1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1643 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. L.

Hanson) –– 1643

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Clark

Ms. A. Hagen

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Marzari

Mr. Miller

Mr. Williams

Mr. Crandall

Appendix –– 1654

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 19.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS REFORM ACT, 1987

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 33.

MR. GABELMANN: It's not entirely in order, but I just want to

get an indication from the minister whether the deferred sections will

be coming in today. No? Okay. So we'll leave sections 30 and 31 for a

later time, then? Okay.

So we're on

section 33, and we were making the argument yesterday,

Mr. Chairman, that I guess we made the argument. The minister has made

his position clear, but in response to our suggestion that there should

be some balance, that there should be some equity between the way in

which councils of unions or accredited employer organizations can be

disbanded, on that issue I wonder whether or not the minister's had an

opportunity overnight to rethink the position which he articulated

yesterday, so that we can move on, perhaps, with some better language

here too.

HON. L. HANSON: Well, I think the key to government's

position in the situation of the employers' accreditation is that they

come forward voluntarily to the Labour Relations Board — in the old

case — and ask for certification, or at least accreditation, and they

do that on a voluntary basis. In the case of the councils of trade

unions, they are ordered under another

section of the act,

section 57

of the Code, which provides that a council of trade unions may be

certified if that is required to secure and maintain industrial peace.

But again the concern that we have expressed, and I think that I've

detailed it a number of times, is that we believe there are many

positive aspects in this amendment in that employers' organizations may

enhance their internal democratic process in order to ensure that they

keep the members in there, or to maximize their members in numbers of

total, and to ensure that there is the responsiveness to the individual

needs of their members. There has proven in many cases, in

representations made to me in the hearings, to be a reluctance to join

employers' councils or employers' accredited organizations, because of

the great difficulty of de-accreditation, or at least getting out of

the organization. We believe that the end result will in fact

strengthen the organizations and strengthen the bargaining process from

both sides.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, we're not going to prolong this, but

I just want to make a point. Apart from the question of balance, where we disagree

with the government's position, there is the other issue which we started

with yesterday: the question of good public policy.

In good economic times, employers want accreditation. They find it a

useful mechanism to help stave off the demands of unions in good

economic times. In bad economic times they don't want the councils.

That's been clear in the history of the last couple of years. The

efforts by some people.... You think of Ray Smith at Mac and Blo, who

has talked about wanting to get out of accredited bargaining agencies.

You see CLR members wanting to do the same thing, simply because it's

in their economic interest in bad economic times to have a one-on-one

relationship with the union. Once the economy improves again, if it

ever does, we'll find that they will be demanding that we have these

strong groups again.

We just think that in the interest of sound industrial relations and

good public policy, it is useful for government policy and for

legislation to reflect the view that more centralized bargaining is

appropriate and useful, coordinated bargaining is a good policy, and

everything should be done to encourage it, not to allow it to be

discouraged. That's why

section 32 was good: in effect it encourages

collective action.

Section 33 is bad because it discourages it.

We made the argument yesterday, and we don't need to make it again

today, but we just want the government to know that we think they're on

a dangerous course in terms of how collective bargaining will end up in

this province. It will end up being more fragmented. We will end up

having whipsawing, and we will end up with a situation that will call

out for legislative action within a couple of years.... I predict right

now that we'll be back in this chamber before the next election, having

amendments to these sections of the Code dealing with accreditation.

The government will not want to live with the kind of industrial

relations chaos that comes from the whipsawing that will inevitably

result and develop from the weakening of collective bargaining, in the

sense of the weakening of the accredited councils of employers or the

councils of unions — whatever they're called from day to day. I just

want to make that point, and say in sorrow that we will be opposing

this particular section.

[10:15]

MR. CLARK: I just want to make, I guess, three points, based

on the comments the minister made yesterday. The first is that the

minister said that "accredited employers' associations meet the needs

of the employer, and therefore it should be up to the employers to

disband them." I think I understand that sentiment, but I think there's

a broader public policy issue that other governments have felt. That

makes a lot of sense, that larger units make more sense in collective

bargaining, because they minimize the regional disruption that can

result from splintering off. So we have a disagreement there, I

understand.

The second point I want to make very briefly is that the minister

says this will strengthen it. I want to say that I also understand the

rationale for that; that is, I know a number of companies, for example,

who are not in the Metal Industries Association and who would join, but

won't because they know how hard it is to get out. I think initially

you'll be correct. In fact, people will join easier because they can

get out easier; in that sense, there will be a growth in the number of

people in accredited associations. The problem is that as soon as

there's pressure, as soon as there's a strike or a lockout or a

problem, the thing will split apart. So it defeats the purpose. In the

initial period, if it's easier to get in and out, people may go in for

whatever reason, but as soon as there is heat, you will see splinter

groups or split-offs from

[ Page 1644 ]

the other associations. It's very clear that in the long run that will cause more disruption.

Even though I think I understand the minister's views and I

understand that they are probably part of a personal background and

history in the Okanagan, I think there's a real flaw in the analysis.

That flaw is that making them easy to get out of sounds good, but by

doing so you invite the fact that as soon as there's the least bit of

pressure, in terms of a strike or a lockout, then you're going to see

them splitting off. That's going to result in checkerboard contracts,

in potential leapfrogging, and in all kinds of different kinds of units

with different collective agreements which are going to result in the

end in more strikes, more lockouts and more disruption.

The final point is this. I don't accept your view that they should

be easy to get in and out of, but if you do accept that, surely the

argument holds for trade unions as well. I don't think, in fairness,

that the minister has made a very clear rationale for having this

really double standard. If you really believe that associations are

better off being voluntary accredited associations, then it has to

follow that trade union associations or bargaining councils should also

be voluntary and easy to get in and out of. If you really believe that

the voluntary aspect of it makes it stronger, then it's absolutely

logical that it should be voluntary in the trade union sector as well.

I think that kind of differential status or clear discrimination in

terms of different standards of treating both sectors really belies the

kind of attitude that the minister and the government have in terms of

different standards for the different groups. I think it's a small

thing — particularly because I think the trade union

section is

correct, and it should only be allowed to split up associations or

councils if the labour board, or in this case the IRC, allows it — but

it's symbolic, all the way through this bill, of the different

standards between the two groups. That kind of thing is what makes the

associations or groups or unions feel so strongly against this

legislation. Time and time again we see different standards treated all

the way along.

So I think those are three areas where we on this side — or, at

least, speaking for myself — have really significant differences of

opinion. Just to echo the words of the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann), I feel very strongly that the government will live to

regret this very simple section, because allowing the splintering of

accredited employer associations will simply mean more disruption and

more industrial unrest in the province of British Columbia.

Section 33 approved on division.

section 34.

HON. L. HANSON: I move the amendment to

section 34 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

The amendment is quite a simple one. It is an editing error, if you

will. In the

section there was the wording: "within three days after

notice is given after subsection (1)." The amendment is: "under

subsection (1)." I'm not sure that requires a lot of debate or

explanation.

Amendment approved.

section 34 as amended.

