Human Resources Committee on Sept. 24th, 2024

[Bea Bruske]

Thank you for that important question.

We certainly have seen significant changes in the workforce over the last number of years with AI, with gig work, with technological changes. The most critical thing for us as union workers is to make sure that we have a seat at the decision-making tables about our future. That means we need to be consulted in a meaningful way when it comes to these changes that we're experiencing in various sectors.

Therefore, I was very heartened to see the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act recently passed, which actually gives workers a seat at the decision-making tables as we deal with some of the challenges of getting to net zero and moving jobs into a clean economy type of situation.

More specifically, with regard to gig work and AI, we need to look at some legislative priorities in terms of how we manage those particular issues. The definition of what a worker is no longer really fits with the new gig economy that we have. Is that worker in fact employed, or is that worker a freelance person? We haven't caught up in our provincial, territorial and federal governments in terms of how we actually define “workers” and what rights, privileges and benefits they actually have under existing legislation, so that has to be a very high priority for us to ensure that those workers also have a powerful paycheque.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

I'll turn it to Mr. Collins.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have two and a half minutes.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you.

My question is for Ms. Bruske. She referenced in her opening statement the fight, sometimes, with big corporations in terms of securing benefits for workers. Sometimes those fights, though, are with governments.

I referenced in our last committee meeting the fight that unions had with former premier Mike Harris and his “common sense revolution”, and the days of actions that led to thousands of employees taking to the streets. Legislation from Prime Minister Harper was referenced today in terms of targeting unionized workers. Then, of course, I can point to Bill 124, with Premier Ford completely undermining the collective bargaining process, trying to cap wages outside of that process and really violating the rights of union members and of the people who represent them at the bargaining table.

I have a quick question for you, Ms. Bruske.

We look at wage disparity between union and non-union workers. Sometimes Conservative governments have it in them to pick a fight with unionized workers. Can you advise the committee on how we deal with those instances in terms of trying to correct some of the damages that have been done to that process over the years and how we can support, as a government, workers by just supporting the basic rights they have in terms of what they bring to the bargaining table?

[Bea Bruske]

Thank you for that question.

Obviously, first and foremost, listen to what union workers have to say. When you looked at Bill 124 in Ontario, you saw the lowest-paid education workers being told that they had to accept a collective agreement that was well subpar in terms of wages and benefits. The threat of using the notwithstanding clause in our Constitution to prevent those workers from going on strike for a fair deal was absolutely egregious.

It's the overreach when it comes to fair collective bargaining that is most at stake when we deal with these kinds of situations. We need to ensure that all employers, whether in the public or private sector, understand that when you get to the bargaining table, you need to put in a fair day's work of actually getting to a fair and reasonable deal based on what the economics currently provide. Too many times, we see interference in that particular process, and that is the problem.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you for the answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

Ms. Chabot for two and a half minutes.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll try to ask a question on something that falls under federal jurisdiction. We must remember that, generally speaking, Quebec and the provinces have jurisdiction over labour laws. Here, when it comes to strengthening unionization or labour laws, obviously, we have to focus on aspects that fall under our jurisdiction. If the task were to critique various provinces, be they run by a Liberal, Conservative or another government, then so be it, but I don't think that's the goal.

I'd like to ask about an obstacle to bargaining rights. In fact, I'm not sure whether it's an obstacle or not. This question is for you, Ms. Bruske.

Apparently, a section of the Canada Labour Code stipulates that binding arbitration can be used to end disputes. Do you think that's an infringement of the right of association and bargaining rights? What reaction did the Canadian Labour Congress have to that analysis?

[Bea Bruske]

We don't necessarily want to have an arbitrated or an imposed collective agreement on parties. We think that when there is already an out that the employer can point to, their commitment to actually reaching a deal at the bargaining table is not 100%. We saw that in the most recent strike at the railways, where the employer coming in advocated for an arbitrated solution to that particular round of bargaining.

