[ Page 5787 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Cutback in Vancouver transit services. Mr. Barnes –– 5787

Decline in coal exports. Mr. Barrett –– 5787

Hydro service charges. Mr. Wallace –– 5788

Future energy requirements. Mr. King –– 5788

Decision on Hat Creek coal. Mr. Wallace –– 5789

Vacant government office space. Mr. Barnes –– 5789

Limited access hunting at Muncho Lake. Mr. Nicolson –– 5789

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 89) Committee stage.

On section 1.

Ms. Sanford –– 5790

Mr. Lockstead –– 5792

Mr. Wallace –– 5792

Mr. Macdonald –– 5793

Mr. King –– 5794

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5796

Mr. King –– 5797

Ms. Sanford –– 5800

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5800

Mr. Mussallem –– 5800

Mr. King –– 5801

Mr. Levi –– 5801

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5802

Mr. King –– 5803

Mr. Lloyd –– 5804

Division on Section 1 –– 5804

On section 2.

Ms. Sanford –– 5804

Mr. Macdonald –– 5806

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5808

Mr. King –– 5809

Ms. Sanford –– 5810

Mr. Wallace –– 5811

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5812

Mr. King –– 5812

Ms. Sanford –– 5813

Division on section 2 –– 5813

On section 3.

Ms. Sanford –– 5814

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5814

On section 5.

Ms. Sanford –– 5814

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5815

Mr. King –– 5815

On section 6 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 5815

On section 6 as amended.

Mr. King –– 5816

Mr. Wallace –– 5817

Family Relations Amendment Act, ;1977 (Bill 59) Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading –– 5817

Appendix –– 5818

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers,

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I haven't spotted her yet, but I want to welcome to the galleries Mrs. Marsha Paul from Vancouver East. The Leader of the Opposition had lunch with her, so she's a step ahead of me in that respect, but I'm going to see Marsha at 3 o'clock. I hope everybody welcomes her, Mr. Speaker.

Oral questions.

CUTBACK IN VANCOUVER TRANSIT SERVICES

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Could the minister indicate to the House whether or not he was consulted by B.C. Hydro when it suggested it would be cutting back transit services in the city of Vancouver?

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I would not expect to be consulted inasmuch as the bus operations in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria are solely the responsibility of B.C. Hydro.

MR. BARNES: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the official authority, but in regard to the suggestions by the government - particularly the Attorney-General, who has suggested that drinking drivers would be cracked down upon and that there are some problems respecting people driving and drinking - there has to be some alternative means of transportation. I would think that the minister would be concerned about this move and I'm hoping he will indicate to the House whether or not this is going to be in the best interests of those people who are dependent on transportation. Regardless of whose authority it is, Hydro is still a government corporation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the member direct his question to the minister designated as responsible for British Columbia Hydro in this House. I am aware of his concern, but he's asking the question of the wrong minister.

MR. BARNES: Well taken, Mr. Speaker; he's quite correct. But I don't believe the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications was present in the House at the time - he may have been. Now that he is here, I would address my question to him.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was here.

MR. BARNES: I'm sorry; I didn't see him. Now that he is here, perhaps I could ask him. Would he be so kind as to indicate whether or not he approves of the move being made by Hydro to cut off two hours or so of transportation on the Owl service in the city of Vancouver?

HON J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I have already made inquiries as to the extent of the cutback and I'll be in touch with the hon. member as to further pursuit of that matter.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to welcome the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) back to the House today.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) ?

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Finance is back too. It's good to see you.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Was he away?

MR. BARRETT: Even when he's here, it's hard to determine that he is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DECLINE IN COAL EXPORTS

MR. BARRETT: He doesn't answer questions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Economic Development about a statement issued by the British Columbia Employers Council about coal exports. They are stating that coal exports have declined by 8.4 per cent in value during the first half of 1977, compared to the same period in 1976. Does the minister agree with that figure or is this the figure that his ministry is using in public?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

MR. BARRETT: Along with that then, through you, Mr. Speaker, could the minister... ?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: A supplementary.

MR. SPEAKER: To be taken as notice with this

[ Page 5788 ]

question, hon. member?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister provide the House with the current figures as well, if these are the incorrect ones?

HYDRO SERVICE CHARGES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, regarding service charges charged by B.C. Hydro. It's been drawn to my attention that there is a $5 service charge for moving from one address to another. I looked back in the record and the minister, answering a question of mine on February 24 this year, stated that the new $3 service charge signifies the cost of connecting up each consumer, that the annual cost is really $18 and that's why it is necessary to place an extra service charge.