MR. GABELMANN: There are two amendments here. Essentially one

is to say that the notice to commence bargaining is 90 days rather than

60 days. That's fine. The principle there that collective agreements

should be negotiated prior to the expiry date is, I assume, the

underlying motive, and obviously everyone would agree with that. The

reality is, of course, that if they're not ready to bargain, they're

not going to bargain anyway. The letters will be exchanged and that

will be that. But it's useful that it's 90 days.

As far as the other one is concerned, it's a minor amendment

requiring that the notices be filed with the commissioner. We'll get

into the debate about the commissioner's role and responsibility

vis--vis the minister's role and responsibility. It's a shift away

from governing of labour relations by the Minister of Labour to

governing by this appointed person. This is not the place to have that

debate; we'll have it later. But I just want to make the point that we

are opposed to that kind of diminution of ministerial responsibility.

Section 34 as amended approved.

section 35.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The introduction of an amendment to

section 35. The minister.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that this is an

amendment; it's a deletion of

section 35. This doesn't require a motion

to delete it. I believe we simply defeat it. Is that not the case?

In our discussions, the reason for this deletion is that there were

concerns that there was a misinterpretation with the intention of the

bill. There had been conclusions reached that we were attempting to

override all the provisions of the collective agreements, and that

certainly was not the case.

So with that, we will be voting against this

section of the bill.

MR. GABELMANN: You can be sure, Mr. Chairman, that we too

will be voting against this section. I am again delighted that the

minister saw fit to bring in this change. The publicity around this

section related to firing without cause, when in fact that, as I think

the minister has indicated in his comments, was not the significant

issue here. That was the only way we could get the press to pay any

attention to what we saw as serious concerns about statutory authority

overriding collective agreements in Crown corporations, which is

essentially what this would have allowed.

Unfortunately, instead of being characterized as a statutory

override clause, it became characterized as the firing without-cause

clause. So I just make the point that the way it was worded would have

allowed for managerial authority to do a variety of things that they

were empowered to do by statute, which would have run roughshod through

collective agreements. I never understood why it was the government

wanted to bring this in in the first place, but I suppose, since we are

going to defeat it, there is no point in having a debate about that.

Section 35 negatived.

section 36.

[ Page

1645 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, this is the

section which allows — if that

is the right verb; I am not sure — for an automatic termination of a collective

agreement after two years.

This clearly comes out of the R.R. Lake General Contractors case.

What happens, of course, is that the contractor first of all is

certified and has a collective agreement with its employees, with its

trade unions in that particular case. In the past, on occasion — and

R.R. Lake is the best example — to avoid its collective bargaining

responsibilities it moves its operations elsewhere for two years; it

went to Alberta and worked there for two years.

The Labour Board ruled in this case — and I won't go through all the

details of it — that that was an illegal evasion of the collective

agreement, and R.R. Lake in the 1981 decision were required to continue

with the collective agreement. The decision was in one sentence: "A

collective agreement exists between the union and the employer." So the

government, clearly wanting to assist these companies who wished to

find yet another mechanism to avoid their collective agreement, has

brought in an amendment now that says that automatically that

collective agreement is void after two years if no activity takes place.

Well, that is an open invitation to the R.R. Lake companies of the

world to go and do business somewhere else for a couple of years and

then come back and find that they have no certification. We just think

that is a wrong decision. We think the view of the labour board in 1981

in that case is appropriate, and that it is wrong for this Legislature

to aid and abet these companies who wish to get around their legal

obligations by operating in this way. I just find it reprehensible that

the government would do that. We're absolutely opposed to this

particular section. At the very least, there should be a discussion at

the IRC about whether or not there has been some activity in relation

to the two-year inactivity that demonstrates that there was a game

going on to avoid legal responsibilities. But now that's not available

to the aggrieved party.

It says the "unit shall be deemed to be terminated upon the expiry

of the two-year period" — simply. There should at least be some

reference to the Industrial Relations Council in this kind of question.

I don't have much more to say about it other than that we think there

should be discretion, and not this automatic termination.

MR. CLARK: The member for North Island referred to it as the

R.R. Lake clause. I might refer to it as the Wall and Redekop clause.

I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions around that case.

Wall and Redekop v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters was a case — B.C. Labour

Relations Board 174-86 — that was upheld in the Supreme Court. What happened

was that Wall and Redekop subcontracted all of their business. So they would

get a contract and subcontract all of their business for a period of over two

years. They then applied to have the union decertified as a result of not having

any employees for two years. The carpenters took them to the Labour Relations

Board, and the Labour Relations Board ruled that even though they had no employees

for two years, they really were using the subcontracting to circumvent their

collective agreement. So they had no employees for two years, but they were

still operating by subcontracting all of the various components.

That was challenged by the company the successful application before

the board — to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court sided again with

the union. They said that even though they had no employees for two

years, they were really in effect doing business. Those people

subcontracting for Wall and Redekop were deemed to be employees for the

purposes, I think, of

section 52(8) of the Code.

The question, simply, is this: if an employer subcontracts all of

the work of that company for a period of two years, is it automatically

decertified under this section? Is that the

interpretation?

HON. L. HANSON: I think the member may be referring to a

change that was introduced earlier in the Code. I think the specific

section is 52(8). We believe that the jurisprudence of the board at

that time, with their responsibility to determine fair and reasonable

conduct on the part of the employer, would be caught in that section. I

certainly don't believe that Wall and Redekop would have implications

under this particular section.

[10:30]

Section 36 approved on division.

section 37.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to do too many things

here at once. This is the collective agreements being filed. I guess

the change here essentially is that the agreements have to be filed now

with the council as well as with the minister. It also appears that the

language is stronger than it was before. I suppose there was a lot of

noncompliance with the earlier language of

section 67.

I'm just curious. Is there a big room somewhere with all these

collective agreements stacked up? Does anybody ever look at them? Do

they get dusted? What happens to them?

HON. L. HANSON: I know how the member for North Island feels about trying to do too many things at once.

We do use them. It certainly is true that there are a number that

are not filed at this point, under the old regulations. We do produce a

summary of the negotiated working conditions.

During the hearings, there were a number of representations made

that the information being provided to the industrial relations world

was, in their opinion, inadequate, I guess. I'll have to ask my deputy,

would the name of that publication...? Okay, we had at one time

produced the Labour Research Bulletin

— it was discontinued prior to my taking the term of office — and it

was suggested that that bulletin was very effective in helping those

people in the industrial relations field know what was going on in that

field. We believe that the filing of the collective agreements and the

requirement for an employer to file information with the council will

enable us to provide a good information process — and that's one of the

mandates that we'll come to later —

so that everyone in the area knows the norm of what is happening out

there. Our library is quite often used by both labour and management,

and so is the LRB library, so we believe that this is a forward step,

and we believe that the provision of that information will prove

beneficial to the industrial relations field.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I agree that the information is useful and valuable, and it's important to have

[ Page 1646 ]

it on file. Ironically, in this one I would argue

that the logical place for it to be is in the board offices. That's

where most of the.... Vancouver is a logical place for this to be.

