Status of Women Committee on April 12th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call the meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this committee is studying ways to increase the participation of women in non-traditional occupations.

Today we have three groups with us. They're all from my neck of the woods in B.C. I want to welcome them. They are: International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada; B.C. Human Rights Coalition; Canadian Labour Congress; and British Columbia Maritime Employers Association. They are going to talk about the non-traditional work that occurs at the ports in terms of longshoremen and how to increase participation of women in that area.

Witnesses, I will let you know that when we begin you will have 10 minutes for each group. As you can see, we have four--I said three--groups here. Each group will have 10 minutes to present. I'm going to give you a little sign at about three minutes so that you know to wrap it up soon. We'll have a question-and-answer period later on.

I want to welcome all of you. We're going to start with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada and Tom Dufresne.

Oh, I'm sorry. This is one group. Let me get this clear.

Tom, would you prefer to have Ms. O'Donnell do the presentation or will you share it?

[Tom Dufresne, President, International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada]

We'll share it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Okay. You have 10 minutes to share.

[Tom Dufresne]

All right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

So we'll begin with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union of Canada, and Tom Dufresne, who is the president, and Susan O'Donnell, who is the executive director of the B.C. Human Rights Coalition. The Canadian Labour Congress is here, with Barbara Byers, executive vice-president. We've seen Barbara many times at this committee.

We will begin.

[Tom Dufresne]

Thank you, Dr. Fry, Madam Chair.

My name is Tom Dufresne and I am the president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada. I've held this position for some 14 years now.

With me are Barb Byers, the executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress, and Susan O'Donnell, who is the executive director of the B.C. Human Rights Coalition and is advising ILWU and our members on processes going forward to improve the working life in the workplaces on the coast, not only for women but also for men.

The ILWU represents approximately 5,500 people who work at the Pacific coast ports. We've distributed a backgrounder to all the committee members and the translators; hopefully, you all have a copy.

We welcome your initiative and are pleased to appear before you today. Your session helps to shine the light on our industry, which is beginning to open its doors to women. It's a slow but steady process that will benefit from free collective bargaining and will suffer if free collective bargaining is stifled. We have made some progress, but much more needs to be done.

In recent years, this fact has been underscored. For example, in 2008, the BCMEA, the B.C. Maritime Employers Association, earned the lowest grade possible from the Canadian Human Rights Commission for failing to meet expectations concerning women's participation in our workplace.

I know that your committee is looking at three specific aspects of women in non-traditional jobs: recruitment, barriers to participation, and retention. We will focus our remarks on these areas.

It is our view that the best and most equitable way to recruit new workers to our industry is through a gender-balanced recruiting process, whereby equal numbers of men and women are recruited on a local-by-local basis--a fifty-fifty approach, if you will. That is subject to negotiation on a local-by-local basis, because what's good in one local might not work in another.

For instance, in the Port of Vancouver, which represents about 60% of the workforce in British Columbia, what would achieve the best results there is not necessarily the same as what would be best in Fort Simpson. We also have agreements that represent the Nisga'a in northern of British Columbia and we wouldn't want to go in there and dictate any type of process to them. We work with the bands as well, Bella Bella and Bella Coola, to recruit people to work. They work in their own specific areas and are allowed to travel.

Also, in a couple of locals, we have lists of people who have applied in the past when there was hiring being done. It's our view and our position that those lists should be exhausted prior to opening this up for new hiring. Some of these people have taken the tests in the past. They might not have passed the tests, but they were given a chance to go out and correct whatever deficiencies they might have, to allow them to come in, take the test again, and try to pass.

For instance in Local 502, which is on the Fraser River and represents all of the docks up and down the Fraser River and at Deltaport and Westshore, there's a list of approximately 286 people. Of those 286, 83 are women. We're saying that to cast those 83 people aside and do a new recruitment process to put a bunch of people in the workforce would be unfair to those people, although we are prepared to discuss it, as I said, on a local-by-local basis.

This is a policy that the union has advanced for a number of years in our discussions with our employers. Unfortunately, since the vast majority of additional recruiting is done jointly with the employer, we have not been able to see this policy fully implemented. It is our goal to achieve a fifty-fifty recruitment process, as I said, once these lists are exhausted.

Having said this, I note that there are serious barriers to overcome in order to create the right conditions to increase the participation of women in our workplaces. I'll ask Susan to address these issues.

Thank you.

[Susan O'Donnell, Executive Director, B.C. Human Rights Coalition]

Thanks, Tom.

Did you know that currently there are no provisions for maternity leave at Pacific coast ports, beyond legislated minimums? The same holds true for paternity leave. Also, there are no child care provisions. Waterfront workers do not have any workplace policies that make it easier to care for elderly parents or for dependent adult children.

