Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on Bill C-313 which is an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of operations at ADM Agri-Industries Ltd.
In short, the bill uses final offer selection as a dispute settlement mechanism. It would empower the minister to appoint an arbitrator to select the final offer submitted either by the employer or the union. In effect, the bill calls upon the federal government to impose a settlement process on the two parties.
On the face of it, the proposal sounds reasonable. However, I am a firm believer in the free collective bargaining process and the long term interest of collective bargaining would not be served otherwise. Having said that, I want to express to the member for Verdun-Saint-Paul that I share his concerns about the dispute.
On June 6, less than a month from now, the strike will be a year old. Surely in today's highly competitive economic environment it is reasonable to expect the parties to a labour management dispute to reconcile their differences in far less time.
It is noteworthy that one of the parties, the employer, is owned by Archer Daniels Midland, a very large U.S. based transnational corporation. To be frank, I wonder how aware the employer is that the industrial relations culture in this country is different from the industrial relations culture that exists south of the border.
Without overstating the differences between the two countries, I think it is fair to say that generally, employers and managers in this country possess a greater willingness and ability to work with labour unions. They tend to avoid the kind of power bargaining that seems to predominate in the U.S.
Dr. Pradeep Kumar, associate director of the Industrial Relations Centre at Queens University, pointed out in his study of industrial relations in Canada and the United States that: "While U.S. employers have become increasingly hostile to unions, practising a wide range of union substitution and union avoidance activities in pursuit of lower cost and greater flexibility in compensation and work arrangements, Canadian managers appear to have shown greater willingness to work together with unions to facilitate adjustment and adaptation to changing markets and technology. The growing U.S. trend toward a union free environment is less evident in Canada".
Dr. Kumar goes on to say: "Unlike U.S. employers who have vigorously demanded concessions and forced unions into submission using their enhanced bargaining strength, Canadian managers, while jealously guarding their right to manage the workplace free of influence of organized labour whenever feasible, have been more accommodating and receptive to union goals and objectives and have attempted to find consensus on areas of mutual concern".
Also, I think Canadian unions rely more and place a higher value on the collective bargaining process. They certainly enjoy greater public support as evidenced by the fact that the percentage of unionized workers in the U.S. is about half of what it is in Canada.
Professor Kumar and others have also noted that Canadian labour legislation differs markedly from U.S. legislation in many respects.
For example, Canadian collective bargaining legislation provides a relatively simple procedure by which trade unions can acquire collective bargaining rights. In most Canadian jurisdictions a union can be certified without a vote upon evidence that 51 to 60 per cent of employees in the bargaining unit wish to be represented by the union. In the U.S. all applications for certification are contested, requiring a vote to establish that a union represent a majority of employees.
No Canadian jurisdiction has right to work laws, but 21 states in the United States of America have such legislation. Canadian labour legislation permits all forms of union security, closed shop as well as union shop. Dues check off is a common provision.
Most Canadian jurisdictions have successor right provisions, providing that where a business is sold the successor employer acquires all the rights, privileges and obligations of the predecessor. The successor is bound by any collective agreement in force. In the U.S. the effective change in ownership on the union and the collective agreement is uncertain, depending on various factors.
A number of Canadian jurisdictions provide for advance notice and consultation on technological change. This provision is not found in the U.S. legislation.
First contract arbitration is available in the federal jurisdiction, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. There is no such provision in the United States.
The use of replacement workers during a strike is prohibited in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. In the U.S. if em-
ployees choose to go on strike, their employer can immediately and permanently replace them.
As Paul Weiler, professor of labour law at Harvard University put it: "For employees who may have spent 20 years with the company building up a stake of experience and seniority that can rarely be duplicated elsewhere, the stark reality is that if they do go on strike, they can be replaced by the company with people who in less than 20 minutes on the job gain permanent priority over the striking veterans".
Labour standards and occupational safety and health legislation in the United States is also very different from such legislation here in Canada. For example, U.S. legislation, unlike Canadian legislation, does not require the establishment of a joint health and safety committee, nor does it contain a right to refuse unsafe work. The right to refuse unsafe work by health and safety committees exists in every single jurisdiction in Canada.
While all Canadian jurisdictions have mandatory maternity and paternity leave provisions, with the right to return to former jobs and the continuation of benefits, very few jurisdictions in the United States require employers to provide pregnancy leave.
There are no individual standards for notice of termination or any severance pay legislation in the United States. In Canada, on the other hand, all jurisdictions require an employer to give notification to an individual being terminated, and Ontario and the federal jurisdiction provide for mandatory severance pay.
In Canada most jurisdictions require advance notice of plant closures involving 50 or more workers. Recent U.S. law sets minimum notice requirements for plant closures and mass lay-offs by employers of more than 100 employees, but there is no provision for consultation with the unions similar to that found in many Canadian jurisdictions.
My point is to show that the industrial relations climate or culture in Canada differs in significant ways from that in the United States.
In the dispute we are talking about today we have a relatively new employer, perhaps used to another way of doing things and having attitudes and assumptions not yet aligned with the Canadian attitudes and assumptions, and perhaps too ready to adopt a hard bargaining strategy. In this dispute the employer has chosen to use replacement workers, a decision which, not surprisingly, has greatly angered the workers. In their view, the use of replacement workers is the reason the dispute has lasted so long.
As members of the House know, the federal government has been examining the Canada Labour Code very intensively. It has been consulting with representatives from business, labour, and other interested parties. One of the issues being studied is whether the federal government ought to follow the examples set by Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia in their legislation to prohibit or restrict the use of replacement workers. Those who favour restrictions on the use of replacements argue that when an employer continues to operate during a strike the collective bargaining process is frustrated and the employer's incentive to negotiate is removed, work stoppages are lengthened, and picket line violence is often inevitable.
It is also argued that the use of replacements serves as a disincentive for employees to join unions. Workers who know they can be replaced easily during a strike will wonder about union effectiveness and will be less likely to opt for unionization.
Those who oppose restrictions on the use of replacement workers say that such a move would tilt the balance of power toward labour, inevitably resulting in higher labour costs. They claim that it would deter new investment. The point is also made that most federally regulated industries are infrastructure industries. If they are completely shut down the entire economy would suffer.
The issue is complex and divisive. The arguments on both sides are persuasive. Also persuasive is the fact that 75 per cent of the workforce under provincial jurisdiction is governed by legislation prohibiting the use of replacement workers.
I will end my remarks by reiterating that I cannot support this bill because I believe firmly in free collective bargaining. The state has no business intervening in what are essentially private disputes.
At the same time, I have concerns about the heavy handed and less than accommodating attitude of the company. Like many others, I whether the impasse would have lasted so long had there been restrictions on the use of replacement workers in the Canada Labour Code.