However, that aside, it's going to be in both places as a result of

this change.

I think it's appropriate to say this under this section: I trust

that the minister will in fact bring back the monthly reporting that

was contained in the research bulletin — the information that can come

from information that's collected under this section. That was

discontinued by Bob McClelland, if my memory is correct, while he was

Minister of Labour, as a "restraint" measure. A few dollars might have

been saved, but the value to industrial relations is, in the long term,

more costly than the few dollars that are saved. So I trust the

minister will bring that particular bulletin back. I'm not at this

point prepared to say whether it needs to be presented differently or

whatever. I remember using it very extensively myself as labour critic.

It was a very useful document just to keep up to date with what was

going on, and I think it was useful for the minister too, because

there's no way the minister is going to be able to look at all these

collective agreements that are being filed. He won't even know they're

coming in; they'll just get sent off to the research office. Presumably

the minister gets some kind of regular reporting which summarizes

directions and trends and all of that, and if he's getting that

reporting, which he should, the reporting may as well be shared with

the public and with the labour and management community. So I trust

that because this is a beefed-up section, it will lead to a much fuller

public discussion of what is actually filed.

MR. CLARK: I agree completely that the former research bulletin was an excellent document.

I just have a couple of questions. This is much tighter, and my own

familiarity with the labour board situation is that a lot of the

collective agreements aren't actually filed, or a lot of them are old.

So the first question is: are these open to the public? In other words,

if I want, just as an MLA, to go to the Industrial Relations Council,

can I say: "I'd like to see the collective agreement between Burrard

Yarrows and the council of trade unions"? Or if I was a trade union rep

or whatever and I wanted, say, to sort of raid another union, could I

find out what the collective agreement was so I could find out what the

seventh month was, or whatever it is? And the second question is:

what's the penalty? If you don't file your collective agreement as a

trade union with the Industrial Relations Council, what's the penalty?

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, first of all to the question

that the member for North Island addressed to me, I can't at this point

come out and say that it's going to be in a particular format. The

bulletin format that was used before may be the most appropriate one.

There may be a better format to disseminate it. I don't think that

we've had a long discussion about what format that should take, but I

would have to say that the whole purpose of this is to provide the

information so that people are better educated and have more

information of what is happening in the labour relations field, to give

them a better opportunity to not only assess their position but to

assess the position that's being presented to them from the other side

— be it the employer or the union. We still have a collective

bargaining report service and we'd be pleased to send the member the

copies of what we do have at the moment. I don't know whether there's a

subscription fee or not.

MR. GABELMANN: Not for us there isn't.

HON. L. HANSON: Well then, we'll send you one for free.

Yes, you can see — and you always could — those that were filed. We

believe that both organized labour and management will voluntarily

comply with the regulations that are in there because, after all, the

production of the information that we're producing should be to their

benefit as well as to everyone else. So we expect that it will be

voluntary, and there aren't any penalties at this point.

Section 37 approved.

section 38.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not going to have a substantive debate on

this

section either, because it will come as well in 62 –– I just want,

for the record, to say that we would much prefer to leave 69 to 73 in

the Code and operate with the existing structure, rather than repeal

these and include them in the new 8.1. I don't know what more I could

say, other than that we were really unhappy with the direction of this

whole thing, and we'll get to that in

section

Section 38 approved.

section 39.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to note, Mr. Chairman, that we are

beginning debate in

section 39 on three clauses that have to do with

technological change. They do interrelate to one another and I'll try

to stay very specifically with each of the clauses. But at the start I

may ask for a little latitude, with the cooperation of the minister,

that may help in the debate, particularly of

Section 39 deals with

section 74 of the Code.

Section 74 was

originally a fairly straightforward statement regarding how to deal

with matters relating to technological change. In the amendments there

are clauses which deal with the notice that will be provided for tech

change — I might note, an improvement, by being fairly specific. That's

something that we note and recognize. It's a 90-day notice that is

required. That specific definition is something that we welcome. Then

there are some further specifics regarding the nature of that notice,

and some caveats in respect to that notice.

When we come to 41, we're looking at the part of the Code that

actually defines technological change. What I'd like to do is perhaps

to ask, with the consent of the Chair, that the minister comment

generally about his understanding of tech change, and give us some

background about these clauses in whatever way he feels appropriate

under this clause. I'll listen carefully, to be able to apply it to

this clause; but if he can and wishes to take some latitude around that

whole issue of technological change, I think it could be helpful to us

as we begin to discuss these three clauses: the definition of

technological change; the way in which the minister sees the particular

aspects of clause 39 being implemented; the intent of that clause.

That, I think, would start our debate on these clauses very well.

[ Page 1647 ]

HON. L. HANSON: I certainly am not trying to be difficult.

Certainly we will get into that discussion of what we see as being

technological change when we reach that section. In this

section here

we're dealing with the notice of change; and when we get further, I'm

sure that you will have some comments about how we see technological

change, or what we see as the definition of it.

In this case we're suggesting that there should be a requirement to

advise of technological change 90 days in advance of the change

happening. We've said that the employer's notice must include the date

that they expect to implement the change, which could be more than 90,

but a minimum of 90, and the approximate number and type of employees

who will be affected. We've also put in there that if the collective

agreement already has a provision dealing with technological change and

has mechanisms there to help the employees with the effects of such

change, they will in fact override this provision. But if there isn't a

provision, this is the minimum requirement. We feel the parties are

free to negotiate a more comprehensive notice provision if they so wish.

[10:45]

While I can agree with the member's concerns.... If we're discussing

all three sections as one, we can do that; I'd be quite pleased to do

that, or stick to this one. But I'd have to have your agreement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair, recognizing the very close

relationship between sections 39, 40 and 41, is quite prepared to

accept that the debate will span the three sections if it's agreeable

to both sides. Perhaps then we will be able to deal with sections 40

and 41 much more quickly when we come to them. If that's agreed, we'll

continue on that basis. Is that agreed, minister?

HON. L. HANSON: Yes.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'd like to go through clause 39 for just a

couple of points, if I may, because I think these are additions and

some clarification.

Under what will become 74(2), where the notice is specified, one of

the qualifications that I presume would trigger that notice is a fairly

specific definition of what might constitute the need for notice. It's

in the statement: "...to effect a technological change that is likely

significant number of his employees to whom the collective agreement

applies...." Then it goes on to talk about notice.

I think that the significant number of employees is in addition to

this clause that was not in the former Labour Code. I'd like to ask the

minister to comment and to explain and to give us his understanding of

what that particular statement in this clause means.

HON. L. HANSON: Again, Mr. Chairman, I guess we're getting

into legal

definitions. We went through this quite thoroughly in

"substantive," and now we're talking about "significant" and so on. If

there is a technological change proposed and there is a question of

whether the number of employees affected is significant, I suppose

that's a jurisprudence that the Industrial Relations Council would

ultimately determine. But I see a very real possibility that if there

is any question of what "significant" is in the minds of the employer

and the employee or the union, it would very likely be simply defined

in the collective agreement. But if the collective agreement did not

provide what they consider to be significant....

You know, "significant" is such a hard word to pin down unless you

know the exact circumstances. If there are five employees in a

bargaining unit and something happens to affect two of them, I guess

that would have to be considered significant. In a larger operation,

three or four could be significant. But I think the requirement is

there to give the notice to deal with those, and the Industrial

Relations Council, in the case of a dispute, will make that decision.

It doesn't seem to me that it will be a very disruptive argument

between the employer and the employee in determination of what is

significant. If you have a gas-powered drill and somebody brings in an

electrical one, I am not sure that's a significant technological change

or affects a significant number of employees.

But again, it is a very difficult thing to lay out in black and

white. I think we went through a discussion about whether 40 percent is

a substantial amount of the business as far as shareholders are

concerned. It is a question of what that 40 percent represents as it

relates to the business. It may, in fact, be the ownership of the

business because the other 60 percent is spread between 500 people or

whatever.

So "significant" is a very difficult thing to pin down in terms of

actual numbers. But I think that it is a very easy one for the IRC to

determine if there is a dispute about what is significant.

MS. A. HAGEN: I note that we are in our discussion beginning

to move into two areas: significant technological change — and I know

my colleague for Surrey-Guildford Whalley is going to take a look at

that issue — and the significant number of employees.

Just staying with that number of employees for a brief moment, would

the minister agree that this particular phrase is a narrowing of the

scope of activity around tech change? In the earlier clause, the clause

that is being amended, it is, I think, implicit in the clause that any

technological change that takes place in a workplace may be subject to

the processes, which included notice. opportunity for retraining and

financial kinds of remunerations for affected employees.

Would the minister agree that by putting this particular definition

on the number of employees we may, in fact, limit the occasions on

which there may be some action through this clause on technological

change?

HON. L. HANSON: No, I couldn't agree with that assumption. I

don't think that there is a narrowing in the new one compared to the

old one. I think that "significant number of employees" makes a very

small

interpretation or a very large

interpretation possible. The other

thing is that the old provision was permissive only if that makes....

But I don't think that that will be the case.

MS. A. HAGEN: Let me just be clear then. The improvement in

this clause is that there is a very definite notice required. We have

acknowledged that. We may, in fact, not agree entirely about whether

the addition of the words "the significant number of employees" may

have a limiting effect.

I would maintain, through the Chair to the minister, that again it

is a matter of

interpretation. I know that discussion has gone on many

times here. By virtue of words, our potential

interpretation is coming

forward. It seems to me

[ Page 1648 ]

that in the earlier clause there was the

opportunity, by there being no definition of the number of employees,

that that could be interpreted to be one employee or a majority of

employees or the number within a particular section. I think that we

may, in fact, have some difference in the significance of this

amendment and in the effect that it may have.

I don't want to comment about it further. Mr. Chairman, unless the

minister wants to make some further comment on that. If he does not, I

know that with the latitude that you and the minister have agreed to

with our agreement, we are going to range a little bit more broadly

over the other sections at this time before we go on with our debate on

section 39.

HON. L. HANSON: Something that we feel is very significant,

and I certainly feel will be an improvement, is that in the old act, it

said: "...which may include provisions for notice...." Now we have said

in the act: "...it shall give notice...." So it is very clear that

there is a requirement.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would like to ask the minister for his

definition of "tech change," not as has been discussed earlier but a

definition of the impact of tech change as they're referred to — the

minister's and the bill's definition of tech change. Perhaps we could

start there.

HON. L. HANSON: That is in

section 41, but we've agreed that we will be discussing all three in the same context.

We believe that tech change — I think it's fairly clearly outlined

in the wording of the act — involves the bringing of some new

equipment, material or whatever into the workplace that displaces

people who are doing a job manually, if you will, or in a different

form. I guess I could use the example where in a particular

manufacturing process there's a very delicate material used, and that

delicate material requires handling in a very delicate manner, and if

there's a new material found that doesn't require that handling, that

may result in a tech change that displaces some people because of the

now unrequired sensitive handling of a particular material. I could go

further. It could include things such as computers — to computerize a

system.

"A change in the employer's business which is not related

to the introduction of a different kind of equipment or material into the business

will not qualify as a technological change." That's a statement I'm reading from another one. What I'm trying

to say is that if there is the introduction of a piece of equipment or a kind

of material that in effect displaces employees who would normally be required

to do a job now to be done by this more sophisticated equipment, that would

be a technological change.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps I could have further clarification

from the minister. Does the minister include software programs in his

definition of technological change?

HON. L. HANSON: I don't think that I can agree that it

includes it totally. If it does introduce change and reduces the number

of people required to do a production job or any kind of work, then

yes, it would be.

[11:00]

MS. SMALLWOOD: So what the minister is saying is that he not

only includes the hardware and the equipment, but at times, where a

software program is introduced that reduces the number of jobs, then

that too would fall under the definition of technological change in

this bill.

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, I believe it would.

MS. SMALLWOOD: On the definition of technological change,

would the minister also include the change of operations for a business

effected by either a software program or a change in technology that

would cause the centralization of the tasks performed by that operation?

Let me give you an example. If there was a company in B.C. that had

regional offices, and because of the introduction of technological

change, there was no longer a need for those regional offices, and the

functioning of that company was then performed in a central location

and jobs in the regions were reduced, would that fall under the

definition of technological change, as the minister sees it?

HON. L. HANSON: No, I don't think that that would be

considered a technological change. But of course every case has to be

decided on its merit. I'm not sure that a centralization process, if

you will, would come under the terms of technological change. The

Industrial Relations Council, again, given all of the facts of a

particular case, will make a decision as to whether it is. But I

wouldn't think a simple centralization of something would fall under

that.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The question was because of the technology....

Again, I want to pursue this a little bit. There are several examples

throughout the province. I'll use an example that I realize is under

federal jurisdiction and won't fall under this bill, but it's a

classic. Although this particular example is under federal legislation,

there are many other examples in the province that this bill will have

to deal with. The function of B.C. Tel operators in regional offices

around this province has been severely altered by the introduction of

technological change — sophisticated computers.... Instead of having an

operator up in the interior answering phones and dealing with the

problems of service in that community, the telephone company, because

of technological change, has been able to centralize all of its

services and facilities in the lower mainland. That has left large

numbers of people throughout B.C. unemployed, or has given them the

option to move down to Vancouver. If the minister would acknowledge

that that example should fall under the definition of centralization of

services due to technological change, that it is governed by this act

and the provision for 90 days, it would help clarify the situation for

the very people he's talking about who will have to make the decisions.

HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, first of all, centralization in

itself would not be technological change. If in fact equipment were

introduced that made a significant impact on the workforce doing a job,

that would in fact be technological change. What I'm trying to say,

using your telephone company example, is that if there were a telephone

operator in Vernon transferred to Kelowna to do the same job, that

would not be technological change. But if they purchase computerized

equipment and so on, and individuals' jobs become redundant because

technological change has been introduced, regardless of where they are

located, then yes, in my opinion, it would be. Each case would be

adjudicated by

[ Page 1649 ]

the IRC if there were a question about that. Did you understand what I was trying to say there?

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

MS. SMALLWOOD: If I can reiterate my understanding, the

minister is saying that if there's a change in the technology, as he's

defined it — and he's defined it as not only the hardware but also the

software — any introduction of technological change causing

centralization would be regarded as technological change, and due

notice would have to be given. I'm not talking simply of centralization

per se; I'm talking about centralization due to a change in the

software or new technologies. Could I just have the minister comment on

whether he agrees that I have an understanding of what he has said?

HON. L. HANSON: Yes.

MS. SMALLWOOD: What I'd like to do now, if we have a basic

understanding of what "technological change" means in this bill, is

talk a little bit about how the restriction as defined by this bill

will impact upon people in this province. While I'm not all that

comfortable or familiar with the workings of labour law, as perhaps

some of our other members are — and hopefully they will pursue those

aspects — I want to point out to the minister that the issue of

technological change in the workplace is possibly the most significant

factor we will be facing in the years to come. What it means to the

people of this province — and we have seen examples of it already — is

that the workplace is being impacted upon to such an extent that

working people at the workplace are extremely vulnerable. I would be

looking for the minister to ensure that, number one, people in the

workplace have some say about the introduction of technological change.

I think that notice in and of itself doesn't go far enough. What we

need to have happen is a process that enables the people who are

working on the shop floor, or in offices, to have an opportunity to

have some say about the introduction of technology. That is of real

benefit, not only to the workplace but also to production in general.

The point has been made over and over again when examining

technological change that what is happening is that technologies are

being introduced with a bottom line of profit, with a bottom line of

increasing productivity and increasing the production of, let's say,

widgets. The opportunity that government has, by dealing with

legislation such as this, is to say that we as a society want to go a

little bit further. We want to acknowledge the expertise and the

information that working people bring to the process, and we want to

improve the situation. We want to bring on line technologies that

enhance the ability and the skills of working people while, of course,

dealing with production and profitability.

Unfortunately, by not taking into consideration the skills and

knowledge that working people bring to this, we end up in a situation

where we're laying off people unnecessarily, where we are causing

significant health and safety problems in the workplace by not taking

into consideration the stress levels or possibly the environment in the

workplace. What I am concerned about by the minister dealing narrowly

in this legislation with the issues of technological change is that we

are supporting that whole trend and not taking into account the

possibility of reducing long-term costs to the province. Would the

minister like to make a comment?

HON. L. HANSON: The member obviously has given me quite a

speech to respond to. I think that in the legislation what we're

doing.... The whole purpose of these sections is to ensure that the

employees do have a process and, through that process, an ability to

have input. The effect of the notice and so on is to ensure that

process.

If the member opposite is questioning the definition of

technological change, as it relates to

section 41, I guess we have a

difference of opinion as to what it is. But all of the social problems

and so on that are dealt with in the workplace, which I think is what

the member was referring to.... There are a number of methods that have

been negotiated for dealing with those sorts of things. In the

technological change definition, we say that it does not include normal

layoffs resulting from a decrease in the amount of work to be done, as

long as the decrease in the amount of work to be done is not as a

result of technological change.

Most of the collective agreements do have situations regarding

notice and retraining and so on in the case of technological change,

and I guess some of them even extend to normal layoffs. The

government's collective agreement states quite simply that both parties

acknowledge the overall advantages and necessity of technological

change, and the ongoing requirement to facilitate technological change

in the employer's operations. But the parties also recognize the need

to develop orderly procedures to facilitate adjustments in the

implementation of changes in technology. That's really what we're

talking about here.

There haven't been a large number of cases before the LRB in the

last number of years regarding technological change, but I think the

member was referring maybe to a different problem than the one in these

three sections that we're introducing.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to pick up again around the definition

of technological change. My understanding is that the minister has

agreed that changes in the operation of the workplace that result from

technological change are still to be encompassed by the change

definition. The definition that we have had in British Columbia is

perhaps one of the broadest in the jurisdiction of labour law, as I

understand it, and the clause that has been changed refers, in fact, to

the operation of business.

I think it's worth reading into the record what is going to be

replaced by this new clause. Technological change under the Labour Code

presently extant means (

a) the introduction by an employer of a change

in his work, undertaking or business, or a change in his equipment or

material from the equipment or material previously used by the employer

in his work, undertaking or business; or (

b) a change in the manner an

employer carries on his work, undertaking or business related to the

introduction of that equipment or material.

Some other members may see a major difference in the (

b) of the

former Code and the rewording of the (

b) in the proposed amendment. It

seems to me that those may be simply some changes in the way in which

the words are ordered up. In the two (

a) clauses, the (

a) clause of the

Labour Code now and the proposed change, there is a significant

difference. It seems to me that that first statement — an introduction

by an employer of a change in his work, undertaking or business — is a

broad recognition of the nature of

[ Page 1650 ]

technological change that my colleague has been

talking about. In spite of the minister's assurances that changes in a

work, undertaking or business that are directly attributable to

technological change will be covered, I'm not confident that that

rewording in the amendment allows for as broad and effective an

interpretation.

My question is really, I think, a very simple one at this point: why

has the change in (

a) from the existing Labour Code to the new IRA been

made? Given the discussion that the minister has just had with the

member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) and given his

interpretation, what is the reason for the change in the wording, which

appears to narrow very significantly the definition of technological

change?

[11:15]

HON. L. HANSON: I think that the member's observation has

some merit. I don't think there's any question that there was an

interpretation using that wording that was slightly too broad. We

believe changes that are being contemplated by the employer should be

dealt with by the parties and should not be interfered with by the

legislation unless it relates to the introduction of new equipment or

material, and therefore a tech change.

I might just point out that the provincial government in their

negotiations with the BCGEU have clarified that in the contract, and

that is in fact where the wording sits now that does protect the

employees. But technological change is recognized as being different

equipment or materials that are introduced that have an effect on the

workplace.

MS. A. HAGEN: I think we are beginning to get into the nub of

this discussion, and that is that we are really looking at the changes

that are occurring in our workplace. The nature of technological change

is in fact a very broad kind of change. We simply have to look at the

extreme differences that occur in the number of people employed in

various industries and operations in our province and our country to

know this.

In manufacturing, in the service industries, in government, would

the minister not agree that we can have tech change without necessarily

having the introduction of a piece of equipment or hardware or some

material, and that tech change has a broader concept than something

that physically is identifiable, goes into a workplace and has an

employee working with that piece of equipment or material?