As you know, these family responsibilities of caring for young and old family members frequently fall to women to fulfill. The absence of these kinds of supports helps to explain why the waterfront is less attractive as a workplace of choice for our daughters, our sisters, and our mothers. The waterfront is less attractive as a workplace for women and men because there are significant barriers that block access to benefits, such as long-term health and dental care, for new workers.

There are other troubling indications of gender inequality on the waterfront that constitute serious barriers to women. From a variety of reports and hearsay, it would appear that the workplace environment drastically needs to change for women and probably for most men. Although many reports have been done, recommendations in these reports have come from a somewhat subjective process. A proper human rights audit needs to be done to ascertain what is and is not going on in 2010.

An audit should assess harassment, drugs and alcohol, violence, sanitation, graffiti, etc. Once a clear and current picture emerges, policies and procedures can be designed to improve the environment. There is no point in engaging in a huge recruitment process without simultaneously improving the environment.

The union has attempted over and over again to work in conjunction with the employer. That's the way I'm most used to advising people: having an employer and union working together. But it's not to be in this case, because the employer is not cooperating. So we've decided to put together a table of women who work in the union, and the CLC, and me--an expert in human rights--and seriously look at how we can help our women members succeed. We're also pleased to say that Transport Canada has agreed to fund an audit, which I think is the first most critical thing that should take place before we try to change anything else in the workplace.

It's my understanding that the employer, the BCMEA, has now put forward a proposal to place 200 women at the top of the hiring list. This would create a separate class of worker and would have the effect of bumping everyone else 200 spots down the list that determines access to work. I cannot tell you what a disastrous effect this would have. Queue-jumping is not employment equity; it's discrimination. Human rights law does not allow for placing one person by removing another. Further, the women and many men who are seen to take part in this or to support it could be the victims of retaliation.

We know that the committee has already heard testimony that this approach is counterproductive to the retention of new female recruits. One-step efforts do nothing to stop systemic discrimination. The correct tool is an ongoing, continuous process, such as a 50% hiring goal. Such a process would ensure that an equal number of men and women get to the starting gate. In addition, this inadvisable proposal would bump current female employees out of the active workforce.

I'd like to say a couple of extra things, too. I'm sure you all know that the federal jurisdiction is the only one where we have employment equity, period, so there are probably more women in longshore than anywhere else. Certainly in B.C. you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of women in alternate work.

Employment equity has shown itself to be a really good tool in the federal jurisdiction. I have to say that I've never seen a proposal that says we want a 50% equal rate at the start-up. You may remember that the Supreme Court of Canada said, in Action Travail des Femmes, that one in every four women should be selected, up to 17%, I think it was, so this is a huge going away from those very low numbers.

Tom, I'll hand it back to you.

[Tom Dufresne]

Thank you.

With the obvious problems associated with this proposal, why would the employer insist on this type of approach of adding 200 people? We'd say that the BCMEA's solutions would conveniently achieve a goal the employer has had for a long time: to gain control of the dispatch system and to diminish seniority rights. It would seem that the employer is prepared to do anything to achieve this goal, even at the risk of perpetuating gender inequality on the waterfront.

So what are the answers? What does the ILWU propose to overcome the barriers that are keeping women from working on the waterfront and staying there once they join our workforce? Let me give you a sense of what the ILWU has been doing.

We are working actively with Susan and the B.C. Human Rights Coalition to address issues raised in a report commissioned by the largest ILWU local, Local 500 at the Port of Vancouver, to try to get to the bottom of gender discrimination on the waterfront. During the current round of bargaining, we've also tabled proposals to address the absence of maternity, child care, and eldercare benefits, and access to benefits for new workers.

There has been a public outcry, and justifiably so, about barriers that prevent women from working on the waterfront. These issues will be addressed much more quickly if we're allowed to bargain solutions at the negotiation table.

Concerning recruitment on a local-by-local basis, our workplaces are vastly different from one another; I already went through this. In recognition of these differences, we have proposed to collaborate with the BCMEA on a local-by-local basis to search for the best way to bring more people into the workplace and more women into the workplace.

For our part, we can see immediately recruiting at least as many women into the workplace as the BCMEA's proposal for 200. Our approach would respect the seniority rights of our current employees and the goal of fifty-fifty hiring. Unfortunately, the BCMEA's agenda is such that they rejected this approach out of hand.

On raising employment standards for women in the workforce, we also have put forward a proposal. Approximately 1,000 women are working in administrative jobs in the offices of the BCMEA's member companies, jobs that have low wages and few benefits. The ILWU has made it a priority to organize these women into the union membership in order to raise their wages and working conditions. We pledge to do that.

