Mr. Speaker, this group of motions deals with the new requirement for exercising the right to strike or the right to lock out.
Under Bill C-19 the right to strike or lock out will be acquired 21 days after conciliation is completed, subject to the parties meeting new requirements regarding the holding of a secret ballot vote within the previous 60 days and the giving of a 72 hour advance notice of a strike or a lockout.
Motions. Nos. 11 an 12 would delete the reference to the 72 hour notice requirement and the obligation to send a new notice if no strike or lockout occurs at the end of the notice period. The new 72 hour notice provision implements the recommendation of the Sims task force. Its purpose is twofold. It will allow for an orderly shutdown or reduction of operations and resolve the problem of perishable items. It will further focus the parties on serious negotiations and should encourage settlement of disputes.
To those unions which feel that this new requirement will frustrate the right to strike, it is important to point out that Bill C-19 will not require that a new notice be given once a strike or lockout action has commenced, even if it is temporarily suspended. Furthermore, where the other side begins a strike or a lockout action, the 72 hour notice requirement will not apply to the other party.
Some unions, mostly longshore unions, have said that the 72 hour notice requirement will allow an unfair advantage to the shipping companies and agents in the negotiating process as it will remove the prospect of ships being held captive during a port work stoppage. This position is echoed by the Bloc Quebecois.
The major economic impact of a port work stoppage is that the port is closed and the fixed capital remains idle. Surely such a major impact on important investments is a significant pressure point and a reasonable offset for the loss of income employees must incur during a work stoppage.
While the code recognizes a union's right to exercise economic pressure on the employer engaged in a labour dispute, and the strike is one of the economic sanctions that can be used, it is only reasonable that both parties have time to prepare for its use.
We believe that in the small number of cases under the code where the parties do resort to work stoppage action that the 72 hour notice requirement will ensure an orderly shutdown or reduction of operations. Who knows? There may even be a last successful effort at settlement.
The Bloc Quebecois has put forward five motions relating to the strike and lockout vote requirement. These include the removal of the requirement that the strike or lockout vote be held within the previous 60 days, the removal of the entire section 87.3 dealing with strike and lockout votes, the removal of the rules governing the conduct of the vote requirement, the removal of the procedure to contest irregularities, and the removal of the board's authority to summarily dismiss an unjustified challenge of votes and to order that a new vote be held.
It is important to stress that with the exception of the current Canada Labour Code secret ballot strike votes are mandatory in all Canadian jurisdictions including Quebec as a prerequisite for legal strike action.
Although the vast majority of unions subject to the code already hold secret ballot votes before declaring a strike, employees in the bargaining unit who are not union members may be excluded from participating in a major decision which directly affects them.
Strike votes are not always held in a timely fashion. In some cases a strike mandate is acquired early in the bargaining process as a means of demonstrating solid employee support for union demands but may not be a true reflection of support for a work stoppage.
The conditions for a valid vote specified in Bill C-19 reflect the recommendations of the Sims task force. They are similar to provisions found in a number of provincial statutes. They are not onerous.
It is hard to imagine that any democratically held vote would fail to meet these basic requirements. These conditions will simply ensure that such votes are timely, fairly conducted and based on the entire workplace involved in the dispute.
I have difficulty understanding why the Bloc Quebecois objects to a requirement for votes to be held in such a manner as to allow eligible workers a reasonable opportunity to participate in a vote and to be made aware of the results. Surely this is fundamental to the democratic principles which trade unions recognize and practise.
The Bloc Quebecois is also proposing that there be no opportunity for an employee in the bargaining unit to allege irregularities in the conduct of a strike vote. Surely there should be some recourse for employees who allege they have been unfairly denied the opportunity to participate in a strike vote.
Without such a provision the requirements of this section could not be enforced. Concerns have been raised that the 60 day period for holding a strike vote may cause difficulty in some cases, particularly where employees in the bargaining unit are employed across the country or do not work at a specific location. By allowing the 60 day validity period for a strike vote to be extended Bill C-19 addresses these concerns.
The 72 hour notice requirement and the strike and lockout vote provisions in Bill C-19 are fair and democratic. I urge members to support them and to reject the amendments proposed by these motions.
