Evidence of meeting #12 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was union.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
It's actually not appropriate, so thank you for pointing that out.
9:10 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
I do apologize. I did not mean to put you in that position.
As you can see, many of the changes that have been suggested here have highly politicized labour relations through this bill being debated in the House, and in the process that we have used here at committee. Today, for example, we had to have our amendments in even before we'd heard from the experts, or from our witnesses, and also now we're going to have only an hour to deal with not only the clause-by-clause but also the general debate. It's just a really rushed event.
What kind of a process do you believe should be taken if the labour code is going to be changed?
9:15 a.m.
Chairperson, Canada Industrial Relations Board
I believe the process that was followed following the Sims report worked very, very well. There was a lot of consultation during the preparation of the Sims report. After the Sims report came down, there were numerous rounds of consultation again with labour and management over the amendments that would be made to the code, and were in fact brought into force in 1999. I believe, with one exception, there was total consensus on all of the changes that were made.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much.
As we all know, labour relations is not a very simple matter. It's a very complex issue, and because it is so complex, it's really important that we don't make willy-nilly changes. In other words, a little bit of a change here, a little bit of a change there, because once you make one change it begins to impact the whole.
I don't know how familiar you are with the ILO conventions, but possibly you could answer this. Is it possible that this bill may actually violate the ILO conventions we're signatories to?
9:15 a.m.
Chairperson, Canada Industrial Relations Board
I'm not an expert in international law. I really can't give an opinion on whether this meets the ILO conventions to which Canada is a signatory.
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you.
My next question is for you, Mr. Heinen. Do you agree with the conclusion of the Sims report and support the tripartite approach to amending the Canada Labour Code?
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much.
One other comment I wanted to make, and then I do have a question, Mr. Chair. How much longer do I have?
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Jinny Sims NDP Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you very much.
Is it because labour relations is so complex that it's not really something we would do by polling? That's not how we would establish a labour code, just as we would not do much of the work that this government does through public polling because there are many intersecting factors. So one of the other questions I have is, in this bill as it is presented, the voting requirement is “only those who vote”, so how does that impact unionization in a workplace?
9:15 a.m.
Chairperson, Canada Industrial Relations Board
Perhaps I could just give a quick answer to that. The bill could potentially have some perverse effects, probably, that were not intended by the drafters. Perhaps I can give you an example.
In the paper we speak about displacement applications. This is a situation where there is an incumbent union and another union that wishes to displace that union and become the bargaining agent. Let's take an example of a bargaining unit of 100 people. We conduct a vote and only 60 people show up and vote: 40 vote for the challenger, the new union that wants to come in; only 20 vote for the incumbent union. My understanding of the way this bill would work is that because neither of them got a majority of the people in the unit, i.e., a majority of the 100 people in the unit, the challenger would lose even though it won two-thirds of the votes of those who voted. The challenger would lose and therefore we would have to dismiss the application. The incumbent would remain in place even though it only had the support of 20 out of 100 people in the unit.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Phil McColeman
Thank you very much.
We are over time, so let's move on to Mrs. McLeod from the Conservative Party.
February 13th, 2014 / 9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you to all the witnesses. I think you brought some great expertise to the table today.
I don't often agree with my colleague, but one of the elements that has created some concern within this bill—and some of the witnesses have touched on it—is the issue of all the people in the unit versus those who actually vote. So can I perhaps do a quick yes or no in terms of people agreeing that it should be 50% plus one for certification, and 50% plus one for the decertification process?
Again, Mr. Heinen, and I'll go quickly, do you believe that should be the system, versus all the membership? And I'll go around the table.
9:20 a.m.
Executive Director, Christian Labour Association of Canada
I believe it should be 50% plus one of those who vote.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Chairperson, Canada Industrial Relations Board
The board will administer whatever law Parliament sees fit to give us to administer.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Vice-President, Communications, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
Yes.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Emeritus Professor of Economics, Université de Montréal, Fellow, Centre for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on Organizations (CIRANO), As an Individual
I have no opinion on that.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you.
One of the things we've heard a lot about and that I've heard about is how, if it's a card check, the employers are saying that there's opportunity for pressure on one element, and if there's a secret ballot vote, people are arguing in terms of the employer having more access and opportunity. I think in our hearts we all believe, certification or decertification, that there shouldn't be undue pressure.
I do fundamentally believe, personally, in the secret ballot. To me, the secret ballot is more about the peer-to-peer relationship within the unit, as opposed to the employer or the union, because I know that sometimes it's a very difficult personal choice. Also, I know that sometimes those choices can create real issues in the workplace peer to peer, depending on the decisions, which is why sometimes the secret ballot takes that element out of it.
Ms. MacPherson, you alluded to the fact that we have our officers who are there. They're there to investigate undue pressure and intimidation on either part. Could you speak a bit about that particular element?
9:20 a.m.
Chairperson, Canada Industrial Relations Board
Yes. As I mentioned earlier, the federal jurisdiction is relatively stable and the board has a robust jurisprudence regarding intimidation and coercion.
I took a look at the last 10 years. In the last 10 years, the board has issued over 4,000 decisions globally on all of the matters that come before us. Of those more than 4,000 decisions, only 23 cases involved allegations of intimidation or coercion during an organizing campaign. Of those 23 cases that the board heard and decided, we only found six cases of intimidation and coercion. Four of those cases were intimidation and coercion by an employer. Two of the cases were in a displacement situation where we had two unions vying to represent the same bargaining unit, and the allegations were against the other union.
So that's a total of six upheld in 10 years. It's not a huge problem. I think that's because our jurisprudence is so strong. Everybody knows the rules of the game. They stay within the confines of those rules, and the board has the ability to deal with those outlier cases where someone misbehaves.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I think that perhaps it sounds like we have tools and mechanisms in place to deal with the intimidation issues. Again, to me, one of the key principles is, do we believe that a secret ballot is a fundamental right for workers?
Mr. Heinen, I guess I'd ask you. Again, I have to talk about the peer-to-peer relationships, because it is a very difficult decision, whereby some people might benefit and some people, with those changes, might have challenges with it. Can you talk about the secret ballot and your perspective on that?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative