Employers call it "insulting", unions say it doesn't go far enough
Ontario’s government has introduced legislation that it said will restore greater fairness and balance to labour relations in the province.
“Since 1990, Ontario’s labour laws have swung unfairly in favour of one side the other,” said Bentley, referring to the see-saw when the province elected a left-wing NDP government at the beginning of the decade that introduced labour-friendly laws and then replaced it with a right-wing Progressive Conservative in the mid-1990s that introduced employer-friendly legislation.
“We intend to restore the balance, giving all Ontarians equal confidence in our laws,” said Bentley. “This would promote the harmony and stability in the workplace that are vital for a prosperous and productive economy.”
What the legislation means
According to the Ontario government the Labour Relations Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004, would:
•Eliminate measures that promote an unhealthy working relationship among employers and employees in Ontario. For example, employers would no longer be required to post decertification information in all unionized workplaces, and unions would not have to disclose the name, salary and benefits of all directors, officers and employees earning $100,000 or more a year.
•Restore to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) the power to remedy the worst labour relations conduct by either side during an organizing drive. For example, the OLRB would be able — as a last resort — to grant union certification where an employer violates labour laws, or dismiss a certification application when a union violates the law.
•Re-establish a card-based certification system for the construction sector in addition to the existing vote system. Currently, a vote must always be held before a union can be certified. The card-based system would permit automatic union certification if more than 55 per cent of employees sign cards to join a union.
•Prevent consecutive strikes from paralyzing the homebuilding industry, as happened in 1998. The act would make permanent the special bargaining and dispute resolution regime for residential construction in the Toronto area in place since 2001.
“Our proposals are designed to achieve choice, fairness and balance in Ontario’s labour relations,” said Bentley. “By giving all players confidence in the system, it will create the stability necessary to ensure the ongoing prosperity of the province.”
“Insulting to employers”
Unions and employer groups have come out against the changes — one side claiming the legislation goes too far and the other saying it didn’t go nearly far enough.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), a group representing more than 42,000 small- and medium-sized businesses in Ontario, said it was strongly opposed to what the province was planning.
“This government is prepared to strip Ontario workers of their democratic rights in order to pander to its union friends,” said Judith Andrew, CFIB vice-president for Ontario. “It’s insulting to employers and penalizes workers who might not want to join a union. Pretending the goal of this legislation is ensuring fairness and choice in Ontario’s workplaces would be laughable if the consequences weren’t so serious.”
Andrew said Bentley’s statement shows deliberate deception and hypocrisy.
“To pretend this attack on the rights of individual workers will promote labour fairness and stability is crass misrepresentation,” she said.
The move to restore penalty certification and take away the secret ballot vote in the construction sector is seriously disturbing, she said.
“Secret ballots are a cornerstone of our democratic tradition in Ontario and in Canada,” said Andrew. “Secret ballots in the labour relations setting allow employees to make their decision to support or oppose the union free from an coercion from employers, union organizers or peers.”
Joyce Reynolds, senior vice-president, government affairs at the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, also came down hard on the legislation.
“This proposal will hurt small business and employment by discouraging investment,” said Reynolds. “We are particularly concerned about the absence of a democratic process under the proposed legislation. Government appointees will be able to unionize a business regardless of the outcome of a secret ballot vote and without the support of a majority of the workers.”
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) said the changes proposed by the government ignore the unfair discrimination experienced by workers in several areas.
“Mr. Bentley says he wants to ensure fairness in Ontario workplaces, and we are all for that,” said OPSEU president Leah Casselman. “But where is the fairness for part-time college employees, who are still barred from unionization? Where is the fairness for Crown employees, who are the only Ontario workers who don’t have successor rights, and thereby lose their collective agreements and their unions when their jobs are privatized or downloaded?”
She also called on the ruling Liberals to extend card-based certification, which was outlawed under the former Progressive Conservative government, beyond just the construction sector.
“The purpose of card-based certification is to limit employer intimidation and interference during union organizing drives,” said Casselman. “It’s a good idea. But where is the fairness in extending this only to workers in the construction industry?”