HON. L. HANSON: Certainly it may have, but I don't think that

it has for the purposes of this bill or these sections. Organizational

changes within a business are fairly common, no matter what they may

be. They may reflect management; they may reflect the workers. Usually

when that does happen, there is a clause in the contract that attempts

to deal with it. But I am not sure that under these sections I could

agree that that should be considered a technological change.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Quite frankly, the minister's first statement

about his definition really confuses me, because it seems to be

contrary to what this recommendation says. The minister says that this

is a process of tightening up and that the previous definition was too

broad, but at the same time he acknowledges that changes in the

workplace due to system changes — new software being brought on — are

technological change. Perhaps the minister can elaborate a little bit

more on his comment about this being a tightening up and the previous

definition being too broad. In what way was it too broad?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, regarding my remarks about the

computer software, you have to consider the case. I think it is quite

conceivable that the introduction of new software could be considered a

technological change, but you have to know the effects of the

introduction of new software to see that it is a change of work methods

and in fact introduces a different kind of equipment or material or

concept about the work done. But a flat statement that software would

be considered a technological change.... You'd have to consider the

facts of the various cases as they are presented to the IRC.

We have no question, as I admitted earlier.... There is a slight

narrowing of the definition, if you will, but we feel that the

definition that we have put forward is the definition that should truly

mean what technological change is. While I'm not going to get into

difficulties with the correct wording, we want to make it very clear to

the new IRC what we as government see as the definition of

technological change. We think we've spelled it out very clearly in

this bill.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The minister still hasn't answered my question

about the changes. He made the comment that it tightens it up. I'd like

to understand how it tightens it up.

In addition, the minister has just made comment about the

introduction of software and refers to it as "if it changes the method

of work." Quite clearly, whether it is an introduction of hardware or

software or a system change, if it changes the method of work, I would

say it is technological change, in this juncture of industrial

development. Would the minister like to elaborate on his comment

regarding change in the method of work, and whether that falls under

the definition of technological change?

I again ask the minister to please let this House know what he meant

by saying that this definition tightens up the old definition and that

he feels the old definition was too broad. In what regard was it too

broad?

HON. L. HANSON: Under the current definition, we felt that if

an employer introduces any change whatsoever in his business, it could

qualify as a technological change. We don't believe that that should be

the case. We believe that there should be a very definite clear

meaning, that there should be an introduction of new equipment, new

material, and so on — which we've spelled out in the bill; we've made

it very clear — to have the definition of technological change. I guess

we have a disagreement on that principle.

MR. SIHOTA: I find this debate, in the context of the other

debates that we've had, to be somewhat interesting, Madam Chairman. The

minister has said over and over again during the course of debate that

he wants to place a lot of faith in the Industrial Relations Council;

that he wants that council to have the freedom and the flexibility to

make all sorts of decisions. There is nothing in society that is moving

as quickly as technological change, and we've all witnessed that in our

areas of business and activity. I think we all understand that

technological change poses a considerable threat to the employment

security enjoyed by working people.

Not only does it not make sense to restrict the definition and hence

restrict the scope of inquiry for the Industrial Relations Council, but

is the minister saying now that he

[ Page 1651 ]

doesn't have faith in the IRC to deal with these

types of matters, and that's why he's restricting the definition? Or

does he have faith, and if he does, why is he not allowing them to make

a full and proper inquiry into whether or not technological change has

occurred?

Once again we're getting back to the phantom cases. If there is

going to be a change in the manner of the operations of the company,

the minister says that that shouldn't qualify for technological change.

Is the IRC not capable of making distinctions between frivolous cases

and legitimate cases? Is it not capable of making distinctions between

situations where it should be involved and should make a declaration

with respect to technological change, and others? Do you or do you not

have faith in the IRC? If you do, and if you contemplate having that

faith, then why narrow the definition? That's a question to the

minister.

HON. L. HANSON: Of course we have the greatest of confidence

in the IRC. The definition, as it was printed before, gives a very,

very broad

interpretation of what "tech nological change" means:

"...the introduction of an employer of a change in his work,

undertaking or busi ness...." We simply feel that that's far too broad

an

interpretation of technological change. If an employer has a change

in his work or in his undertaking or in his business, we don't feel

that that's a technological change. I guess we have a basic

disagreement on that.

We certainly do have faith in the IRC, and we have faith that the

IRC will make good and proper decisions as it relates to this act. But

narrowing the

definitions and faith in the IRC seem to me to be two

quite different issues.

MS. MARZARI: Well, Madam Chairman, if ever there was a

legitimate area for reasonable dialogue between labour and management,

it would seem to be in this particular area of technological change, as

it affects both clerical workers and as it affects our workers in

primary resource industries.

As far as I can see, sections 39 to 41 basically dictate that any

change that does not involve new equipment, which might have been

caught under the old

section 78 of the Labour Code, won't be addressed

by this new definition.

As it has been explained to me, our clerical workers in the public

sector, very often women, have not been able thus far to use

section

78, which might have made a difference to them as they work for BCGEU,

as they work in these buildings. The BCGEU has, in effect, been denied

the use of

section 78, which has been interpreted as having a broader

definition than the BCGEU under the Public Service Labour Relations Act.

[11:30]

Consequently the BCGEU right now has a definition for technological

change that is very restrictive for them and is now being spread to the

private sector as well. In doing that, we have people in the private

sector in lumber and timber who are now being faced with the prospect

that contracting out can occur above their heads, and they will no

longer be able to use

section 78 to deal with that.

In other words, this reinterpretation of the old

section 78

basically tells the workers in a pulp mill that might want to contract

out its chipping operation, because it got a better deal somewhere else

with another company with a new machine, that they will no longer be

able to use

section 78 and say: "This is illegitimate. Technological

change is dictating to us that we are being laid off, that contracting

out is what is going on here."

So it is not so much a redefinition or a tightening or a narrowing;

it is basically an additional legitimatization to the contracting-out

process that is happening in these particular sections. So I don't

understand why the minister would talk about the advanta2es to the

BCGEU and the fact that it has had a liberal

interpretation of

technological change. In fact, it has had a very tight

interpretation,

and that tight

interpretation is being spread out to the private sector

to justify increased contracting out. Now that seems to be the major

issue on these sections, or it is one of the two major issues on these

sections.

So whether it's tight, loose or whatever, it strikes me that my

colleagues are asking the right questions and they are on the right

track, basically, by asking how you can talk about tightening the

definition when in fact what you're really doing is justifying a

contracting-out process and removing from labour the opportunity to

use, as they did under the old Labour Code, the argument that this

contracting out is happening. It's happening, and it's going to be

happening on a regular basis. Technological change will not be an

argument that will be legitimate in the eyes of the new commission, as

it once was.

HON. L. HANSON: It's really interesting to hear the comments

of the last member. I've said many times I've had a number of meetings

with various labour organizations, and I've had a number of meetings

with individuals and management people, and when dealing with this

section, it was never raised to me that there was any concern that this

section would allow contracting out. As a matter of fact, I think I had

some information that there had been three cases before the Labour

Relations Board in some 14 years under this particular section, and

that it isn't a

section that is constantly in question.

It's sort of interesting to also note that the most contentious

issue of the recent FIR-forest industry strike that everyone is well

aware of was a protection of the work done by the bargaining unit, and

in effect a no-contracting-out clause was what was required. So while

we've narrowed it to define the introduction of new equipment.... They

are two totally different issues. I don't think this

section has

anything to do with contracting out, nor was it intended to.

