Bill C-525 (Historical)

Employees' Voting Rights Act

An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act (certification and revocation — bargaining agent)

This enactment amends the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to provide that the certification and decertification of a bargaining agent under these Acts must be achieved by a secret ballot vote-based majority.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

There was an error in giving me a time that I was supposed to have and I appreciate that the clerk accommodated us, but that's why this particular....I mean it was a real scramble because we didn't get the 48 hours notice. I do think that this process isn't fair to me or to the committee, and that's the only point I wanted to make.

Now, going on to the substantive motion that I'm putting forward. GP-2 is a substantive change to clause 5 which does one simple thing, I can explain it very briefly.

Subsection 39.(2) of the Canada Labour Code makes a lot of sense. It's being repealed by the way this act is currently worded and if you earn a situation of decertification, if there's no collective agreement in place, but there is ongoing negotiation, and the bargaining agent is bargaining in good faith, you shouldn't actually create chaos in collective bargaining and labour relations.

Just to quote from the Canadian Labour Congress' brief to the committee, “that failure to improve this act”—as my amendment proposes—“will only serve to destabilize labour relations and undermine collective bargaining”.

I know this bill is a private member's bill, it's Blaine Calkins' bill. I'm not calling it the government bill. He's a diligent private member, but this is one of those examples of taking something....There is the old adage, “If it ain't broke, don't fix it”. This is one of a number of private members' bills, and some government bills, that aim directly at collective bargaining, as they have to other sectors, and say, “We're going to keep fixing it 'til it's broken”.

This little amendment would at least address this one gap in Bill C-525.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that we want to have timely responses and resolutions, but I think 48 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to make such an examination and inquiry.

This motion also opens a section that was not amended by Bill C-525, and I would question if it's even in order. But having said that, I think I've stated my two concerns with this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Then we'll move on to amendment NDP-7 which is a new clause as proposed by the NDP, which would be clause 5.1. I must tell the table that this is inadmissible. It seeks to amend section 98 of the Canada Labour Code and that section is not being amended by Bill C-525. I have a ruling from the legal counsel. If you wish me to read it, I will.

The essence of what's being said here is that because section 98 of the Canada Labour Code is not being addressed in any of Bill C-525, we cannot accept an amendment to something we are not addressing.

Madam Sims.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

This motion is going to ensure that the certification and decertification processes under the code mirror each other and, of course, both would require the support of 40% of employees so that the supporters and the opponents of union representation are placed on a level playing field.

Of course, I again want to note that Alberta, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland have adopted a similar approach.

This also ensures that the ballots of those in favour and those against the revocation of the union certification are given equal weight to a representation vote. As currently worded, Bill C-525 could lead to a revocation of a union certification even if a strong majority of the employees casting a ballot are in favour of remaining unionized, so, for example, if a decertification vote were held under the code for a bargaining unit with 100 employees, and if 35 employees did not participate, it would be decertified. Again, we are addressing what was a significant concern by our witnesses. They think this is a very important amendment to the bill.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you all for being here today.

Actually, that was a good segue, Mr. Marston, into my line of questioning, which is that we have had evidence before the committee, particularly from the president of PSAC the other day, where she indicated that she was elected by secret ballot, that when there is a collective agreement that they vote on they vote by secret ballot, when they have a strike vote they vote by secret ballot. The only thing they don't vote on by secret ballot is certifying or decertifying a union.

I don't quite see how there's this big, major change, this huge difference that Bill C-525 is going to have when all the other times the members of the union vote, they do it by secret ballot, except certifying or decertifying a union.

Can someone explain to me how this is some revolutionary terrible change that's going to take place within federally regulated unionized workplaces, when every other time the members vote they vote by secret ballot?

Who wants to start?

[Satinder Chera]

Thank you, sir.

I want to set this up because I think this issue really shouldn't be too controversial in that when you ask Canadians for their preferences when it comes to unions in general, it seems they have pretty strong opinions about not being part of a union, and more importantly, those who have been formerly unionized also don't think too highly of being unionized.

On slide 5, secret ballot votes are very much a cornerstone of our democracy. Our members, as well as working Canadians, very much support secret ballot votes. In fact, recently, CFIB submitted a letter to all MPs outlining our encouragement for a more democratic voting system in federally regulated workplaces.