I wonder if the minister can tell us just how many service charges there are applied by B.C. Hydro. Every time we turn around there seems to be a $3 or a $5 service charge, and the explanations from the different sources the minister included are somewhat conflicting. Could the minister clarify these two different fees of $3 and $5, both designated as service charges?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, all bills submitted to residential consumers of power supplied by Hydro pay the $3 service charge. It's a so-called "service charge." The cost of actually connecting a home is more on the order of $18, as I said in the earlier correspondence. I believe there has been a special connecting charge of some long standing, but I'll make inquiries and find out whether it is in fact $5.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister if he's also aware as to whether sales tax is applied to this $5 service charge to which I am referring, as well as the sales tax which is applied to the monthly $3 charge?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I believe the sales tax applies to all services provided by Hydro, but again I'll make inquiries and let the hon. member know.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in light of the ever-increasing interest charges to Hydro and the increasing hardship on low-income groups to pay these additional charges to which sales tax is added, can the minister tell us if there has been any discussion within his department as to the reasonable advisability of removing sales tax from such service charges?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, as this is also a question of real concern to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , I think I should decline to answer that question.

FUTURE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): A question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, whose day it seems to be. Mr. Speaker, I note that on the weekend Robert Bonner, chairman of B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, said that the static economy of B.C., which he expects to last at least two years, is the failure of the mining industry to get back on its feet under the present government. As a consequence he's projecting a lower energy need for the future. I wonder if the minister can confirm that there has been consultation between the chairman of B.C. Hydro and the ministry with respect to the forecasted economic outlook of this province.

HON. MR. DAVIS: There certainly has been consultation as to the appropriate forecasts for power-consumption growth in the future, but I doubt very much if the chairman of B.C. Hydro made statements in precisely the words used by the hon. member.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wouldn't want to confuse the minister any more than he already is. I think Mr. Bonner's exact quotation as reported in the Vancouver Province....

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): That's not a question.

MR. KING: I quote briefly as a supplementary question: "The result could be an extra two years of breathing room in the planning and building of future power projects, like the proposed Hat Creek. Part of the slower economy in B.C. comes from the failure of the mining industry to try to get back on its feet."

Now I want to know precisely, from the minister, whether or not he and his colleague, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , have consulted with Robert Bonner in terms of amending the projected power needs of this province, or is Mr. Bonner simply speaking without consulting the government in this regard?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The chairman of B.C. Hydro isn't speaking for the government. As the hon. member knows, however, the Energy Commission and others are continually reviewing the energy needs of the future, and the government, of course, has to take all the advice it gets into account, not simply that of B.C. Hydro.

[ Page 5789 ]

MR. KING: I have another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could notify: the House whether Mr. Bonner allows the minister to attend the meetings that he has with the Premier of the province.

DECISION ON HAT CREEK COAL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement that there will possibly be something of a 50 per cent reduction in the anticipated rate growth and a longer period can be given to the construction of the Revelstoke Dam, can the minister say if this will delay or alter the decision to develop Hat Creek coal?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Certainly as power demands develop more slowly, the timing of the next project, which could be the Hat Creek project, would be delayed. The extent of the change in the forecast, however, remains to be seen as the Energy Commission forecast is only now being prepared.

MR. WALLACE: Another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The chairman of Hydro also stated this weekend that the Hat Creek development costs could vary by as much as $500 million, depending on the environmental factors that B.C. Hydro would have to meet. Can the minister tell the House if B.C. Hydro has, in fact, submitted proposals to the Ministry of the Environment and, if so, have they been either accepted or rejected?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, no final plans have been made. However, a great deal of information has been supplied and a number of environmental studies have already been carried out, but I would have to describe them as preliminary in nature, even though they're comprehensive and very expensive. In other words, exploratory work is continuing and information is being passed around, but no final decisions have been made.

VACANT GOVERNMENT OFFICE SPACE

MR. BARNES: To the Minister of Highways and Public Works. This is further to some inquiries to the minister about the available empty space that exists. We were talking before about the Victory Centre, which is the old Hydro building that is presently housing the Government Employees' Relations Bureau. My question to the minister is: that building having been an old Hydro power station, could the minister indicate the cost involved in renovations? I understand that you tabled an answer to a question respecting the lease, but was the renovation done by the government or by the lessor?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I'll get the member the information he requires.

MR. BARNES: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I think that the minister has either taken it as notice or said he wasn't aware of what was going on in his own department. Further to a question the other day when he said he didn't know that there was any space vacant - we were talking about the old Mac and Mac Building at 1410 and 1450 Government - now there's a space at 2631 Douglas Street also vacant. I would ask the minister if he knows about that. That's the Times-Colonist building. Could he comment on that?

