want Bill 31. The cont rary is true. If the re are comments about FOS and Bill 31, the comments are tha t people jus t cannot under stand why this thing has a suns et clause and tha t it is jus t sim ply being dump ed without giving it a good, solid opportun ity to work itself out. Mr . Ashton: You menti oned about the suns et clause.

I jus t want to indicate and I had not ind icated dir ectly in this commit tee yet, but I had annou nced toda y tha t the New Democratic Party wouid be bringing in an amendment to try and save FOS; tha t we are bringing in a fou r-year suns et essentia lly ins tead of a five, in trying to open up some way, shape or form in which th ose on the commit tee who have previously said they want to dump it, can at least gi ve it tha t chanc e, all ow it to go another two years basically and allo w us to analy ze it.

I, by the way, feel it is work ing so well tha t it should be a permanent part of legisla tion, but as you say it is in a suns et. I would ju st like to ask you for your react ion on tha t and whether you feel tha t provides a basis on which perhaps some of the people who feel they have dug the mselves in, and I think tha t may be part of the problem here, people have dug them selves in by their previous statements sayi ng they want to get rid of final offer select ion, if tha t might not be a way for them to li sten to people such as you rself and come out and save final offer select ion. Mr . Ogonowski: Yes.

I, by the way, agree with you, except that, rather than even the amen dment for the fou r-year-the suns et clause is th ere for five years. Let us gi ve it a full opportu nit y for this legislatio n to work itself out. lt has not harmed Ma nitobans to this point; it may well have helped in a numb er of situations.

Clear ly, as I said in the brie f, if the application has done nothing else other than simply provided the two parties an opportun ity to review their positions and see how clo se they are and have arrived at settlements without the help of an arbit rator and without commi tment to strike or lockout then, by the good God, this is important legislation tha t we should keep on the books. Like a previous speaker, if th ere is going to be any change to thi s, what I would sug gest is that they remove the suns et clause and put the thing in legislation forever. lt is good legislation What more can I say about it?

I feel str ongly about it in tha t way. For small towns and for communiti es, I cannot reitera te tha t too much. You speak about Thomp son ; well, Thom pson has always been viewed basically as a on e-indus try town . When the one ind ustry goes down, then the economy of the whole city is jus t in up heaval and the entir e city is torn apart. You kno w, in a place like Dauphin, it is not as big as lnco. lt is a place like Bla ckwoods Beverages; it is the smaller ind ustries tha t if the y go down the effect is devastating.

You kno w ther e are tons of small little villa ges and towns and commun ities all over Manitoba, where they

Thu rsday , Mar ch 1, 19 90 cannot afford to not have alterna tives. They have to ha ve alte rnativ es. lt is as simple as tha t for me. *

(2220) Mr. Ashton: No one is really going to appr eciate that perspectiv e because, as you say, it has a major im pact. You take the equ ivalent strike in Winn ipeg and we heard early, it impacts very much on the indi viduals and their fam il ies. People do not see it the same way because, let us face it, in the city you do not have the same con tact with your neigh bour s, you do not kn ow what is happening so much around you . lt is more easy to isolate it.

You are sa ying tha t real ly, in your opinion, final offer select ion probabl y-! would say it is important in the city-but you are saying it is probably of even gr eater im portance outside of the City of Winnipeg, where you have such a di rect im pact from strikes on every body in volv ed . Mr. Ogono wski: Yes, one other comment. You know th ere are que stions about groun dswell and I gue ss the gr ounds well-y ou kno w the que stion can be asked both ways. Why not the grounds well both ways?

Well, to me, a lot of people out in the ru ral communitie s-! mean Dau phin is an agrarian population basical ly. lt is an aging popula tion. There are a lot of people who reti red th ere and so on and so forth. You kno w, not being in a "high profile" labour town, the ans wer from Thom pson in terms of grounds well may be di fferent than the ans wer from a place like Thom pson or The Pas and so on and so forth. lt is kind of like privatiza tion, people refuse to belie ve th at it is going to affect them and their jobs, so the y do not pay any attention to it.

The gr ounds well does not roll until th ey are affected dir ectly and personal ly. The qu estion comes up, as why in a place like Dauphin is there not this gr eat gr ou nds well and why do not we have the 8, 500 people in our town march ing up and down the street sayi ng, down with the Cons ervative Government and hold on to FOS . lt is because tha t many of tho se people, to a large deg ree, do not think it is going to affect them until the next strike comes along and there is no altern ative.

Until the next situa tion comes along, where you are pushed up agains t the wal l, then th ey will recog ni ze the value of a piece of legislation tha t the y once had. Tha t is why I am so emotional about this, as a Dauphini te, is becaus e it is devastat ing to a small com mun ity when it can be affected so easi ly. Mr. Ashton: Very in teresting comment because I belie ve tha t will happen if we get rid of final offer select ion.

I look at the Su perValu situa tion, Ma y 15, across the province, hundr eds of workers affected if th at ends up in a strike situa tion; I look at Un icity aga in, if tha t ends up in a strike situa tion; I look at nu rses; I look at the doctors; I look at MGE A. We are looking at a situa tion, especially in this year, where th ere are going to be lots of cont racts coming up. lt is like they always say, we do not re cogn ize ho w im portant some thing is someti mes, so it is gone.

You are sa ying to this com mit tee essentia lly, do not make the mistake of ending up in the situation of havi ng 309 potential stri kes tha t could have gone to final offer selec tion, or tha t could have been averted by taking away final offer selec tion. Mr.

Ogono ws ki: I am also very clearly saying too that, if you are prepared to take tha t responsi bilit y, if th ere are no alterna tives and problems happen, if you are prepared to say, well, maybe I could have if we had the legisla tion in place to maybe provide an alternativ e, but we took it away, now we have a strike, before you start looking for somebody else to blame, I think you have to take a look at the fact tha t you withd rew an alterna tive. lt is like Me ech, find enough alterna tives and you might resolve the problem.

If you limi t the alternativ es you will not resolv e the problem, it is as simple as that. Why take away something from Man itobans tha t is not hur ting you, tha t is not hurting the busi ness people , but it is helping them? lt is as simpl e as that. it has to be politically motivated, tha t is all I can think of. For the Li berals, I ur ge you, do not side with the Government on this issue. Beat this Bill back or bear the respons ibili ty you rselves, with them, tha t you took away an alterna tive from Manit obans.

Get up off the keis ters and oppose, as an Opp osition does, the bad Bills-p lease, for Ma ni tobans' sake. Mr . Ch airma n: Thank you, Mr. Ogono wsk i. If th ere are no further qu estions, I want to thank you for your presentat ion this even ing. We have a No. 67 here who wou ld like to make her presentation now; she canno t come back another day. Is it the will of the commit tee tha t we hear her fi rst now? Will tha t be okay? Ms. Shel ley Spak, will you please come forward? Yes, M r. Asht

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-ir15
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf ir15.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e503ad7a703392e003d330d323a810ab1eb0401c

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