OPSEU also objected to the government lack of action on scabs.
“Mr. Bentley says his government, as an employer, will not use scabs,” she said. “Yet he refuses to limit the use of scabs at hundreds of transfer payment agencies that his government directly funds. If he believes the use of scabs is bad for government, then why isn’t it bad for agencies the government funds?”
Government backgrounder
Below is the text of a backgrounder put out by Ontario’s Ministry of Labour:
The McGuinty government is seeking to promote workplace stability by introducing legislation that would restore greater fairness and balance to labour relations in Ontario. For more than a decade, changes to the Labour Relations Act have variously favoured either labour or employers, creating the conditions for instability, unrest, reduced confidence and confrontation while contributing little to Ontario's economic well-being.
Fair and balanced labour relations rules are necessary for long-term productivity and prosperity. This has been Ontario's historical approach. The proposed Labour Relations Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004, if passed, would restore balance by repealing unnecessary and provocative measures such as the requirement that unionized businesses post information on union decertification and that unions disclose salaries. It would also return powers to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) so it can more effectively redress serious violations of the Labour Relations Act.
Need for reform
Ontario's prosperity depends on a balanced approach to labour relations. The labour relations system went through a number of major changes, which contributed to confusion, mistrust, uncertainty and instability. These sweeping changes were controversial and criticized as being one-sided.
The labour relations system is meant to provide neutral rules to facilitate and regulate employer-union relations during the certification and collective bargaining processes and throughout the term of the collective agreement. A perceived lack of balance undermines confidence in the system, leads to more protracted negotiations, and contributes to workplace unrest. This results in lower productivity and creates a negative impact on Ontario's economy.
If passed by the legislature, the proposed legislation would foster the labour relations balance necessary for increased productivity and prosperity in Ontario.
Union decertification poster
The legislation would repeal the Labour Relations Act, 1995, requirement that unionized businesses post information outlining the procedures for union decertification and make it available to workers on request.
This provocative requirement was one-sided because no equivalent requirement to post certification information in non-union workplaces was put in place.
Employees will continue to have reasonable access to union certification or decertification information. Individuals can already obtain information about these processes from the OLRB website and by phone.
Union salary disclosure
The legislation would repeal the requirement for unions and other labour organizations to disclose the names and remuneration of all directors, officers and employees earning $100,000 or more in salary and taxable benefits per year.
This provision is one-sided, as no equivalent requirement exists for companies to disclose all similar information for management. It is widely perceived as a deliberate attempt to undermine relationships between unions and their members.
The Labour Relations Act, 1995, already requires unions to provide a copy of an audited financial statement for the previous fiscal year to any member requesting it. Also, unions that administer vacation pay, health or pension funds for union members must file an annual financial statement with the Minister of Labour that discloses salaries, fees, and commissions charged to the fund. A member may request a copy of the statement from the administrator of the fund.
Union salary disclosure rules should not be confused with the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1996, which requires disclosure of salaries and taxable benefits paid to public servants earning $100,000 or more in salaries and benefits a year.
Restoring powers to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB)
The legislation would restore the OLRB's long-standing power to certify a union where an employer breaches labour relations legislation during a union organizing campaign. This power would be narrow and focused. It would be used for the worst breaches where no other remedy would be sufficient.
At the same time the legislation would restore the OLRB's power to dismiss an application for certification where a union violates the Labour Relations Act, 1995, during an organizing campaign. Again, it would be reserved for the worst breaches where no other remedy is sufficient as determined by the OLRB.
The restoration of these powers would assure balance and fairness in labour relations while building confidence in the labour relations system.
As well, subject to certain statutory conditions, the Labour Relations Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004, would restore the OLRB's power to reinstate workers on an interim basis who were fired or disciplined during a union organizing campaign because of their efforts to organize.
Dismissal during an organizing campaign can have an immediate, negative effect on workers trying to make a decision about whether to seek union representation. Restoring the power to order reinstatement would enable the OLRB to respond to any potential harm caused by a dismissal in a timely way, thus helping to ensure the workers can exercise a free choice regarding union representation pending a final decision.