HON. MR. FRASER: I took the other question of the members as notice and I'll take this one as notice as well.

LIMITED ACCESS HUNTING

AT MUNCHO LAKE

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago I addressed a question to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation and it could be that he misunderstood the question. It had to do with limited access hunting in the Muncho Lake area, in which 12 permits were given for the hunting of Stone sheep.

There has been correspondence to the minister from the B.C. Wildlife Federation under the name of Mr. Bill Otway, and also from the organization known as Resident Action for Mountain Sheep, Barry J. Ayre, president. The letter from Mr. Otway - I'll just read a very small part of it - discloses that the department proposed and agreed that, where permits were involved with less than 100 in a region, all would go to B.C. residents and, over 100, 10 per cent to non-residents of any excess. Why then is it that in the case of the Muncho Lake group, 50 per cent of only 12 permits went to non-resident hunting?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's the designated speaker in question period. (Laughter.)

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Well, Mr. Speaker, I answered this question when it was raised before. I would simply say to the member that I have no knowledge of and certainly have not approved any such undertaking as he describes there, that is to say with reference to 100 per cent of the hunting going to resident hunters.

MR. BARRETT: With leave, I would like to introduce Vancouver council member Bernice Gerard, who is in the gallery.

MR. NICOLSON: I don't want to take up time in

[ Page 5790 ]

the question period, but on page 424 of the 18th edition of Sir Erskine May, it refers to the fact that Mr. Speaker has ruled that cries of "Shame! Shame!" are considered gross interjections and ruled very strongly on it. I would like to bring this to the attention of the members of the House because I heard such cries coming from the Social Credit cabinet benches.

HON. MR. CURTIS: When?

MR. NICOLSON: During the question period.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, no - "Beauchesne!" (Laughter.)

MR. NICOLSON: I meant to quote from the 18th edition of May. Since the members are so interested, I'll just read it. It's only three lines. This is page 424 from the 18th edition of May: "Cries of 'shame': a gross form of interruption, by loud cries of 'shame, ' has been strongly condemned by the Speaker, who declared his intention to take notice of the committal of the offence." It refers also to the parliamentary debates of 1887 in the House of Commons Journals, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The matter referred to by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston is with respect to matters before the House which cause grave disorder. I cannot see that the odd interjection of that sort has ever caused grave disorder in this particular assembly.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Committee on Bill 89, Mr. Speaker.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 89; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 1.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) has been trying to tell us for days and days that these amendments, including section 1, Mr. Chairman, are going to make it easier for the unorganized to become organized in this province. Now he hasn't convinced us, and I don't think he's convinced anyone else in the province, that these amendments, and Section 1 in particular, are going to make it any easier for those people who are not yet organized to exercise that option if they so wish.

He's been saying, Mr. Chairman, "yes, it will be easier, " and yet by changing section 1, the definition of an employee, he puts in jeopardy thousands of employees who are now already organized. He puts their position in jeopardy in that they may be excluded from the bargaining unit for which they have already been certified. I would really like to hear the minister make some comments with respect to the numbers of employees who are now already certified, but who are likely to become decertified as a result of these changes in the definition of "employee" in section 1.

Before, Mr. Chairman, we had the word "employee" defined as follows: ". . . is employed for. the primary purpose of exercising management functions over other employees." That's been changed. It now says: ". . . is employed in a confidential planning or advisory position in the development of management policy for the employer."

Mr. Chairman, I'm saying that thousands of workers following this new definition of "employee" will be excluded from the bargaining unit. Even those who are now certified and have won the right to be represented in a bargaining unit are going to be decertified. I do not understand the minister's reasoning for making this sweeping change, which is such an anti-labour move. Perhaps he has some reasons for it, but he has not been able to convince anyone yet as to the purpose and the justification for bringing in that kind of change.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give a couple of examples of what I see might be happening under these changes. Section l (iii) adds another aspect of the definition of what an employee is. An employee, in addition to one who is involved in an advisory capacity to management, is also one who "is employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations or personnel." Mr. Chairman, using the words "or personnel" can, in my view, result in the exclusion of thousands of people in this province, and I would like to give the minister some examples as to how this might happen.

For instance, there are many people who could be considered by the Labour Relations Board as being involved in a confidential capacity relating to personnel. Firstly, there are committees, Mr. Chairman, that have been established in this province consisting of labour people and management people, who are getting together to determine hiring practices. They determine which people are best suited for a position that becomes vacant. Those committees are in existence today. The people who are representing labour on these committees -because they are involved in an advisory capacity with respect to personnel - could be excluded under this bargaining unit. The definition is quite clear. There is no reason - if the Labour Relations Board so wishes to interpret - that they should not be

[ Page 5791 ]

excluded according to the redefinition of an employee.

Mr. Chairman, here we have examples of labour and management attempting to co-operate through joint committees which are advising management, and in this case advising them as far as personnel is concerned. Where we have examples of co-ordination existing, and beginning to happen in this province, the minister - through changing the definition of the word "employee" - is likely to destroy those committees. People who are already within the Labour Code, in a bargaining unit, are not about to give management any advice if exclusion from the bargaining unit is a result of them giving some confidential information or advice on personnel. That's going to cause a breakdown in the kind of communication, the kind of co-operation that has been established.

If you look at the definition there is no way that you can say that is not the case. It's very clear: "employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations or personnel." It's "or personnel" that has been added. I don't know why the minister wants to discourage this kind of co-operation, but I know that the people who are in bargaining units now are not likely to want to serve on committees that deal with personnel within a plant if they face the possibility of exclusion under this section. I don't understand why this attitude should be taken by the minister with the possibility of discouraging this kind of co-operation. Surely in the interests of better industrial relations and industrial peace in this province, this co-operation must be encouraged instead of discouraged.

I know that people who are currently serving on committees such as this one are concerned that they might lose their status and be excluded under the bargaining unit because of that change in definition. Anyone who has access to files and information within the middle-management group could be excluded based on the definition that has been brought in. What about shop stewards? It could go as far as shop stewards who now have access to personnel files. They have access to information about vacation time, about sickness and about payroll. Now that's confidential information with respect to personnel. The Labour Relations Board, in my view, could exclude even the shop stewards in this province from being part of the unit that is bargaining. They could lose their certification.

Under this section again, what about the matter of units that are now seeking to become organized? Very often, when some members in a union become signed into that union before they go to the Labour Relations Board, in order to have a certification vote, the Labour Relations Board will ask the employer to provide a job description of the employees under that unit. The employer is going to look at the new definition under here and will write the job descriptions that never existed before. The employer never had to write out a job description for the people doing work, but he will write job descriptions to fit in under this category in section 1, so that they will be excluded from the bargaining unit. The employer will ensure that the job description is written in such a way that they are somehow involved in an advisory capacity to the employer, or that they are dealing with personnel. As a result there will be fewer people who will be eligible to become certified in a place that is as yet unorganized.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there's the whole other aspect about industrial democracy, and I raised this during second reading. The whole purpose of the industrial-democracy approach to labour-management relations in this province is one in which the employees act in an advisory capacity to management. That's what it's all about. We already have in this province some examples of experiments that have been attempted in industrial democracy. Now if the employee is acting according to this new definition in an advisory capacity to management, as they do when they attempt industrial democracy within the plant, they could be excluded. Certainly no other attempts will be made to try the industrial-democracy approach if, in fact, they're going to run the risk of being excluded from the bargaining unit as a result of the definition of employee in section 1.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that when the. minister gets up to make some comments on "employee" under section 1, he will say that we have a fine Labour Relations Board. Paul Weiler has done a top-notch job in that position as chairman of that board, and we don't need to worry. But Paul Weiler is not going to be there that much longer. The members of the Labour Relations Board will probably change.

Mr. Weiler indicated when he first accepted that position that he was not going to continue there forever. He indicated that at the time, and if we have changes on the Labour Relations Board, which I anticipate will happen, in spite of the minister's look of surprise about any changes on the Labour Relations Board, the wording of this Section 1s such that the word "employee" can be interpreted in such a way that thousands of people who are now in bargaining units will be excluded; that the whole industrial-democracy approach will not be tried in British Columbia because of the definition; and that job descriptions, written by employers whose employees are attempting to become organized, will be such that large numbers will be excluded from the bargaining unit.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have some comments from the minister with respect to that redefinition of the word "employee" in section 1.

[ Page 5792 ]

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Chairman, under section 1, 1 have a more specific question to ask the minister. I'd like to present to the minister this instance that is presently before the LRB. Presently, in the employment of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, there are some 60 former union employees who have been excluded under this section and who are now classed as management. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I believe a current case, as this Section 1s not passed, would not be appropriate under this section.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I disagree with that ruling, Mr. Chairman. I've never heard of this before. I've never heard of that type of ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you must then challenge the ruling, because that is the ruling of the Chair.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the Labour Relations Board is only a quasi-judicial agency. It's never been held to be ultra vires or in contempt to discuss a case that's pending before the Labour Relations Board. I think the minister and those questioning have to be careful that they in no way presume to usurp the board's authority. But it's certainly traditional in this House to use cases pending before the board as examples of problems in terms of interpreting the statute that this House passes. That's what we're dealing with here today: specific statutory changes that the board will have to administer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair would be pleased to permit debate upon the general issue, but not evidences before the commission at this point of time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that's fair. I think we can do that in this particular instance.

I do know that the employer - in this particular instance, the B.C. Ferry Corporation - has applied for a further 360-plus exemptions or union exclusions; in other words, to have this number of employees termed as management. These include masters, mates, engineers, chief stewards, terminal agents and the like. The Labour Relations Board has, for some time, been waiting to make a decision.

By the way, Mr. Minister, I do hope that this change in section 1 is not as a result of a request from the Labour Relations Board because of this case. I don't know. It's been suggested, but there's no way for me to know that.

One of the things that worries me, Mr. Chairman, is this: should the LRB grant these exclusions - and we all know that the ferry workers have taken a strike vote and are in the process of going through strike action - and if we have a further exemption of over 400 people in total, that would leave enough people to operate some vessels. In other words, that would be strikebreaking. The masters, mates and engineers would have no union protection. There would, in fact, be no protection at all.

I frankly doubt that these people would willingly scab, to be quite blunt about it - I don't think these people would do that. The fact is, though, that the threat is there. I would suspect, in view of this change to section 1, that the Labour Relations Board will now have no choice but to designate all these people whom I mentioned earlier as management and supervisory staff, which they may not have been able to do in the past. Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister, when he is answering questions on this section, to give a response to this specific question.

MR. WALLACE: Speaking on the same point, Mr. Chairman, the minister is well aware that he has received correspondence from certain professional groups who also sent copies of the letter to the minister to each of the MLAs. I'm referring to the Professional Employees Association and to the Professional and Managerial Employees Council of British Columbia.

They raised the point that the change of definition leaves the door wide open to fairly numerous exclusions of people at the middle managerial level. They feel that the change of definition would permit the exclusion from the bargaining unit of people with what they describe as "the merest and least frequent of managerial functions." They feel that the phraseology which says "confidential planning or advisory position" makes it much too easy for people who really exercise a very small or limited amount of managerial responsibility, at intermittent times or in a very small way, to be excluded under the new definition from the bargaining unit.

They make the point also - and I don't personally know if this is a valid criticism, but the minister perhaps knows - that according to the Professional and Managerial Employees Council, there is an increasing frustration and alienation of middle management staff from the upper levels of management and that their attempts to organize have, to some extent at least, been forced upon them by this difficulty in dealing with upper management and in getting fair play in regard to their employment circumstances. I'm not in a position to know if that's a widespread problem in British Columbia at the present time, where middle management people are getting caught betwixt and between. They're not happy with their relationships with the senior levels of management and they don't happily fit into the

[ Page 5793 ]

bargaining unit for the other employees. For ~that reason, I understand, there have been more frequent attempts by middle management to become organized.

Now I'm sure the minister has read these letters and I'd like to know his response to them. As a person who is not intimately aware of these factors, I'm interested that they've put together a very reasonable letter which does seem to express a point of view which might mean that they would suffer when this new definition is passed.

Finally, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether he had any specific requests from employers, or any specific group of employers, to try and bring about legally an easier exclusion of middle management people from bargaining units. The kind of example which the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) has just quoted, I would assume, is a similar kind of situation to those which those two letters refer to. It seems to me that if this is going to lead to more unrest in the whole field of labour-management relations, it's just another indication that this bill, as we said in second reading, does seem to be directed towards making it more difficult for people to organize. Surely that would be an abrasive and provocative measure at this time.

As a matter of fact, the letter I referred to from the Professional Employees Association uses the phrase: " . . . arising at a time of unusual labour relations quiet." That is the actual phrase used by the Professional Employees Association. I get the impression they're trying to be constructive and helpful to the minister and perhaps avoid a situation which will do something to shatter the quiet.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this seems like a very technical change in the definition of who is an "employee" under the labour laws of B.C. As the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) has pointed out, it is a very significant and wide-ranging change that is taking place, and the change in this definition, because unless you're an employee, you're not entitled to the protection of the Labour Code, to put it simply.

This minister in this bill, Mr. Chairman, is narrowing the definition of "employee" - the kind of person working for wages or salary who can apply to the Labour Relations Board through the organization of his choice to receive the benefits and protections of the Labour Code and the benefits of collective bargaining. The changes are very widespread, and I think the minister owes it to this House to tell us why he's making this kind of change.

If I recollect correctly, Mr. Chairman, the minister, in opening the discussion on this section, said that there had been difficult cases before the Labour Relations Board with respect to the old definition, and we have to clarify it. I challenge the minister to state what those cases were. There are no such cases at all, because ever since the Canada Safeway case was decided in the Supreme Court of Canada, the British Columbia Labour Relations Board has established a jurisprudence in this field which is acceptable, I think, to employer and employee alike, and is working.

For the sake of throwing a sop to the right wing of the Social Credit Party - than which there can be none righter in Canadian democratic experience -_ you upset good, orderly bargaining relationships in this province. It betrays the fundamental philosophy of this minister, which is that we want the trade union movement to be as narrow and small as possible. That is an anti-union attitude ' and you're excluding all kinds of people under this definition.

The points have been made that these new words that are engaged.... You take out somebody who is primarily employed for management functions, which was the case before. Well, a lot of people throughout an industrial enterprise or a logging camp have some managerial functions, but they're not primarily management; they're working people entitled to the benefit of the Code. These are wide, vague words that are going to require the Labour Relations Board to deny trade union representation to those people.

H ere's another thing that goes in there:

... employed in a confidential planning or advisory position in the development of management policy" -not in management policies, but just the development of those policies. That enables the board - perhaps requires it - to exclude vast numbers of people who have to give their input into the management of an operation. As the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) pointed out, in the age we're entering, employees should increasingly be part of management at the local level. The fallers have to look at the woods operations. The stacker operator is almost a chargehand in his own right because he's got two or three people working with him, and he's giving guidance and leadership to those people. That's a managerial function. Under these wide words, the stacker in a logging operation would be caught up, because on the boom grounds or the sorting grounds there are maybe five or six other people working with the stacker operator and he's giving them directions and telling them when to move here and what to do there. That's managerial. Why would you open up a definition that would exclude even that kind of person from engaging in a little bit of industrial democracy and direction on behalf of the employer and on behalf of a productive logging operation? Apart from chargehands and people like that who were mentioned by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and who have a right to trade union organization, there is that middle group who are exposed to threats of firing who have a right, certainly, to trade union organization, whether it's in

[ Page 5794 ]

the one industrial union or their own organization. As chargehands, junior supervisory people also have a right to protection in the labour market today -application denied by this minister.

As the member for Comox said, employed in a confidential capacity not only in relation to labour relations matters - which is the traditional definition across Canada - but in relation to personnel matters.... Now what's that, the timekeeper? There goes the timekeeper, eh? You know, he clocks the hours of work of people. Is he not employed in relation to personnel matters? Deny the timekeeper a union, eh? The grader? Well, no, maybe that's not personnel. But there are many jobs that are assisting in the personnel process and in industrial operations.

As we move into a better day of industrial relations, a shop steward should be helping not only the employees he represents as a member of the union and a leader in the union, but he should be helping with the general productivity of the enterprise. When he goes in to discuss a grievance and the employer says, "Well, we had bad productivity in that area, " then the union should be part of the solution and the good shop steward is. But that's managerial and this minister says that those kinds of people should be excluded.

Now there was no reason whatsoever to change the definition which, based upon very good decisions -and there must be 15 or 20 of them - from the B.C. Labour Relations Board, was working well. Who the employee was was well defined. I object to the anti-union attitude of the minister that you should keep the trade union movement as narrow and small as possible, because I don't think for one minute that that is promoting industrial peace. I think that's promoting industrial agitation, strife, strikes and slowdowns.

What we can't get through our heads is that in the nations of the world where they have the greatest measure of industrial peace and good productivity, there is very wide trade union organization.

You didn't achieve good productivity in Sweden and large-scale union membership by narrowing down the function of the trade union movement. No. Ninety-three per cent of the workers in Sweden are part of the trade union movement. As part of the trade union movement, they don't have to fight for that position. It's taken for granted, as it is with lawyers. With that kind of stability behind them, they're able to move on and to help run the enterprise productively. They're able to sit at the bargaining table where the major economic decisions are made concerning the economy. They have a voice there. The result is a co-operative, productive economy.

Here we're heading in the wrong direction because there's a struggle between right and left in the Social Credit Party. There are those misguided people who don't understand what the term wants, who demand right-to-work legislation. So the minister throws them a sop and says: "Oh, I'm your guy." But you do that at the expense of orderly industrial relations. You do that at the expense of individuals who have to work for a living and who, without industrial organization, are at the mercy of the employer. That's the anti-labour drift that we see taking place right from section 1 of this bill, through the whole bill. I'm not discussing the other sections of the bill at this time.

I think the minister owes it to us to quote from the decisions of the labour board that said that present definition wasn't working. Of course it's working. This change is totally unnecessary and it's a retrogressive step.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I can say something about the philosophy behind the original definition of "employee" as it was contained in the Labour Code of British Columbia. I can say something to the minister and to the House about the problems that were encountered in terms of defining "employee" in prior times.

The traditional test, as my colleague from Vancouver East has outlined" -for determining the appropriateness of any particular employee to be contained in a bargaining unit was quite a simple test, basically set on two criteria: (1) does the individual exercise primarily a management function, including the right to hire and fire? (2) is that employee privy t o confidential industrial-relations information?

Mr. Chairman, this test has been developed in industrial relations law as a broadly accepted concept not only in the province of British Columbia, not only in the Labour Code of British Columbia, but in general terms in labour law across the length and breadth of this nation and, indeed, North America.

Now one of the problems that was encountered in the definition contained under the old Labour Relations Act in the province of British Columbia was repeated applications by management for exclusion of certain individuals from the unit on the basis that their title indicated a management function. In other words, Mr. Chairman, there were many individuals who were primarily working people but were designated as superintendents. On the basis of a phony title attached to a function under the old Act, many people who were fully entitled to the protection of representation by a trade union were denied. That is why in the new Labour Code there was a more precise definition of "employee, " and the language pointed out by my colleague: where the primary function is to control, supervise.

Now the minister has opened it wide open to further management exclusions. Perhaps the minister doesn't really understand what it means. I suspect that he really doesn't grasp the full implications of the

[ Page 5795 ]

change he is making.

Mr. Chairman, I come from the railway industry. I'm an engineer on the railway. Historically on the railroad, not by design but simply by custom, the engineer on a locomotive supervises and directs the two other employees engaged in operating that train: the trainman and the fireman. It's not a primary function but it is a supervisory function, and it has been traditionally. Now there are many other industries where the work of an average working individual involves supervision of other employees. It's more related to seniority in many cases than it is to any management appointment.

I want to suggest to the minister that under this section, under this new definition, he has opened the door for the possible exclusion of literally hundreds of working people in this province who to any extent supervise fellow workers or are privy to information - confidential information perhaps - but in no way related to industrial relations. This is a brand new test and a brand new criterion.

One union has contacted me - the health sciences union. They have a total of 3,300 members in the province of British Columbia; they have 96 units. It's their estimate that under this amendment to the definition of "employee" contained in the bill before the House, Mr. Chairman, there is the possibility of losing 161 employees who are now contained within the unit. Or 16.7 per cent of their membership could be eroded away by the amendment that the minister has put before the House.

Ironically, the provincial president of that union stands to be excluded from the right to join a trade union under the Labour Code of British Columbia by the definition the minister now has before the House. The treasurer of that union is in a classification that could well be excluded under the. amendment the minister has brought before the House.

It's not up to the minister to say no. The minister can't define and make the decisions on the particular application. That's the function of the Labour Relations Board. The Labour Relations Board is guided by the statute. They are bound by the statute to apply the law as directed, and they can't finesse the law. As my colleague from Vancouver East and others have said, there is a substantial body of administrative law that has been developed by the board which is acceptable, which is fair and, I think, which recognizes the needs and the desires of many people in a minor- and middle-management capacity to participate in and join in the mainstreams of trade union organization.

One of the things that really appalls me is the criticism that is often levelled at the trade union movement. Many politicians have criticized the trade union movement. I've been guilty myself at times of saying to the trade union movement: "Don't be so dogmatic. Don't be so traditional. Be willing to experiment a little bit. Be willing to innovate." Yet what have we done to provide the trade union movement with any educational basis or technical skills that go into the art of bargaining and trade union administration?

One of the optimistic things that's been happening in the trade union movement, particularly over the past three or four years, is that more and more professional people are organizing and more and more management people are organizing, adding a new dimension to the trade union movement, both in terms of educational background and social background. Out of that kind of mix in the trade union movement there is some real hope that we will start to see the growth of a more mature relationship between the trade union movement and industry so that they might start sitting down together and co-operating and planning for the joint security of the industry and the employees involved. Instead of encouraging that trend, which is a hopeful and optimistic one, this government seems bent on constantly kicking that development in the teeth and driving it backwards.

The minister frowns. I'm not going to say anything nasty about the minister politically -' Lord knows he's had enough brick bats this last while - but I want to suggest to him that it's futile to frown and object. We can read the law just as well as the minister can; the trade union movement can read the law and understand it. If the definition, which is inherently clear in the amendments to all of us, is not the intent of the minister, then I suggest, in all good conscience, for goodness' sake, that you withdraw it and consult until you get some language before this House that the trade union movement and the opposition understand, and which properly reflects the aspirations of the government.

