Human Resources Committee on Feb. 11th, 2014

[Anthony Giles]

I think you're better off asking the chair of the board itself, who will be here on Thursday. Any complaints about the certification process don't actually come to the department, they go directly to the board. They would have the statistics and information on that.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Okay.

Getting back to my first round, Mr. Banks had cited a couple of studies at length. He made reference to the Riddell study. Mr. Smith had made reference to the Sims work, the task force.

Mr. Smith, could you share with us the extent of the consultation? How about starting with this, because you're an adjunct professor? I was really disappointed with the lack of research that was done on this particular bill. You're a professor and you're always asked to grade your students.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Would you like to share that with the committee how you thought the proponent did?

[George Smith]

There were certain references lacking, that's for sure, and the marks would have been deducted accordingly.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Being a solid C-minus student, I can relate to that.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[George Smith]

To be serious, though, the process that Sims undertook was not about preventing change, it was about saying, let's put all the cards on the table, let's research it, let's examine it. There were academics, practitioners, panels across the country. There were management and union co-chairs who effectively worked part time. They were released from their jobs, one of Hassan's colleagues and one of John Farrell's colleagues. There were two side persons representing the various interests. It was a comprehensive study.

I think the best way to sum it up is just to talk about what Sims balanced, and I'm quoting right from his introduction:

...seek balance: between labour and management; between social and economic values; between the various instruments of labour policy; between rights and responsibilities; between individual and democratic group rights; and between the public interest and free collective bargaining.

That's the balance. With all due respect to the ability of private members to introduce bills, what I'm here to talk about today is that, based on 40 years of experience, this works. We've had it work with all forms of government. There's an expression used in labour relations, sometimes, the long way round is the short way home. I would suggest taking the time to examine the research and consult people. We'd end up with a workable piece of legislation if the government truly wants to make changes.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Chair, if I could ask FETCO's Mr. Farrell, because FETCO was the one group Mr. Calkins said that he contacted and was in consultation with....

Mr. Calkins said there was no objection put forward by FETCO with regard to the bill. Was that a fair reflection of the conversation you would have had with Mr. Calkins?

[John Farrell]

I spoke with Mr. Calkins prior to the bill being tabled because I felt this was a road being considered. I pointed out to him that it was important to companies in the federal jurisdiction that we have proper pre-legislative consultation. I had no discussions with Mr. Calkins about the substance of his bill and I've made my comments with respect to how I view appropriate amendments to the substance of his bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you very much. Time is up.

On to Monsieur Boulerice for five minutes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This committee has only been discussing Bill C-525 for an hour, and I think we can already conclude that it could be described as amateurish, and was written on the back of a napkin. As we have heard, no one was consulted. Even the experts were not asked for their opinion.

I would like to point out that the author of the bill himself took off when we had only one hour to hear from people who know about labour relations. He did not want to hear what they had to say. That in itself is quite extraordinary.

It is our opinion that there should have been a serious process, that both the employer side and the union side should have been consulted. We should also have the time, in committee, to hear from people who know about labour relations.

This is why Ms. Sims asked last week for five hours to hear from witnesses. As things stand, we will not be able to hear from the people we should be hearing from, including Unifor, the largest private sector union, the USW, Quebec unions, such as the FTQ and the CSN, as well as labour relations experts from Quebec. None of those people will be able to express their point of view.

I would nonetheless like to ask Mrs. Picard her opinion on one point.

Bill C-525 introduces rules for decertifying a union, which is used to get rid of it or destroy it. According to the rules as they are currently drafted, the union would be thrown out even if 54% of workers voted to keep the union and no one voted in favor of its elimination.

I do not know if these are democratic rules coming from North Korea or some other country called “Absurdistan“, but I would like to know what repercussions this may have on the members that you represent.

[Magali Picard]

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There would be major repercussions. An MP stated earlier that it was difficult to justify or comment on such a bill, which in my opinion, makes no sense. That is a perfect example.

Imagine a member asking for decertification. The board would proceed to a vote, obviously. The employer would know quite well that all it has to do to get rid of its union would be to give its workers a day off, and offer them a day of retreat or massages at a spa. Since they would not be at work on the day of the vote, they would automatically be deemed to have voted against their union's certification. It makes no sense whatsoever. In our opinion, this is utterly absurd. This cannot be compared to any other principle, no matter what the context, whether we are talking about government elections or any other area.

It is difficult for me to provide you with many other examples; this one was perfect. Let us take the case of a unit with 100 workers. Let us say that 54 of them show up to vote and vote against decertification, which is to say they wish to remain unionized. The 46 others do not show up to vote, because they are on holiday, sick, on leave or absent from work. Some of them may decide not to vote, because they are new in the workplace, they do not yet understand the importance of a good balance in labour relations and they are being influenced here and there. In such a case, these people will be deemed to have rejected the union, which is to say that they no longer wish to be unionized.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Picard.

My next question is for Mr. Yussuff, of the Canadian Labour Congress.

We have talked a lot about the secret vote. We know the rules: it's 50% plus one of the votes cast, contrary to the rules which have been presented.

I would like you to tell us about the advantages of the current system, which is working well. People who want to join a union simply sign a card, which is a bit like voting, expressing an opinion, and becoming involved. In what ways is this system working well?

[Hassan Yussuff]

The current system allows a worker who chooses to sign a union card to basically say they're interested in becoming a member of the union, and for the union to be certified. It's a legitimate process. The only reason we have a voting system is that governments and employers don't trust the worker and the decision they have made in regard to signing a card.

One of the things that have not been talked about very much on the committee is that the workplace is not a neutral setting for a worker to participate in the vote because that establishment is governed by the employer rules, and essentially they have complete rein over the atmosphere in which the workers are participating in any decision.

I know the board is trying to provide and ensure there's neutrality, but the neutrality does not exist when the setting itself is not conducive for the workers to express whether they have fears or concerns about how their supervisors and managers may view their participation and involvement in the union. I think it's fundamental to the belief that if you want to give people a neutral opportunity to make a decision, whatever that decision might be, it truly has to be neutral, and right now that workplace is not a neutral environment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you, Mr. Yussuff.

We'll move on to Mr. Armstrong, for five minutes.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here.

Mr. Farrell, we've heard Mr. Yussuff just talk about some of the advantages of the current system. What are some of the disadvantages of the current card check system? You said that you prefer a secret ballot. What are the disadvantages of the current system in place?

[John Farrell]

I believe the major disadvantage is that there's no clear evidence that all of the potential union members have had an opportunity to seriously consider the question of unionization and to express their opinion behind the screen of a ballot box in a secret ballot vote. When you think about unionization, you could face a situation where in 1950, the employees at a certain work site signed cards to demonstrate that 50% plus one of the members joined a union. But you would never have any evidence about what the real wishes were of the employees who were not approached, did not participate in the process, and did not sign cards. This is the reason why employers would favour a secret ballot vote. It's just a better arrangement to determine the true wishes of the individuals who will be affected by the decision to unionize or not, that they have an opportunity to express their views.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you.

Mr. Farrell, you also mentioned in your statement about the possibilities of intimidation, that a secret ballot vote reduces the opportunity for intimidation to take place. Could you elaborate on that a bit?

[John Farrell]

I beg to differ. I did not at all speak about.... I would never use the word intimidation. That was not part of my presentation.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

So you don't agree that a secret ballot vote would reduce the opportunity for some intimidation with the card check system? I apologize for that. I thought I heard you say that.

[John Farrell]

No, I did not.

You never know. I think that whatever system is in place, there's potential for skulduggery. It may happen or may not happen, but I think that a secret ballot vote is a much more appropriate approach to determine the wishes of employees.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Farrell.

Mr. Giles, I was going to ask you a question about how a secret ballot system would be conducted. Can you go through the steps of how that ballot system would work?

[Anthony Giles]

Well, as I responded earlier to another question, there are three methods of doing it. Essentially the system is that once the board receives an application for certification, it conducts a preliminary investigation to ensure that the people whose cards are submitted, for example, really did sign those cards. They conduct an investigation as to the actual size of the bargaining unit and how many people are in it in order to determine the voting requirements. Then, based on their assessment of the type of workplace and which ballot or voting method is best suited, they'll choose an on-site method, a mail-in, or an electronic version. On site, as one of the witnesses mentioned, takes place typically in the employer's premises, and depending on the size, there may be one or several voting booths. There's an official there supervising it to ensure that privacy is ensured. Employees are given a good length of time to show up during the day. Sometimes in large workplaces it can be held over several days as well.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

I need to understand something here. In your research with the other provinces and what provinces currently do, is that system similar to what's done in some provinces currently across Canada?