Employers would still be able to dismiss or discipline employees for misconduct that occurs during this period, provided that the dismissal or disciplinary action is not related to the organizing campaign.
Amendments to the Ambulance Services Collective Bargaining Act, 2001
The Labour Relations Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004, would also amend the Ambulance Services Collective Bargaining Act, 2001 as it relates to the Minister of Labour's power in appointing interest arbitrators (arbitrators who deal with the creation of a collective agreement). The Ambulance Services Collective Bargaining Act, 2001, introduced by the previous government, allows the minister to appoint an interest arbitrator in the ambulance services sector without taking into consideration the person's experience or knowledge.
Under the proposed Labour Relations Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004, the minister would only be able to appoint arbitrators who are "in the opinion of the minister, qualified to act." This legislation would help to ensure that the appointment process is, and is seen to be, fair, and that appropriate, neutral arbitrators would be selected by the minister.
Minimizing residential home construction disruptions
If passed, the legislation would make permanent the existing special bargaining and dispute resolution regime for the residential construction sector in the City of Toronto, the regional municipalities of Halton, Peel, York, Durham, and Simcoe County. The special bargaining regime in Toronto and the surrounding area has been in place since 2001 to prevent consecutive strikes from paralyzing the residential construction industry as happened in 1998.
The regime would require Toronto and surrounding area residential construction sector collective agreements to expire on April 30, 2007 and every third year thereafter. There would be a 46-day window from May 1 to June 15 for strikes and lockouts to occur. After that, the right to strike or lock out would end, but either party could access arbitration to conclude a collective agreement.
Special certification rules to recognize the uniqueness of the construction sector
The legislation, if passed, would re-establish a card-based certification system for the construction sector. From 1950 to 1995, a certification system based on membership cards submitted by the union was the norm. As an alternative to holding a vote, automatic certification could take place if a union signed up more than 55 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit. Given the emphasis on project work and the mobile nature of the workforce in the construction sector, re-introducing such a system here promotes individual choice, fairness and balance.
“Since 1990, Ontario’s labour laws have swung unfairly in favour of one side the other,” said Bentley, referring to the see-saw when the province elected a left-wing NDP government at the beginning of the decade that introduced labour-friendly laws and then replaced it with a right-wing Progressive Conservative in the mid-1990s that introduced employer-friendly legislation.
“We intend to restore the balance, giving all Ontarians equal confidence in our laws,” said Bentley. “This would promote the harmony and stability in the workplace that are vital for a prosperous and productive economy.”
What the legislation means
According to the Ontario government the Labour Relations Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004, would:
•Eliminate measures that promote an unhealthy working relationship among employers and employees in Ontario. For example, employers would no longer be required to post decertification information in all unionized workplaces, and unions would not have to disclose the name, salary and benefits of all directors, officers and employees earning $100,000 or more a year.
•Restore to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) the power to remedy the worst labour relations conduct by either side during an organizing drive. For example, the OLRB would be able — as a last resort — to grant union certification where an employer violates labour laws, or dismiss a certification application when a union violates the law.
•Re-establish a card-based certification system for the construction sector in addition to the existing vote system. Currently, a vote must always be held before a union can be certified. The card-based system would permit automatic union certification if more than 55 per cent of employees sign cards to join a union.
•Prevent consecutive strikes from paralyzing the homebuilding industry, as happened in 1998. The act would make permanent the special bargaining and dispute resolution regime for residential construction in the Toronto area in place since 2001.
“Our proposals are designed to achieve choice, fairness and balance in Ontario’s labour relations,” said Bentley. “By giving all players confidence in the system, it will create the stability necessary to ensure the ongoing prosperity of the province.”
“Insulting to employers”
Unions and employer groups have come out against the changes — one side claiming the legislation goes too far and the other saying it didn’t go nearly far enough.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), a group representing more than 42,000 small- and medium-sized businesses in Ontario, said it was strongly opposed to what the province was planning.