MR. MILLER: Has the minister checked the unemployment

statistics recently? I don't understand the rationale or logic as to

why he'd want to narrow a definition of tech change, because the old

Code afforded protection to some employees. What you're saying, in

effect, is that you disagreed with that.

We're talking substantially here about the Eurocan decision, about

technological change being defined as a change in the nature of the

work to some extent, where there had traditionally been wood rooms

attached to pulp mills and where employers were shutting down their

wood rooms or trucking chips in, and where people who had worked in

Prince Rupert....

I'll deal with Prince Rupert. I worked in the wood room in Prince

Rupert, and I saw the changes over the years and the number of people

who were displaced. In some cases, people who had worked for 30 years

in wood room operations were told: "That's it. We might give you a job

driving a pickup truck. Sorry, we're now going to bring our chips in."

Now

[ Page 1652 ]

they were successful under the old wording of

getting a definition of tech change. Why would you want to remove that

kind of protection?

Let's took at the impact that tech change has had in this province

and will continue to have, and look at the role of the B.C. government

with respect to people who are displaced. You people do nothing. Here

you are offering the workers of British Columbia, at least some, in

terms of tightening this definition.... You're saying: "Well, now, we

don't think you should have that protection."

What other programs do you offer? Do you do what the federal

government does, for example, when there's a fairly massive

displacement of workers, with manpower committees? What else do you do?

Look at the unemployment statistics, for God's sake. Why the heck

wouldn't you be trying to come up with some kind of program or policy

in terms of dealing with the whole question of automation and

technological change and displaced workers, and to put that in place in

British Columbia? I mean, you blithely stand there and say no. Quite

frankly, you're saying: "We disagree with the Eurocan decision; we're

changing the wording of the Code to reflect that feeling." Which

employer came to you and said they wanted that change? I mean, it's

shocking, when you think about the problems we have, and that one

particularly, because it raises all kinds of questions.

I don't profess to have all the answers to those questions, but I

know it's happening. For example, the fishing industry, which used to

be highly labour-intensive on this coast and still provides thousands

of jobs during the fishing season.... Just ask the people in Prince

Rupert about what the major contributor to the economy is in Prince

Rupert. The fishing unions have been waging a very, very difficult

battle with their employers in terms of the implications and the impact

of technological change, trying, for example.... And they've come up

with some fairly unique agreements. They're probably more creative in

some respects than some other unions in dealing with that question of

allowing the stuff to come in, but recognizing that there's a major

gain by the employer.

Yet the employer, as a private employer, says: "It's not our

responsibility to deal with social issues; it's our responsibility to

run an efficient plant to maximize profits." I don't disagree with that

responsibility, but in the absence of the employer being forced to deal

with it on some basis, surely the people can expect that the government

would have some interest, more than simply coming in and saying: "We're

narrowing the definition."

You know, we're dealing with this whole issue on a far too

simplistic basis. In fact, there's a good argument that it should be

taken out of the Code and dealt with much more broadly by government,

in terms of policy and unemployment and perhaps saying to companies

that realize the benefit of technological change — in some cases

particularly massive benefit, in terms of displacing working people and

replacing them with machines.... I don't think anybody wants to be a

Luddite, you know, and to say that this stuff isn't coming. Unions

recognize it's coming; we all have to recognize it's coming. But we all

have to, surely, do something other than stand up and say: "We want to

narrow the definition; we want to take away that little protection that

some people had." How many people worked in the wood room at Eurocan?

It wasn't that many. Why shouldn't they get that protection?

Would the minister tell me why he doesn't think that, if the Eurocan

case were to proceed under the wording that he is proposing, those

people would be out in the cold? Could you stand up and explain, and

I'll take the message back to those workers? Stand up, and let's read

in Hansard why you wouldn't want that protection to be afforded to those workers.

The minister remains silent.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to pursue this point, Madam Chairman,

because I think the example that the member for Prince Rupert has given

is a good one. It's also an indication of the returns to the corporate

sector in terms of the technological change.

You seem to take the view, unlike most reasonable western world

governments, that all of the returns should go to capital in terms of

the benefits of technological change. Most administrations in the

western world don't accept that, and certainly the European

administrations don't accept it at all. So it's reasonable that there

should be a sharing of the benefits of technological change. That

should carry with it some burden in terms of the re-employment, the

retraining and the accommodation of the displaced worker, and in that

sense the broader definition is reasonable, and maybe one even broader

still.

With respect to the example that the member for Prince Rupert refers

to, the difference is something like this. The cost of bringing in

chips to replace the wood room, instead of using the roundwood and

chipping right at the mill, is half as much. The cost of supply is cut

in half. That is a tremendous margin of benefit for the pulp mill. To

then accommodate the handful of workers who are displaced by that

process is just a fraction of the monetary benefit that the corporation

receives. It's quite reasonable that there should be some obligation in

terms of those people who have spent many years working in that

miserable wood room, in terms of maintaining their employment and

seniority and security within that corporation, It should simply be a

cost of doing business in a civilized society. They shouldn't be just

tossed out onto the trash heap.

That's the concern that's being expressed. It's a reasonable

concern, and it is a modest cost in terms of the great gains that most

technological change brings to the owners of capital or the owners of

equity. So, you know, maybe the minister can respond to that. In the

example the member gives we're talking about hundreds of thousands and

even millions of dollars of benefit in terms of just that kind of

change alone, and accommodating those displaced workers is a modest

cost relative to that.

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I'm not familiar with the Eurocan deal, by the way.

MR. WILLIAMS: Any pulp mill in the province.

HON. L. HANSON: Again, the situation that the member over

there described is that people have been put out of work, displaced,

after years of service, for whatever the reason. We believe that there

are a number of things that happen in the negotiation of collective

agreements that in some cases cover that sort of situation very well.

There are a number of programs both federally and provincially that

cover those sorts of situations — maybe not always as well as everyone

would like to see, but there are programs in place. What we are dealing

with here, as far as we are concerned, is

[ Page 1653 ]

that technological change should be described as the introduction of material

or equipment that changes the method of doing the work in the workplace. We

think that that's the correct definition. Obviously the members on the other

side would like to see it much broader to catch all sorts of things which in

fact are not necessarily technological change.

[1:45]

MR. MILLER: Mr. Minister, you say you're not familiar with

the Eurocan decision. That surprises me somewhat, because it's one

that, not just to us but to a number of people involved in this area,

immediately comes to mind when you talk about narrowing

definitions. In

the particular case that's been cited, the method or manner of

producing fibre for the pulp mill was changed. There are some outside

implications, and I think the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey

(Ms. Marzari) was right when she talked about contracting out being a

part of that. Quite frankly, it is, because look at what's happening in

the trucking industry now and the changes in transportation methods,

where, for example, logs used to come in by rail to a pulp mill. We see

that we're now bringing chips in by truck and the cost of

transportation is down considerably.

