Good afternoon, everyone.
Unifor is the largest private sector union, with 300,000 members, with over 80,000 women and men working in the federal sector, which includes rail, transportation, airlines, and communications, just to name a few. On behalf of our members, we are concerned that Bill C-4 is not consistent with enhancing workplace protections and will roll the dice with the health and safety of our federal workers.
At the outset, it is worth noting that none of these changes were the product of collaboration or even consultation. The changes proposed in Bill C-4 alter health and safety protections that have only recently been put into place in the year 2000. That is a relatively short amount of time in the life of a piece of legislation. The Canada Labour Code changes of 2000 were reached after extensive consultation with labour, employers, and government, and were themselves a microcosm of what can be achieved through a tripartite system of collaboration.
Words do matter. They certainly matter when they're the words that make up our laws and legislation, and in particular with the laws and legislation that protect workers and public safety.
When we look at the definition of danger, the proposal is a narrower interpretation of what is considered to be workplace danger. Making changes to the wording of a law is to change its original meaning. Gone is the recognition that the outcome of exposure to hazard might not occur immediately. Gone is the explicit language that recognizes that a potential threat to a worker's reproductive system is worth protecting. That threat of exposure to mutagens is a very real threat.
On the right to refuse, as we look at how the right of refusal happens in workplaces, the government maintains that 80% of all work refusals are not justified and are frivolous. What is that number based on? We don't know what the number is based on. Far from progressing frivolous complaints to HRSDC, we are of the opinion that workers are reluctant to invoke their right to refuse even in the face of bona fide dangerous work. Therefore, instead of watering down safety rights around unsafe work, we should be enhancing them, ensuring that workers feel safe from reprisal by reporting unsafe work. In addition, we should be enhancing enforcement and inspection, not rolling back the clock on hard-fought health and safety gains.
When we look at the work refusal investigation, the employer will prepare a written report—this is something new. The workplace committee will prepare a report—this is something new. The employer may provide further information and request reconsideration—again, something new. The employer shall make a decision—something new. If the employer disagrees, it will notify the worker in writing—something new. If the worker continues refusal, the employer will notify the minister and provide a report—something new. The minister will decide whether to continue.
The new emphasis on the immediacy of the danger to the worker is lost in the new prolonged procedure for addressing that danger. Formerly, the legislative process lent itself to taking minutes or hours to determine if the safety officer was required. However, the new proposal, with an emphasis on written reports, would appear to take hours or days, especially in the case of a 24/7 operation, such as the railways or even airlines.
We're quite concerned with the potential of the minister's refusal to investigate work refusals. We're concerned not only by the paper obstacle that seems to be in the new proposal, but also the vulnerability to discipline. To classify as trivial, vexatious, or in bad faith does not certainly bring forward confidence in workers to bring their issues forward. Also, there is no statutory right to appeal from the minister's decision. In addition, the internal responsibility system points out that everyone is concerned with health and safety. Certainly the new proposals are not in that direction. Health and safety officers are neutral and trained. How is a minister going to fulfill that position?
Healthy and safe working conditions are the right of every worker, and a scheme that strips those rights away and puts workers in harm's way is, in a word, a deadly combination.
When we look at some of our workplaces, for example, at CP Rail, despite ever-increasing pressures to increase production and perform new processes, in 2013 to date our membership of 2000 workers under federal jurisdiction progressed two work refusals under section 128, both resulting in directions under paragraph 145(2)(a) for the employer to stop the dangerous activity—only two work refusals in such a large body. We would therefore argue that any attempt to water down the language in such important legislation is unacceptable. Laws and regulations are only as strong as the education and enforcement that go with them and how those laws and regulations are practised in a workplace and enforced by those charged with the protection of our well-being as workers.
We cannot rely totally on employers to make our workplaces safe, because employers have, by their existence, a goal that competes with safety and is to make a profit. We should accept that as a given and build from there. This is also why we need vigilant and proactive government involvement. This does not happen by watering down rights and, in essence, the legislative authority held by those charged with enforcing our safety.
Since 2000, while lost time to injuries in Canada has been steadily declining, fatalities have remained fairly constant, with over 900 deaths each year. It must be noted that the current legislation, with its superior protections for workers, has failed to reduce these fatalities. This begs the question of why we are not instead looking for ways to enhance worker occupational health and safety, rather than eroding their workplace safety rights. We therefore oppose the changes to the health and safety provisions contained in Bill C-4.
That concludes my report.
