Human Resources Committee on Dec. 5th, 2006

[Ken Georgetti]

First of all, the best answer I can give you is that the unionization rate of the telecoms is fairly high. The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union is scheduled to testify, and they do have a very high density in that area, but don't make the mistake of associating wage settlements with strikes; most of the longest strikes are not about wages, interestingly enough. There's a whole other package.

I agree with Don's argument that if you start trying to analyze the numbers, it will take you to confusion, not conclusion. It's not the issue. The fact is that to the detriment of the banks' argument, there are lots of telecoms around; if one's on strike, use another one. It's pretty simple. There are all sorts of other options and contingencies you can put in place.

It's not as if the sky is going to fall. To this date we have had telecom disputes; some have been scabbed, some haven't, and the banking system has operated in Canada. This isn't the first time we've experienced telecommunications labour disruptions in Canada, and nothing's fallen apart. In terms of all these predictions, when they are overlaid with actual facts and reality, we've had disputes in every sector in the federal sector, we've had essential service designations, and the sky hasn't fallen. Lots of disputes have not been scabbed, and we continue to operate. The GDP in Quebec and B.C. continues to grow. Banks continue to open new branches in those jurisdictions.

The question I think you have to ask, with respect, is what the labour relations are like when they do scab and what they are like when they don't. You'll find out that when a dispute is not scabbed, labour relations are better afterwards than before, and on the other side they are not. That's the issue here.

If you get into a statistical morass of looking at days lost, some of them could be federal disputes, some could be--there are all sorts of factors in there. As for the motivation for the labour dispute, Ekati wasn't about wages; Ekati was about recognition of the union in the first collective agreement. Some of the key issues on these disputes are not wage-related; in my view, wage settlements wouldn't help or have any bearing on your deliberations.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

That was a specific thing. A mine was trying to get its workforce unionized and get that union recognized, etc., but let's take a federally regulated industry that had a strike, did have a union, and the union was recognized. You're saying it wasn't about money. It seems to me most things are about money in the end.

[Ken Georgetti]

The last telecom dispute involved Telus. It was over merging two bargaining units into one and the provisions of the new agreement. It had very little to do with remuneration and everything to do with how you could merge two collective agreements into one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Brown. That's all the time we have.

We're going to move to Mr. Lessard for five minutes.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first two questions are for Mr. Alborino.

What percentage of banking sector employees are unionized?

[Santo Alborino]

Less than 1%, although I might add that some banks have been unionized for over 25 years.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

How do you explain this low unionization rate?

[Santo Alborino]

There's a simple explanation for this. Banks are able to offer employees attractive working conditions and fringe benefits, as well as flexible programs to help workers balance work and family life. Therefore, employees choose not to be represented by a union. Some have joined a union for two, three, four or five years, and then opted out. The right to join a union is a fundamental right of every employee.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I realize that. You made the effort to testify before the committee because you felt this bill posed a threat to banks. Yet, only 1% of banking sector employees are unionized.

How does this bill pose a threat to them, given the low unionization rate in the banking sector? After all, only unionized employees go on strike. I'd appreciate a succinct, objective answer to my question.

You stated that this bill posed a threat to banks, but you also said that should a dispute arise, a minimum level of service needed to be maintained. Are you saying then that should a dispute arise, you don't expect, or don't necessarily want to have all of the workers on the job?

[Santo Alborino]

Yes.

[Yves Lessard]

What do you mean by “minimum level of service”?

[Santo Alborino]

Let me start by answering your first question.

I didn't say that this bill posed a threat to banks. I said that it posed a threat to banking services. That's very important, because this affects all Canadians.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Yes, I understood that. Can you answer my second question?

[Santo Alborino]

Regarding the level of service—

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Yes, I want to know what you mean by minimum level of service.

[Santo Alborino]

I'd like to go back to what Mr. Georgetti said about communications in response to a question fromMs. Brown. Ms. Brown had asked Mr. Georgetti how communications could be assured between the telecommunications and banking sectors. His response to her was that there were no problems at the present time in the telecommunications sector and that everything was going well.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

What do you consider to be a minimum level of service? You understood Mr. Georgetti's message, but you said that banks should have the ability to maintain a minimal level of service in the event of a labour dispute.

The committee will be making recommendations to the House of Commons. We need to know that we've understood your message clearly. What do you mean by minimum level of service?

[Santo Alborino]

The existing legislation guarantees that a minimum level of service is provided. That's what we mean by achieving a balance.

[Yves Lessard]

So then, you're going by the existing legislation?

[Santo Alborino]

Mr. Georgetti stated that the current balanced approach works well.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

I see. And that's all you meant. I thought you meant something else.

Earlier, we asked Labour MinisterBlackburn if he had asked the province of Quebec, which has had anti-replacement worker legislation on the books for 30 years, whether it had any plans to revisit the legislation. He didn't answer the question. In fact, he sidestepped the question twice.

You have a large number of affiliates in Quebec, including the 500,000 strong QFL.That's nothing to sneeze at. To your knowledge, has the Quebec government, after experimenting with anti-replacement worker legislation for 30 years, made any attempts to revisit this legislation?

[Hassan Yussuff]

Since the Quebec legislation was put in place over almost three decades ago now, and subsequent to that, the British Columbia law over a decade and a half ago, and despite the fact that we've had changes with governments of different political stripes that have come forward, not one single amendment has been tabled by the new regime regarding the anti-replacement worker provision in the code. If all the arguments about the sky falling, about investment, about the devastation, or about the monopoly that it gives labour in regard to collective bargaining were true, I don't think you would see any government hesitating to allow that monopoly to be maintained, given the consequence to the economy.

The reality is that if you ask those provincial governments if this legislation has served its purpose, both in Quebec and in B.C. they will tell you, yes, of course it has achieved its purposes. It brought balance and fairness to the parties in collective bargaining. More importantly, it provided a constructive framework for the parties to reach a settlement in the event of a dispute, whether it's a lockout or a strike.

That really is essential to why there haven't been any changes. There haven't been any changes because the legislation has been seen to be effective and serving the purpose that was intended when it was enacted thirty years ago in Quebec and over fifteen years ago in British Columbia.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

We're now going to move to the next questioner. Ms. Davies, for five minutes, please.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Just briefly, I have a couple of follow-up questions.

I think it's fair to say most workers don't want to go on strike. They much prefer to have something negotiated and settled, as employers do as well. To go on strike is a last resort when everything else has failed.

I was very interested in your comment, Mr. Georgetti, because I don't think this has really come out. When workers go back to work after a strike, what is the environment like? You're saying that where there is anti-strike-breaking legislation, the environment is very different.

I don't know if the federal department looks at this in any way. We've had a number of reports and surveys quoted here today, but I'm not aware of anything federally. I just wonder if, through the labour movement, you've actually done a survey of any members returning to work, to actually look at the difference in environment where there has been legislation in effect or where there hasn't. That's one question.

The second question arises because you are from B.C. It is curious that we still have this legislation in B.C. We have a provincial government there that I think is quite close politically to the Conservative government here in Ottawa on many questions, yet I'm not aware that they've made any move to take out that legislation. They certainly have done other things that have been quite aggressive in terms of workers' rights, but on that question there has been no movement to rescind that legislation in B.C. I just wonder if you have any observations on that in terms of it still being there while you have a government that one would think is ideologically opposed to it.

[Ken Georgetti]

No, there has been no move. They have made amendments to the Labour Relations Code, and they're a very ideological government there that doesn't have a lot of regard for organized labour. They took away automatic certification and other things that were put in, but they didn't touch the replacement worker legislation, knowing full well, I think, that it is having its intended effect and that the consequences of that legislation are actually positive on both parties.

The fact that there's no move or outcry from the business community in British Columbia is another very telling story. We take that as a validation that the legislation sought to achieve the narrow piece of balance that it put in place. As a result of that, the government's not touching it. We're proud of that.

We thought the consultation process that it went through got the obligatory objections from business, but they weren't really strong objections. They knew it was coming, they knew the effect of it in Quebec—because we talked about it a lot—and they knew they could work with it, frankly. As has been proven, they have worked with it and it has worked very well.