Thank you, Mr. Chair.
HonoFurable members, good afternoon, and thank you for inviting me to address the committee.
I am the regional director and registrar of the Atlantic region for the Canada Industrial Relations Board. As the regional director, I am responsible for the board's operations in the Atlantic provinces. I am here representing the board at the invitation of the committee.
Let me begin by briefly explaining the board's role and mandate.The CIRB is an independent, representational, quasi-judicial, administrative tribunal. It is responsible for the interpretation and application of the Canada Labour Code, part I, industrial relations, and certain provisions of part II. The code governs the labour relations of businesses and undertakings falling under federal jurisdiction. The board's mandate is to contribute to and promote harmonious industrial relations and the constructive settlement of disputes. It accomplishes this by interpreting and applying the provisions of the code in a manner that best fulfills the purposes and objectives as determined by Parliament and as set out in the code. It aims to determine matters and provide decisions on applications and complaints that come before it in a fair, expeditious, and economical manner, and in a way that best serves the labour relations goals and objectives set out in the code. It accomplishes this through various dispute resolution mechanisms. The board has both a mediation and an adjudicative role to play in resolving applications and disputes that come before it.
It is equally important to understand that the board is a neutral and impartial tribunal. It has no role to play in formulating policy or the legislative provisions that the board is then called upon to interpret and apply. It is really not the board's role, therefore, to appear before this committee to express an opinion or take a position on any proposed changes to the code. I propose, then, to first speak about subsection 94(2.1) of the code, the current provision dealing with replacement workers. I will briefly touch on section 87.4, the maintenance of activities provisions, and finally I will address what the board sees as the potential impact of any changes to the code on the board's resources and capabilities.
Since the introduction of the current replacement worker provision in 1999, the board has received approximately 20 complaints under this section. Sixteen of these have been withdrawn, three were dismissed, and one is pending. The replacement worker issue is generally seen as an important, sensitive, and controversial issue between labour and management. Further, applications under the replacement worker provision of the code are usually presented at a time when the labour relations between the parties are particularly tense and strained. Accordingly, the board gives these matters priority and treats them in an expedited fashion. However, this can be difficult procedurally, because it has been our experience that such applications are usually accompanied by other unfair labour practice complaints and allegations of bad faith bargaining. In an attempt to achieve an overall effective labour relations resolution, different complaints are often heard together or consolidated. This will often then require the presentation of more evidence and a longer hearing process to ensure that all matters are fairly heard and determined and that natural justice for all parties is respected along the way.
Section 87.4 of the code deals with maintenance of activities during a strike or lockout. It is another of the various strike-related provisions introduced into the code in 1999, following the legislative review. This provision speaks directly to the issue of the parties' obligations to ensure that certain activities and services are continued during the course of a strike or lockout to a sufficient level so as to prevent any immediate and serious danger to the safety and health of the public. This provision constitutes a joint obligation on the parties to ensure the safety or health of the public during a strike or lockout, and, as such, addresses very different concerns and circumstances from those addressed by the replacement worker provision. The present replacement worker provision makes it an unfair labour practice to use replacement workers to undermine a trade union's representational capacity, rather than for the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives.
With respect to the potential impact of the changes to the existing legislation, the board, based on its past experience, can offer the committee the following comments and considerations.
Because the replacement worker issue is highly sensitive and generally controversial for trade unions and employers, any change to this particular provision in the existing code will likely cause an increase in the board's caseload.
Our experience with the most recent legislative changes was that with any new provision comes an increase in the number of applications or complaints filed as parties test the new provision and the board's interpretation and application of it. This includes an increase in the number of applications for reconsideration as the parties test the provision, not only in the first instance, but also on reconsideration and in the courts. As well, the jurisprudence on a particular issue or provision is never established on the basis of just one case or one decision, but evolves over time and in the specific context of each case, as presented to the board.
With an increase in the number of applications comes an even greater demand on all aspects of the board's resources at the administrative, operational, and adjudicative levels. This added pressure on the resources is particularly relevant in light of the priority treatment I believe the board would have to give to any complaints filed under the new provisions. To avoid any escalation of tension between the parties, I anticipate that the board will have to respond quickly to resolve any disputes involving replacement workers.
In conclusion, I would like to restate that the board is neutral and impartial, and the board's role is to interpret and apply the provisions of the code and to assist the parties in constructively resolving their industrial relations disputes. In light of the board's neutral role, it is inappropriate for the board to voice an opinion on any question concerning policy development and the impact of any proposed changes to the legislation on the parties and their balance of bargaining power.
Thank you.