When, in November, the employer comes to the table in a federally regulated area and says that they want to have binding arbitration resolve this issue for them, we have to question how much time, energy and effort they're actually putting in at the bargaining table to reach that collective agreement by having a good conversation about the issues that really matter. Also, it's not only wages and benefits; it's safety for workers and for our communities that is at stake. Therefore, we need to be mindful of those legislative components and what they actually mean.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

You have 30 seconds remaining, Ms. Chabot.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Janssen, do you have an opinion on the fact that binding arbitration can be imposed on collective bargaining?

[Dan Janssen]

Yes, I believe that workers and the companies should be able to negotiate a fair agreement at the bargaining table. That's where it should happen. The threat of using expedited arbitration prevents the company from actually bargaining in good faith.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Ms. Zarrillo, you have two and a half minutes.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by congratulating ATU Local 1724 president Joe McCann and all of their members today on ratifying a contract with Transdev and HandyDART. I know this was a long-fought battle for them. They secured increased wages and also a reduction in the use of taxis, which this committee would be interested in, as this serves people with disabilities who were being subjected more and more to transportation that did not suit their needs. I wanted to congratulate all of the HandyDART workers. Thank you again to the president of Local 1724.

I want to thank member Wayne Long for allowing us to shine a light on the corporate practices that are driving down wages and the new generation of worker exploitation that actually necessitated unions in the first place.

I will ask witness Dan Janssen if he could share some workplace practices he is seeing that are eroding the rights of workers, which Parliament should be addressing with legislation.

If we have time, I would also like to ask that question of witness Bea Bruske.

[Dan Janssen]

I think contract flipping in the airline industry is eroding workers' rights, 100%. Although it's come a long way, I do believe there's much more that can be done to protect workers who are going through this process.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you so much.

I would just ask witness Bea Bruske as well.

[Bea Bruske]

Outside of contract flipping, the issue of casual labour versus permanent positions is becoming more widespread. Rather than hiring for a permanent position, term positions keep getting extended over and over again. Just before a worker might be eligible for an increase in wages and some benefits, that's when their term suddenly ends, only to be renewed maybe a month down the road because they actually do still need that position.

The other piece that we spoke about earlier is the issue of gig work. When you have an employee employed as a gig worker, they are not technically employees in many instances, so those workers don't have the same rights and benefits. They don't have the same workplace safety and health protections. They don't have the same ability to garner things like vacation pay, severance pay and the protections other employees have under various legislative mechanisms.

On a federal, provincial and territorial basis, these are issues that we need to be turning our minds to. These are issues where workers are struggling to make ends meet because they are not technically permanent workers. Even organizing those kinds of workers has been more difficult.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Madame Zarrillo.

Mr. Seeback, you have five minutes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Great.

Mr. Janssen, what will happen if the contract for the workers you represent is flipped and goes to a non-union company? What will happen to the employees you represent?

[Dan Janssen]

I very much hope that the new non-union employer, if it does go that way, will respect the Canada Labour Code and the equal remuneration and successorship laws. However, it's not guaranteed.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

If they don't, what happens?

[Dan Janssen]

If they don't, we as a union will have to fight to help organize those workers so that we can protect them under a contract, or those workers themselves will have to approach the labour program to complain that their employer has not complied with the Canada Labour Code.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

There's an opportunity, as I said earlier, under section 47.3. The Minister of Labour could expand section 47.3 to cover just this circumstance.

Would you urge the current government to have the Minister of Labour do that, so that your workers don't risk lower pay, etc., if the contract flips?

[Dan Janssen]

I would urge the government to do whatever it takes to help this group of workers.

As I said, Bill C-330 is there, if there's an avenue to get that passed through the House. If there's an avenue for the minister to step in and protect these workers, anything would help right now.

With 28 days' notice, they still don't know what's happening. These workers need some help.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Ms. Bruske, I wanted to ask you a question.

The government just recently did a section 107 referral to end the rail strike. The Supreme Court, in 2015, actually found that the right to strike is constitutionally protected under section 2(d) of the charter. Would you agree that by sending this union to arbitration through a ministerial order and removing the right to strike, the government violated the constitutional rights of those unions?