On slide 6, we ask our members whether secret ballot votes should be mandatory prior to any union certification, and 76% were in favour of that outcome. Again, I would provide this background. Our members in provinces where there are card-based certifications in place often talk about the fear factor that is involved in union drives. So we think providing for a secret ballot vote would be one way to take out that fear factor so that workers, who should be the ones making the decision, can be free of intimidation, whether it's the union or the employer. They can do it with the comfort and the peace of mind that no one's going to know how they particularly voted.

On slide 7, there was also the question that was asked about in the Leger Marketing poll. Canadians were asked whether a secret ballot vote should be required when forming or removing a union from a workplace. We've broken it out here in terms of the result: those who are currently unionized and those who were formerly unionized. Again, there are fairly high levels of support for having a secret ballot system in place, so really it's non-controversial, I think, in that respect.

On slide 8, and concluding, Mr. Chair, we do very much believe that this committee should adopt Bill C-525. We think it's really non-controversial in the sense that the principle of a secret ballot vote is supported by taxpayers and by a vast majority of Canadians. Even those who are unionized or formerly unionized agree strongly that this should be put in place. I would simply make the observation that if secret ballot votes are good enough to elect our representatives in government, they should very much be good enough to elect a union.

Thank you very much for your time, and I'd be happy to take any questions you may have.

[Satinder Chera, Vice-President, Communications, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and our 109,000 small and mid-sized members across the country, we thank the committee for allowing us to speak to Bill C-525 this morning.

Just by way of background, we at CFIB are a membership that is 100% voluntary. We represent all sectors in all regions of the country. We are strictly a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization. We are 100% funded by our membership. We accept no government dollars and, in terms of our policy agenda, we work through a democratic survey process that is one member equals one vote.

In terms of the issue at hand, I thought it would be helpful to provide some background material. On slide 3 there was a survey that was recently conducted by Leger Marketing for the Canadian LabourWatch Association that asked Canadians about their preferences for being unionized. On slide 3 those results are for Canadians who have never been unionized and, as it makes it very clear, 71% have no interest at all in being unionized going forward.

On slide 4, of those who were formerly unionized, interestingly enough, 69% also prefer not to be unionized.

[Dick Heinen]

—if the number of voters who chose not to cast a ballot were automatically counted against you?

Second, no other labour law in Canada is based on this standard of voting. No other jurisdiction automatically counts non-voters as having voted against certification.

Bill C-525, as written, would disadvantage workers in workplaces under federal jurisdiction over workers anywhere else in the country. It seems to me the federal government shouldn't be trying to set double standards in the area of labour laws.

We propose that it be amended that all sections of the bill concerning voting for certification or decertification that state “the majority of employees in the bargaining unit” be replaced with “the majority of votes cast”. This simple amendment to the bill would address the first issue that I've raised.

I would strongly encourage the committee to put forward such an amendment to this bill.

I also want to draw the committee's attention to one other aspect of the bill that I believe should be given consideration. That is how votes would be handled in remote workplaces and among workers in the federally regulated transportation sector who are often dispersed around the country.

Remote work sites, such as those often found in development projects in Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut pose their own sets of issues when it comes to fair voting practices. In most cases, workers at these remote sites are rotated in and out to work at the work site. It means that, should a vote for certification or decertification take place, it is likely that only a portion of the workers would ever be available at any one time to participate in a secret ballot vote.

Similar problems would be experienced by workers in the transportation industry who are rarely, if ever, in the same location together. The problems to fair voting in this case are obvious.

I understand that Elizabeth just mentioned that there are other ways of voting. There are mail-in ballots and now there is electronic balloting as well.

[Dick Heinen, Executive Director, Christian Labour Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, for the opportunity to speak to you today about this bill.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada, CLAC, is one of the largest independent unions in Canada and one of Canada's fastest-growing unions. Founded in 1952, we represent more than 60,000 people across the country. We have a very strong presence in oil and gas development projects in Alberta, natural resource development in British Columbia, as well as construction, mining, health care, and other industries throughout Canada. But particular to these proceedings, CLAC has a strong construction and mining presence north of 60, which is the jurisdiction of the CIRB, and we are very much affected by the changes, as well as the transportation industry across the country, interprovincial.