The union has also spent a vast sum of money in arbitration to try to protect the work of some our sisters out on the waterfront. Currently one of those cases has run the union a cost of almost $1 million. I'd just like to say that the employer has fought us at every turn on that arbitration to try to set that aside.

I'll give the last word to Sister Byers from the CLC.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry, but you've gone 1 minute and 43 seconds over. We're going to have to have Ms. Byers plug in--

[Barbara Byers, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress]

I know how to get back in on this with questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

She knows how to plug in when the questions and answers come up. She's an old hand at this.

Now we will turn to the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association. I notice that Mr. Smith isn't here today.

[Greg Vurdela, Vice-President, Marketing and Information Systems, British Columbia Maritime Employers Association]

I apologize, Madam Chairperson. Mr. Smith has been taken ill and was unable to make the flight out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's a pity. We wish him a speedy recovery.

We have Greg Vurdela and Eleanor Marynuik.

You know the rules. You have 10 minutes to split. Go ahead.

[Greg Vurdela]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

Again, I apologize for Mr. Smith's absence. He is ill and unable to make it today. Ms. Marynuik and I will continue on behalf of the BCMEA.

I am the vice-president of marketing and information services for the BCMEA. I've been involved with the waterfront for 33-plus years, so I certainly am familiar with how the waterfront works, inside and out.

I'll tell you a little bit about the BCMEA. We represent some 66 member companies, about half of which are direct employers of ILWU longshore labour in the Asia-Pacific gateway. When I say Asia-Pacific gateway, I mean from Prince Rupert south to the Fraser River, including Vancouver Island.

As for our customer member profiles, we have in our membership stevedoring companies, container, bulk, break-bulk, and cruise ship terminal operators, and global shipping companies and their local vessel husbandry agencies. Our members call at and/or operate just about all of the terminal facilities in the Asia-Pacific gateway.

BCMEA represents its customer members in the functional areas of collective agreement negotiations--we're just in the process of negotiating a new agreement with the ILWU--labour relations and human resources facilitation, government advocacy, recruitment, occupational training, safety training, and dispatch of the ILWU workforce labour pool.

That's a little bit about us. I'm now going to turn the presentation over to Eleanor Marynuik, our vice-president of human resources. What Eleanor will do for you this afternoon is give you some personal insight with respect to her experiences as a woman on the waterfront.

[Eleanor Marynuik, Vice-President, Human Resources, British Columbia Maritime Employers Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm pleased to be here at the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

I was trying to think of what to say in the seven or eight minutes I have before you and decided that the best use of my time would be to illustrate or set the scene of the oppressive atmosphere on the waterfront.

Imagine, if you will, driving to a dispatch hall, a hall located on the fringe of one of the most depressed areas in Canada, an area noted for poverty, drug use, the sex trade, and crime. As a matter of fact, this is called Canada's poorest postal code. This is where you come day after day in the hopes of getting work--not to actually get work, but just for the chance that you will go to work.

Now, imagine yourself arriving at the dispatch hall, hoping first of all to get a parking spot in the lot, because if you don't, you have no choice but to park in the neighbourhood and walk to the hall. Imagine walking through the parking lot to get to your side of the hall to register yourself for work. As you're walking, you see a number of men congregating outside the hall prior to dispatch. This is where they congregate because this is their social network. For a woman, this is intimidating, not so much for what is said to you as you walk by, but for what is not said; it's the staring and the conversations that stop as you walk by.

You quickly walk through the hall by entering a separate entrance to register your availability for work. Casual workers are on one side and union workers are on the other. The two don't meet. You are again greeted with even more men waiting to be dispatched; it's a sea of men. You look around hoping to find other female workers to gravitate towards until dispatch is completed--safety in numbers. When the dispatch is completed and you didn't make a job for this shift, back you go through the parking lot again, with the intimidating behaviour of stares, and down the street to your car.

Imagine this scenario with the added complication of others in your family that you've had to make arrangements for while you leave the house in the hopes of getting work. Again, it's not that you're leaving the house to actually go to work; it's just for the chance that you will go to work that day.

So now a decision has to be made. Do you call it a day or come back again in the afternoon and start the process all over again? However, if you live in Vancouver--40 minutes one-way in the suburbs of Vancouver, which most people do--the decision is easy. On busy days in Vancouver, up to 1,000 workers a day congregate at the hall during three different dispatch times with the hopes of being dispatched for work.

Why, in this day and age of computerization, would anyone have to come to a hall in the hopes of getting work? Why can't a woman or anyone with family responsibilities be able to log in on a computer and register for work? This 50-year-old dispatch system, where one must be physically present in order to make oneself available for work, is just one of the barriers that impedes women from entering the longshore workforce.