I'll go back and say I don't blame a company for seeking

efficiencies. Certainly if any one of us is running a company, that's

obviously got to be a prime responsibility. You have to remain

competitive. You have to look at what new equipment and machinery may

be available. You want to introduce that. There's nothing intrinsically

wrong with that. But there is something wrong — again in the Eurocan

case — where a very small number of people managed, because of the

wording of the legislation, to gain the protection offered under the

technological change clause in the pulp industry's joint labour

agreement. In fact, I think they were the first. I am not sure of the

date of that — 1983? — but there were changes that took place prior to

that where people didn't get that protection.

What I'm trying to really get at And all you say is: "We disagree."

But I am curious to know — and maybe I am re-posing my original

question — why you would not want, as an elected public official in

this province, something that did not cost a great deal of money. Why

would you not want those employees displaced under that type of

situation to be afforded the really minimal protection contained in

tech change clauses? I am speaking now of the pulp industry. Why? Is it

a great cost to society? Is it a great cost to government? Is it a

great cost to the employer? What are the compelling reasons why you

want to narrow that definition? It's got to be more than that we just

have a disagreement. There must be some logic or thought behind that

reason.

We think that those employees should have at least that minimal kind

of protection — we actually think they should have more — in those

unique situations. Could you explain why they should not have that

protection? They don't have any other. You try to negotiate; if you

don't have.... Quite frankly, unions don't have the right to negotiate

in midstream. I have been in lots of situations where a new piece of

equipment has been brought in, and we tried to get issues like rates

settled before the equipment was put into operation, and we couldn't,

because there is a clause also that says that management has that

right. Management has the right to order you.... If they buy a new

piece of equipment, or if they change something, you have to run it.

You try to negotiate in mid-contract, if you understand that really

the only hammer you've got in negotiations ultimately is to withdraw

your labour. It's not that you have to do it, but that you have to have

the ability to exercise it. The employer has to know that you have the

ability to exercise it. It brings some honesty to the table. If you

don't have that, how can you negotiate? How can you honestly negotiate?

Two parties coming to the table should have some equal weight, I

suppose. Why would you not want those people to have the protection of

the tech change clause?

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I don't have all of the facts

of the case the member referred to. I would suggest that it's quite

possible that they could be covered under the new.... I don't know; I

don't have the facts. When there's any change in the workplace, whether

it be from a lack of work or of a different organizational method of

doing the work. there certainly should be protection, and that should

be negotiated into the contract between the two. We feel very strongly

that the definition we have here is the correct one, and it shouldn't

be broadened by using the term out of its meaning of tech change.

I'm not sure the case situation that the member mentioned.... It could very well be covered by the IRC.

MR. CRANDALL: Madam Chairman, while we're talking about technological

change, I would like to point out that, I don't have any problems agreeing

with the opposition about the concern for employment. I certainly share that

concern. However. I want to point out that it has only been because of technological

change in the last number of years that we've had the standard of living

and the high level of wages that we have. I remember, in the sawmills in my

riding in the fifties they were paying $1.50 an hour: now they're paying

$17 and $18 an hour, and technological change is a major reason that they can

do that.

Interjection.

MR. CRANDALL: You can say "trade unions" if you want, and

certainly that's been a factor, but technological change has sure been

a factor. If they didn't have the J-bars and things like that in those

mills now, they wouldn't be able to operate.

While we can say that there's a minimal cost here, that reminds me

of the resource issues that this province faces. Again, looking at my

riding, we have wilderness concerns, and every time we look at

something like this we say it's only going to take 1 percent of the

annual allowable cut. That's fine, as long as that's the only issue,

but we've got 1 percent here, 1 percent there and 1 percent in several

other places. Pretty soon we don't have 1 percent; we've got a great

many percents.

What I'm concerned about here is that it seems we always look at the

minimal costs. We could end up having the British disease, and I might

point out that that British disease was in place during the Labour

government in Britain.

I think it's important that we recognize that we have to take

advantage of technological change. Our challenge shouldn't be to

prevent technological change. Our challenge should be to keep our

industry efficient and attractive to other industries moving into this

province. When we have to take some employees out of an industry, we

should be able to put

[ Page 1654 ]

them into another industry and keep British Columbia competitive in a competitive world.

Interjections.

MR. CRANDALL: In a world that is becoming overly protective,

technological change is very important. I just want to say that I

support this particular portion of this bill. Thank you very much. I

appreciate the help from the opposition, which I always seem to attract

— I don't know why.

MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, that member certainly always adds

a new dimension to the debate, and possibly raises some issues that

even we haven't thought of.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: Their validity is unquestioned, but I'm curious,

I must confess. My curiosity was aroused, Madam Chairman, because we're

dealing with a clause that would restrict the definition of

technological change. Obviously at issue here are those people who

would be afforded some measure of protection under the existing

legislation. They will be excluded if we adopt the proposal of the

minister, so we're talking about I don't know how many people. Maybe if

the member had ten people in his constituency who would be given, under

the existing wording....

We're not talking about resisting technological change; we're not

saying it's bad. We agree. I stood up here just a few minutes ago and

said that we have to take advantage of it, that employers would be

foolish not to take advantage of it. We have to be progressive; we have

to be efficient.

MR. HEWITT: That's why they get the hourly rate that they did, because of the efficiency of the mill.

MR. MILLER: But the fundamental question is: why should those hypothetical

ten people in the member for Columbia River's (Mr. Crandall'

s) riding

not be allowed to collect a few thousand dollars that they would get under the

tech change provisions of their collective agreement? Why shouldn't they

be allowed? The member is saying that if there are people in his constituency

who are now covered, who will now be allowed to collect that minimal amount

of money to sort of put their lives together.... Where do I go next? I don't

have a job. What kind of training can I get? How can I pay my rent? How can

I feed my kids?

The member is saying he doesn't want them to have it, and I don't understand why. Perhaps the member would explain.

MR. CRANDALL: Maybe I will explain, and let me tell you that

we've had an awful lot of people replaced because of technological

change in my riding. In most cases, they're replaced elsewhere in the

company or whatever. I've never heard of any kind of this situation

that you're talking about where we would fork over thousands of dollars

to displaced employees. It's never happened in my riding. I don't think

that it's probably happened in very many, and I'll tell you something

more. The workers in my riding have never suggested it. The last time

we had major technological changes in my riding, they've been absorbed

elsewhere in the business. I don't think you know any more about my

riding than I do. You might think you do, but I don't think you do.

Maybe what you should do is come there sometime and take a look

around. What I'm telling you, and I'll tell you again, is that I don't

think this particular technological change clause is a big deal. I

don't think the people out there working for a living are really

complaining about it. The people complaining about it are on the other

side of the House, and they're always negative about it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This was so much fun, too, but I am sure we can get to it later. I move that the committee rise and report progress.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

19 The Hon. L. Hanson to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 19) intituled Industrial Relations Reform Act, 1987 to amend as follows:

SECTION 34 (a), by deleting "given after" and substituting "given under".

SECTION 35, by deleting

section 35.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1987, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada