Status of Women Committee on May 28th, 2009

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Exactly. That's my analogy. Is that a valid analogy, in your experience?

[David Olsen]

I think so. All we're saying is, in achieving pay equity, does the fact that you achieve it through the collective bargaining process diminish somehow the principle of pay equity?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Absolutely not, and again, it is achieved at the beginning of the process, not midway through the process and then dragged on for several years.

I have more questions, but my colleague wants to share my time, so I am going to share it with Ms. McLeod.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, I think we've all clearly stated that our goals are the same, and we just have a different view of how we would get to the objective. To me, it seems eminently sensible. I'm familiar with job classifications and all the things you've talked about, but I think in terms of addressing the concerns that some of our colleagues have had, we have some legislation moving forward and I think it will be important to monitor things to see if this creates the effects we intend to create. I would like a few comments, as we move forward with this pay equity legislation, on how we can ensure it's achieving the goals we have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Olsen.

[David Olsen]

I'm not certain there's any mechanism in the act itself to monitor progress, but you may want to consider making recommendations or finding some way of monitoring progress once this bill is implemented to ensure it's meeting the objectives generally. Whether the Public Service Labour Relations Board would be publishing statistics or something like that to ensure it's meeting Parliament's objectives...that's the only thing I can think of. I just don't know the draft legislation well enough for that, but I'm sure something like that could be done.

[John Farrell]

We are hopeful that this new approach will be much better than the current approach, which is mired in litigation and long cases that have never gone away, and there has been no satisfactory resolution. We believe that if the unions and the employers are both responsible for finding solutions, they will be found. Five years from now, when we take a retrospective look at where we've gone, we will certainly, I think, be better off than we are today, under a new regime.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Before I thank the witnesses, I would like to ask a couple of questions of Mr. Olsen and Mr. Farrell, and possibly if Mesdames Casara and Carbonneau feel they would like to answer, feel free to do so. I am giving myself the same amount of time as everyone else here.

Who hires the employee?

[John Farrell]

The employer does.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Absolutely. Does the employer also designate the pay scales and levels for the work done and what that work must entail? Do you set the criteria for the work you expect to be done as employers?

[John Farrell]

In a non-union environment, most employers who are genuinely interested in creating equity within their organization completely--that's pay equity throughout their organization--will typically engage in some form of job evaluation process whereby the jobs are evaluated against one another, and then they try to apply some scientific process to make sure pay is established at various levels of the organization, which recognizes the skill, responsibility, and working conditions of the job.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

In a union organization?

[John Farrell]

In a union organization, it's a little bit more difficult than that, because the unions participate in the bargaining process and they have a say in where wages and benefits are allocated to the employees for whom they are negotiating. We are compelled to negotiate with them; they present bargaining demands; we engage in collective bargaining; there's a give and take and there's a back and forth. One side or the other generally has more influence in one set of negotiations or another on where the wages and benefits and working conditions actually fall out. That's the reality of the situation.

Collective bargaining is not a scientific game where everything falls into nice little packages. It's fundamentally an economic struggle. When you're engaged in those kinds of--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I understand that, Mr. Farrell. What I would like you to explain to me is simply this.

When you have work to be done in your business in a union shop, you set clear criteria for the work that is to be done, so you are looking for someone to enter at a level of, let's suggest, a stenographer, or a crank operator, or whatever the job description is. Who sets that job description of what that person would do and how that work is valued initially, when that job description is set up? The employer, yes?

[John Farrell]

Generally speaking, there are job descriptions for all manner of jobs that exist in an organization.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, but the employers set that. Or do the unions set the job description?

[John Farrell]

Sometimes the way in which work is performed is part of the negotiation process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's a totally different thing. When you hire someone, you know what you want them to do, and they are offered a pay scale for doing that. Isn't that clear? Isn't that what happens?

Therefore, if the employer is setting the criteria for the work and the pay scales for the work, when the unions negotiate agreements they then decide where the collective agreement would be distributed into different sectors. But the criteria are already set for the work to be done and how it is to be remunerated by the employer.

My question is simply this. Is it not up to the employer, in setting those criteria and in setting those levels of jobs, to ensure that this is the point at which pay equity is incorporated?

[John Farrell]

I think your question does not face the reality of what happens in the real world, with respect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Farrell, I am an employer. I have been an employer. I actually negotiated for a very large group of doctors with the Government of British Columbia, so I also know about union work.

My question is fairly simple. I believe that when collective bargaining occurs, it occurs with regard to the conditions of the job, to occupational health and safety, to wages and benefits, all of those things. Clearly, when you speak of a human right.... This is not a Canada Labour Code right or agreement; we're speaking of a human right. I think what we're all trying to get at here is, how is a human right negotiable?

[John Farrell]

I think this notion of negotiating away a human right is really sloganism. We hear it come up regularly. This is not what is intended at all.

We believe that in order to resolve this problem in a bilateral process, both parties have to come to the table to resolve the problem and have to be responsible for resolving it. That doesn't mean we're not interested and we don't believe in the fundamental value of equal pay for work of equal value. We do. But the mechanism that we're required to live within comes under the provisions of the labour laws of Canada and we have to abide by them. We have to negotiate with the unions, we have to effect a collective agreement with them, and they have a say in the way work and pay are allocated; therefore, they have a responsibility, as we do, to ensure that the principles of equal pay for work of equal value, equitable compensation, are achieved in the workplace.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Farrell.

I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for taking the time to come and present to us and discuss your opinions.

I would like to end this portion of the meeting.

Yes, Nicole.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, before ending this part of the meeting, I'd like to say that I found it very interesting to hear the employers' testimony and to hear a different opinion.

What I'd have found more interesting, however, would have been to hear some employees of these employers. We have the list of the various sectors of these employees. I'd like these people to be invited, not to testify, but to file memorandums, so that we could see whether they have the same understanding of the effectiveness of their employers' negotiations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Demers made a statement on what she'd like to see us do in the future. I don't think it was debate. We can discuss this afterwards.

I thank everyone very much for coming.

We'll now adjourn.