“This government is prepared to strip Ontario workers of their democratic rights in order to pander to its union friends,” said Judith Andrew, CFIB vice-president for Ontario. “It’s insulting to employers and penalizes workers who might not want to join a union. Pretending the goal of this legislation is ensuring fairness and choice in Ontario’s workplaces would be laughable if the consequences weren’t so serious.”
Andrew said Bentley’s statement shows deliberate deception and hypocrisy.
“To pretend this attack on the rights of individual workers will promote labour fairness and stability is crass misrepresentation,” she said.
The move to restore penalty certification and take away the secret ballot vote in the construction sector is seriously disturbing, she said.
“Secret ballots are a cornerstone of our democratic tradition in Ontario and in Canada,” said Andrew. “Secret ballots in the labour relations setting allow employees to make their decision to support or oppose the union free from an coercion from employers, union organizers or peers.”
Joyce Reynolds, senior vice-president, government affairs at the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, also came down hard on the legislation.
“This proposal will hurt small business and employment by discouraging investment,” said Reynolds. “We are particularly concerned about the absence of a democratic process under the proposed legislation. Government appointees will be able to unionize a business regardless of the outcome of a secret ballot vote and without the support of a majority of the workers.”
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) said the changes proposed by the government ignore the unfair discrimination experienced by workers in several areas.
“Mr. Bentley says he wants to ensure fairness in Ontario workplaces, and we are all for that,” said OPSEU president Leah Casselman. “But where is the fairness for part-time college employees, who are still barred from unionization? Where is the fairness for Crown employees, who are the only Ontario workers who don’t have successor rights, and thereby lose their collective agreements and their unions when their jobs are privatized or downloaded?”
She also called on the ruling Liberals to extend card-based certification, which was outlawed under the former Progressive Conservative government, beyond just the construction sector.
“The purpose of card-based certification is to limit employer intimidation and interference during union organizing drives,” said Casselman. “It’s a good idea. But where is the fairness in extending this only to workers in the construction industry?”
OPSEU also objected to the government lack of action on scabs.
“Mr. Bentley says his government, as an employer, will not use scabs,” she said. “Yet he refuses to limit the use of scabs at hundreds of transfer payment agencies that his government directly funds. If he believes the use of scabs is bad for government, then why isn’t it bad for agencies the government funds?”
Government backgrounder
Below is the text of a backgrounder put out by Ontario’s Ministry of Labour:
The McGuinty government is seeking to promote workplace stability by introducing legislation that would restore greater fairness and balance to labour relations in Ontario. For more than a decade, changes to the Labour Relations Act have variously favoured either labour or employers, creating the conditions for instability, unrest, reduced confidence and confrontation while contributing little to Ontario's economic well-being.
Fair and balanced labour relations rules are necessary for long-term productivity and prosperity. This has been Ontario's historical approach. The proposed Labour Relations Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004, if passed, would restore balance by repealing unnecessary and provocative measures such as the requirement that unionized businesses post information on union decertification and that unions disclose salaries. It would also return powers to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) so it can more effectively redress serious violations of the Labour Relations Act.
Need for reform
Ontario's prosperity depends on a balanced approach to labour relations. The labour relations system went through a number of major changes, which contributed to confusion, mistrust, uncertainty and instability. These sweeping changes were controversial and criticized as being one-sided.
The labour relations system is meant to provide neutral rules to facilitate and regulate employer-union relations during the certification and collective bargaining processes and throughout the term of the collective agreement. A perceived lack of balance undermines confidence in the system, leads to more protracted negotiations, and contributes to workplace unrest. This results in lower productivity and creates a negative impact on Ontario's economy.
If passed by the legislature, the proposed legislation would foster the labour relations balance necessary for increased productivity and prosperity in Ontario.
Union decertification poster
The legislation would repeal the Labour Relations Act, 1995, requirement that unionized businesses post information outlining the procedures for union decertification and make it available to workers on request.
This provocative requirement was one-sided because no equivalent requirement to post certification information in non-union workplaces was put in place.
Employees will continue to have reasonable access to union certification or decertification information. Individuals can already obtain information about these processes from the OLRB website and by phone.
Union salary disclosure
The legislation would repeal the requirement for unions and other labour organizations to disclose the names and remuneration of all directors, officers and employees earning $100,000 or more in salary and taxable benefits per year.
This provision is one-sided, as no equivalent requirement exists for companies to disclose all similar information for management. It is widely perceived as a deliberate attempt to undermine relationships between unions and their members.
The Labour Relations Act, 1995, already requires unions to provide a copy of an audited financial statement for the previous fiscal year to any member requesting it. Also, unions that administer vacation pay, health or pension funds for union members must file an annual financial statement with the Minister of Labour that discloses salaries, fees, and commissions charged to the fund. A member may request a copy of the statement from the administrator of the fund.
Union salary disclosure rules should not be confused with the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1996, which requires disclosure of salaries and taxable benefits paid to public servants earning $100,000 or more in salaries and benefits a year.
Restoring powers to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB)
The legislation would restore the OLRB's long-standing power to certify a union where an employer breaches labour relations legislation during a union organizing campaign. This power would be narrow and focused. It would be used for the worst breaches where no other remedy would be sufficient.
At the same time the legislation would restore the OLRB's power to dismiss an application for certification where a union violates the Labour Relations Act, 1995, during an organizing campaign. Again, it would be reserved for the worst breaches where no other remedy is sufficient as determined by the OLRB.
The restoration of these powers would assure balance and fairness in labour relations while building confidence in the labour relations system.
As well, subject to certain statutory conditions, the Labour Relations Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004, would restore the OLRB's power to reinstate workers on an interim basis who were fired or disciplined during a union organizing campaign because of their efforts to organize.
Dismissal during an organizing campaign can have an immediate, negative effect on workers trying to make a decision about whether to seek union representation. Restoring the power to order reinstatement would enable the OLRB to respond to any potential harm caused by a dismissal in a timely way, thus helping to ensure the workers can exercise a free choice regarding union representation pending a final decision.
Employers would still be able to dismiss or discipline employees for misconduct that occurs during this period, provided that the dismissal or disciplinary action is not related to the organizing campaign.
Amendments to the Ambulance Services Collective Bargaining Act, 2001
The Labour Relations Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004, would also amend the Ambulance Services Collective Bargaining Act, 2001 as it relates to the Minister of Labour's power in appointing interest arbitrators (arbitrators who deal with the creation of a collective agreement). The Ambulance Services Collective Bargaining Act, 2001, introduced by the previous government, allows the minister to appoint an interest arbitrator in the ambulance services sector without taking into consideration the person's experience or knowledge.
Under the proposed Labour Relations Statute Law Amendment Act, 2004, the minister would only be able to appoint arbitrators who are "in the opinion of the minister, qualified to act." This legislation would help to ensure that the appointment process is, and is seen to be, fair, and that appropriate, neutral arbitrators would be selected by the minister.
Minimizing residential home construction disruptions
If passed, the legislation would make permanent the existing special bargaining and dispute resolution regime for the residential construction sector in the City of Toronto, the regional municipalities of Halton, Peel, York, Durham, and Simcoe County. The special bargaining regime in Toronto and the surrounding area has been in place since 2001 to prevent consecutive strikes from paralyzing the residential construction industry as happened in 1998.
The regime would require Toronto and surrounding area residential construction sector collective agreements to expire on April 30, 2007 and every third year thereafter. There would be a 46-day window from May 1 to June 15 for strikes and lockouts to occur. After that, the right to strike or lock out would end, but either party could access arbitration to conclude a collective agreement.
Special certification rules to recognize the uniqueness of the construction sector
The legislation, if passed, would re-establish a card-based certification system for the construction sector. From 1950 to 1995, a certification system based on membership cards submitted by the union was the norm. As an alternative to holding a vote, automatic certification could take place if a union signed up more than 55 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit. Given the emphasis on project work and the mobile nature of the workforce in the construction sector, re-introducing such a system here promotes individual choice, fairness and balance.