Now fundamentally, CLAC believes in competition in the labour relations environment in Canada. We think that workers should have the right and be free to make their own choices when it comes to which union represents them or whether they want to be represented by a union at all. The Canadian economy benefits from a more competitive labour environment, and CLAC supports efforts to improve the Canadian economy and at the same time to strengthen the democratic rights of workers.

Fundamentally, competition offers a fairer deal for Canadian workers and helps to create a better workplace through freedom of choice. Now Bill C-525, on the surface, seems to support these objectives. Requiring a vote for both certification and decertification is, in many cases, a standard in provincial labour law, and moving federal law to a similar model makes sense. However, Bill C-525 makes significant errors that place it offside with labour standards across the country. Furthermore, because of the geographical reach of Bill C-525, there are some unique challenges in the application of the bill.

First, for a successful vote on either certification or decertification, Bill C-525 would require a majority of the entire bargaining unit. This standard of voting goes well beyond any other labour law in Canada and is beyond the requirements we see even in voting for federal and provincial general elections.

Requiring 50% plus one of the entire workforce is a standard that is unfair for a number of reasons. First, there may be many workers who simply prefer not to vote, and in some cases, be it sickness, injury, transportation, vacation, they are not able to vote. In such a case their decision or their situation not to cast a vote becomes a de facto vote against the union.

In effect, Bill C-525 would mandate that in a certification vote every worker would be counted as having voted no, unless they vote yes. Just let that sink in for a moment. If you choose not to vote or for some reason you're unable to vote, you're still counted as having voted. Now that's what the bill proposes to do. Can you imagine in your own ridings—

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Good morning, everyone, and welcome.

This is meeting number 12 of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. Today is Thursday, February 13, 2014 and we're continuing our consideration of private member's bill C-525.

For our first hour today, we are once again joined by a robust panel of witnesses. From the Canada Industrial Relations Board we are joined by chairperson Ms. Elizabeth MacPherson and Ms. Ginette Brazeau, who is the executive director and general counsel.

We are also joined by Mr. Dick Heinen, executive director at the Christian Labour Association of Canada.

Joining us by video conference from Toronto is Mr. Satinder Chera, vice-president of communications for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Also joining us by video conference from Paris, France, and appearing as an individual is Mr. Marcel Boyer, emeritus professor of Economics at the Université de Montréal and fellow at the Centre for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on Organizations.

I now turn the floor over to our witnesses for their opening presentations.

I ask that you please keep your remarks to seven minutes. I believe you've been advised of that by the clerk. We do have limited time. We will have limited for questions after that. We are still awaiting, I believe, the agenda for the day. I don't know whether you've received it, but we will proceed as per the introductions, beginning with Ms. Elizabeth MacPherson speaking on behalf of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

[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.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by putting something on the record. I had 28 years in the labour movement as a voluntary president and vice-president of the communication workers for Bell Canada and 14 years, again non-salaried, as the president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council.

Mr. Smith and Mr. Farrell, in the subtext of what you've been saying here today, I think you've both hit the nail on the head. It's not appropriate for a private member's bill to move forward such significant changes as proposed recently in Bill C-377 and currently in Bill C-525.

It's pretty clear to us—and we're allowed to have a divergence of opinion—that this is ideologically driven. It has not been given the due consultations, and I would suggest that the committee would be well advised to forgo this piece of legislation in favour of government legislation. If we go through the consultative process as we should, and it calls for change, that's very important. We've had 70 years of labour peace.

Mr. Smith, you pointed out capital investment at risk. I'd like you to expand on that, if you would, sir.

[Magali Picard, Regional Executive Vice-President (Quebec), Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Robyn.

As you know, votes on certification or decertification will henceforth depend on the total number of employees in a bargaining unit. Currently, the law stipulates that the majority rules when there is a vote, whether it be for certification or decertification. However, Bill C-525 demands that the union get an absolute majority, which is to say the majority of the entire bargaining unit. It also stipulates that not casting a ballot or abstaining means a vote against the union.

Why allow non-voters to decide what is to become of an entire group of employees? If you, as MPs, cannot vote or if you abstain from voting on a bill before the House of Commons, are you presumed to be voting against it?

In Quebec, labour legislation requires an absolute majority for certification and decertification votes. It is the only province in the country to do so. However, this legislation is very different from Bill C-525. Indeed, it allows automatic certification by counting out the cards. A vote is only held when there is no majority. Bill C-525 would remove this mechanism from federal labour legislation. Unlike Bill C-525, Quebec legislation makes it mandatory for each employee to vote, and they cannot abstain without a legitimate reason.

As we have already stated, the more votes have to be organized, the longer the certification or decertification process will be. This favors the employers, who will have more time to encourage workers to vote against the union or to simply abstain from voting. Furthermore, under Bill C-525, an abstention is considered a vote against the union.

Let us be clear. Bill C-525 offers no protection whatsoever to workers' democratic rights. Its aim is to prevent them from unionizing and allowing the employer to interfere in the process.

Barbaric tactics used by the government are of grave concern to us. First of all, it is using a private member's bill to upset the balance between workers' and employers' rights. Furthermore, the government is trying to rush the adoption of Bill C-525 in order to avoid questions and debate.

We strongly urge members of this committee and all MPs to reject Bill C-525.

Thank you.

[Robyn Benson, National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Good morning.

I'm going to be sharing my time with Magali Picard, who is the regional executive vice-president for Quebec. And of course, should there be any questions, then I also have Shannon Blatt, who is our legal officer, and she'll be able to respond.

I want to thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee.

Bill C-525 proposes to change how unions are certified and decertified under three pieces of legislation. It affects hundreds of thousands of workers in the federal public service, in the parliamentary service, and in all federally regulated industries and crown corporations.

The purpose of labour law is to ensure fairness and balance in the workplace, to protect the rights of workers, and to promote harmonious labour relations. Bill C-525 upsets some of the democratic safeguards in the current laws that enable workers to express their wishes free from interference and intimidation. As a private member’s bill, it was introduced without the usual broad consultation process that involves employers, unions, and the government. It was introduced without any evidence that the rules for certification and decertification need to be changed in this way.

Bill C-525 introduces some disturbing elements that will interfere with the ability of workers to unionize federally. They go against the very spirit of the right to freedom of association enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The bill eliminates the right to automatic certification when a majority of workers show their intent to form a union by signing a union card and paying a fee when they sign. This is known as card check.

Bill C-525 imposes a mandatory secret vote even where a majority has already signed a union card. Contrary to what you may have heard, PSAC has no issue with voting by secret ballot. We do it regularly to elect our officers, ratify collective agreements, and vote for strike action, as examples. What we object to is forcing workers to show twice that they want to unionize. We know that signing a union card is a step that employees don’t take lightly or carelessly. We believe their wishes should be respected. Studies have also shown that the elimination of card check reduces the ability of workers to actually unionize.

We also expect that the labour boards will not be given any more resources, so the time between an application for certification and an actual vote is going to increase. This will allow more time for employers to intimidate workers into not voting. Unlike labour laws in Ontario and B.C., Bill C-525 does not impose a short timeframe for a vote to be held.

Bill C-525 is also profoundly undemocratic in several ways. In the case of decertification, a minority of workers will be able to overturn the wishes of the majority. The bill would change the Public Service Labour Relations Act to allow a mere 45% to be able to dissolve the union regardless of what the majority wants.

I will now turn it over to my colleague, Madame Picard.

[John Farrell]

The other issue that we must deal with, of course, is the question of decertification or the revocation of bargaining rights. Under Bill C-525, in the event that the Industrial Relations Board receives a decertification application with 45% support, then the onus would shift to the union to prove, in a secret ballot representation vote, that it retains the support of a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit as opposed to the majority of employees casting a secret ballot vote in favour of decertification. The standard for decertification proposed in Bill C-525 goes beyond an acceptable norm. FETCO believes that the decertification process should require a vote of 50% plus one of the employees in the bargaining unit who cast their secret ballot votes.

For both certification and decertification, FETCO believes that the threshold in order to call a vote should be somewhere between 40% and 45%.

In sum, obviously, Bill C-525 poses a genuine dilemma for FETCO.

It pits the long-held and consistent view that employers in the federal jurisdiction prefer a secret ballot vote for certification over a card check system against our strongly held view that the legislative process of using private members' bills to change labour legislation without the opportunity for genuine pre-legislative consultation is the wrong approach.