Mr. Speaker, I see there are several motions with respect to the replacement worker provision in Bill C-19. One motion is seeking to delete the provision while another is seeking to make the provision into a general prohibition on their use.
Bill C-19 implements the majority recommendation of the Sims task force with respect to replacement workers. The task force noted that the one point concerning replacement workers on which both labour and management agreed was that they should not be used by an employer for the purpose of ridding the workplace of union representation.
The task force majority did not recommend a general prohibition on the use of replacement workers. It did recommend that their demonstrated use for the purpose of undermining a union's representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives should be an unfair labour practice.
While maintaining their underlying opposing positions on the replacement worker issue, representatives of both labour and management in the federal sector accepted this approach in the context of the overall package of task force recommendations.
In response to concerns raised during the study of former Bill C-66, that the wording of the provision did not capture the full intent of the task force recommendation, the provision in Bill C-19 was redrafted to include the complete wording of the task force recommendation. The new wording was requested by employer representatives as well as by the Senate standing committee in its report on Bill C-66. The added words make it clear that the union filing the complaint bears the burden of proof and that the use of replacement workers by an employer for the purpose of continuing operations is not prohibited.
With respect of the new wording of the provision, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce told the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of with Persons with Disabilities that the addition of the words “rather than the pursuit of legitimate bargaining objectives” in proposed section 94(2.1) will ensure that any tribunal interpreting this legislation will be guided by the explicit obligation to consider the reason why the employer may have hired strike replacements rather than only the protection of a union's representational rights, as was the case under Bill C-66.
The chair of the federally regulated employers transportation and communications group told the committee: “The language we see in Bill C-19 is reflective of the spirit, intent and content of the Sims report in most of the critical areas”. FETCO legal counsel stated that the drafting concern they had with former Bill C-66, including the replacement worker provision, had been addressed. In my view, given these comments, additional language would be redundant.
Bill C-19 includes a number of other provisions recommended by the task force which will protect the rights of employees who strike or are locked out.
Bill C-19 confirms the right of striking or locked out employees to return to work at the end of a work stoppage in preference to replacements. It gives employees dismissed or disciplined during a work stoppage access to grievance arbitration. It prohibits the submission of an application for certification or revocation during work stoppages without the consent of the board. It says replacement workers are not entitled to participate in representation votes. It recognizes the right of employees on strike or who are locked out to continue to be covered by insurance plans provided they pay the full amount of required contributions.
The Bloc Quebecois has put forward a motion to add a paragraph to proposed section 87(4). This motion would prohibit the use of replacement workers where employees of the bargaining unit continue the activities necessary to prevent immediate and serious danger to the safety or health of the public. I submit this is likely to generate unnecessary litigation.
The proposed amendment sees a somewhat bizarre situation in which an employer seeks not only to have services maintained by bargaining unit employees but to recruit replacements to work alongside of them. Add to this unusual circumstance a trade union ready to negotiate the maintenance of services by its own members and to accept that they will be working with replacements doing bargaining unit work; in all, an eventuality which is, to say the least, very unlikely.
The provisions in Bill C-19 respecting the use of replacement workers represent a fair and reasonable compromise to a difficult issue. I urge members of the House to support the provisions in Bill C-19 without amendment.