Two years ago, under Andy Smith's regime, I was brought in as a labour practitioner and was appalled with what I saw on the waterfront. I can honestly say that with the labour practices that were in existence and the way women were treated, I felt that I was transported back in time to the 1960s. I knew it didn't have to be this way.

I have a background of 31 years in the airline industry. Three of those years were spent as the manager of ramp operations. In 1995 I was the first woman in the industry to be appointed to this position. I managed 13 supervisors and 750 station attendants who belonged to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the majority of whom were men. They were aircraft mechanics, station attendants, clerical workers, and aircraft cleaners.

Ramp operations are very similar to the longshore industry. It is physical work, loading and unloading cargo, either by hand or by using machinery. We had a number of women station attendants who were afforded the same opportunities as men in the areas of training, work assignments, and promotions. It was a transparent process. The women were not marginalized in the workplace, such as the ILWU does today.

Don't get me wrong--we did have our issues, but we worked through them. The biggest difference was the union's willingness to deal with these issues. They didn't bury their heads in the sand and pretend issues were not real, as it is with the ILWU.

As an example, with the influx of women, the union was not opposed to harassment training sessions. They felt it necessary to educate not only men, but also women, on harassment.

I bring forward my experience only to draw the parallel between two male-dominated industries and how different they are, different as to how women are treated and how unions behave towards women.

As a labour relations practitioner at the BCMEA, I personally have walked numerous times through that parking lot at dispatch times. I have felt that same intimidating behaviour that our longshorewomen experience and have questioned why this is happening.

I have heard first-hand the fear, hopelessness, and frustration of existing longshorewomen. Shortly after I joined the BCMEA, a longshorewoman contacted me by phone. She had no one else to turn to and said that because she wasn't one of the old boys on the waterfront, her issues were not important and they were not dealt with by the union.

I saw first-hand the fear she experienced of being caught talking to me. She was so fearful, in fact, that we met in a park. She was constantly looking over her shoulder, fearful that a union member would see her with me and report her to the union. I heard all about the harassment and retaliation if these issues were to be brought forward. After a few meetings with her, I became very aware of how the waterfront had desensitized her.

Today she is no longer a longshore person. I can think of no greater travesty than a woman having to quit an industry over harassing and intimidating behaviour that is condoned by the union. I say “condoned” because they do nothing to prevent it.

We can no longer tolerate the sins of the past in the area of recruitment, a practice that is not transparent and fraught with nepotism. As an example, on the list Mr. Dufresne speaks about, in Vancouver, 411 out of 758 are relatives of members who are currently longshore, and only 41 of them are women. Now, Mr. Dufresne has said they wanted these lists exhausted prior to doing a fifty-fifty hiring. It's very difficult: we will not get to employment equity if we follow these lists.

Training is another area controlled by the union, with our antiquated dispatch practices that require one to be physically present in order to make oneself available for work and systemic sex discrimination experienced by women on the waterfront. To perpetuate this history would be the second greatest travesty in this industry.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you. That was very good and under time.

Now I will open it up to the very first round of questions and answers. Each questioner has seven minutes, but that includes the answers. I just wanted to let you know that if you want to get in enough questions and answers, try to be as succinct as you possibly can.

We will begin with the Liberals and Michelle Simson.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to all of you for appearing before the committee this afternoon.

I confess to not knowing that much about what's involved in becoming a longshore person or longshorewoman.

Mr. Dufresne, could you take me through the education, training process, length of apprenticeship, and what's involved in actually getting there?

[Tom Dufresne]

That would depend on the area you're in.

For instance, the union local in Prince Rupert, which is the recently developed port up there--there's been quite an expansion--went through a recent hiring process. They put ads in the local newspapers, the various community newspapers, for that, and I think also in the Sun and the Province.

They also put out a notice to people who had been registered in the past, telling them to come in and reactivate their numbers. They got those lists of names and submitted the lists to the BCMEA to let them know what names were on the list. Then they brought them in.

There's a training program that consists of a number of different tests. It's called the general waterfront safety training program, and there are parts I and II. You have to go through those processes in order to get registered.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

How long would that course take?

[Tom Dufresne]

It depends. Some of the courses are for one day and some of them are for a week.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Oh. So it's not a long-term process.

[Tom Dufresne]

No.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

From what I've heard this afternoon, it appears there is a problem with respect to changing the union's attitude in terms of women. I also understand that there was a report that outlined the harsh environment for women in the ports and recommendations were put forward to try to correct it.

Do any of the witnesses know if the recommendations in the report were implemented? Were any? Were all of them?

[Tom Dufresne]

Some of the recommendations in the report were implemented. Others are still on an ongoing basis.

Do you want me to go through them seriatim or just in general?

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Just in general.