We are telling you what the consequences will be, and I don't think the minister should brush that aside lightly. This is not just political partisanship. Many of us have been involved in the trade union movement and in the actual organization of trade unions, and we understand how it works pretty well when you get down to the technical aspects of making applications to the board. The minister can't dismiss that away with a lofty "I know best" attitude"

Tell us what your motives and objectives are. If the language does not properly reflect those aspirations, then I think the minister has a responsibility to pull back, to withdraw this section of the bill, to consult with the parties involved, and to make sure that mayhem and unnecessary unrest do not develop as a result of language that apparently produces a result the minister doesn't want.

I'd be very interested in hearing the minister's comments on it. I don't understand, Mr. Chairman, the need for the amendment. Quite frankly, I doubt that the Labour Relations Board has experienced any

[ Page 5796 ]

great difficulty in applying the law the way it stood. On a number of occasions I have read speeches made by the chairman of the board, Paul Weiler, around the nation where he commented on the developing and evolving body of administrative law that flowed from the Labour Code of B.C. At no time have I read in any of those speeches any expression of concern by the chairman regarding the application and the administration of the "employee" definition in the Code.

MR. WALLACE: Who asked for the change?

MR. KING: Exactly. I do not believe it. was the board. I think the minister has an obligation to tell us why he felt compelled to introduce this particular change. If it was the employers, Mr. Minister, have the courage to stand up and say so. If you think the employers are right, you have an obligation to do something, but stand up and tell us on what basis you formed that conclusion.

The House and the opposition have a right to debate those matters. I don't believe for one moment that the minister just introduced this very significant change because of some whim that he had, either as a lawyer or as a minister. He must have received substantial, serious and powerful representations from someone. Let us know who they were and what they said, Mr. Minister.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity of making clear to the members what I thought I had made clear in second reading. If it was not clear, perhaps they will be good enough to attend.

The members suggest that there are changing circumstances in our working society today, and that is recognized under the Labour Code. But there are also changes that affect the management side, too, significant adjustments in the way in which industrial operations are organized and carried out, the level of responsibilities that are assigned to people and the impact of those responsibilities on the whole productive enterprise. It is for that reason I would have thought the members would have clearly recognized the need to have some better definition of those who fall within the employee class and those who fall into the management class.

The fact of the matter is that there is one problem that exists with the Labour Code - it recognizes only two groups in our society. As the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has pointed out, there perhaps is a third group. He referred to the distinction between middle management and upper management. But the Code does not allow for any third option. Perhaps we are approaching the day When our legislation in this and other jurisdictions will need to take into account the existence of that third option. At the moment, you are either one or the other - you are an employee or you are management.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) mentioned Mr. Weiler, the chairman of the Labour Relations Board, and what a fine job he is doing. I agree with that. I have no hesitation in mentioning that at all. But you know, one of the fine jobs that chairman Paul Weiler has done is to have built a board that will continue to exist and discharge its responsibilities with distinction long after Mr. Weiler is gone. If the member has some advance information about Mr. Weiler's plans, I wish she would send me a note.

The hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) pointed out quite clearly what the problem is in the nature of emerging industrial organizations. The present code is based upon two very narrow criteria. To be excluded, the person must exercise primarily management functions - but they aren't defined - including the right to hire and fire. There is a shrinking number of people in the management group who have the right to hire and fire. Yes, they can discipline, but hiring and firing is another matter. Therefore what the member has clearly indicated is that in its present wording the Code very significantly narrows the management group, not, as would be suggested in these amendments, that we are narrowing the employee group at all.

Then he says it also deals with people who deal with confidential labour relations matters. That is still in the Code and no change is made there.

The suggestion that under the existing Code management has moved to ascribe, in the member's words, "phony titles" in order to achieve exclusions has not worked. The Labour Relations Board is much more alert to what the basis is than just to be bemused by the ascribing of phony titles. Yet the member for Revelstoke-Slocan went on and talked about supervisors. "Supervisor" doesn't appear in this bill. There is no question of supervisors at all.

Mr. Chairman, I hope - in fact, I know - that the Labour Relations Board, in making the decisions that they will have to make in the future under this legislation, will read Section 1 as it is being amended much more professionally than has been the case with the members of the opposition who have directed their attention to it. The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , for example, dealt with the second subclassification of persons who are "employed in a confidential planning or advisory position in the development of management policy. . . ." The word "confidential" modifies both planning and advisory. It's the confidentiality position that is held by the individual which would exclude him from the bargaining unit. Surely the members are not suggesting that when a person is engaged in planning or advising on management policies, which may go to the very root of the industrial operation, and is an employee in a

[ Page 5797 ]

confidential capacity, that employee is not part of the management team.

Now the question has been asked: why these changes? Yes, representations were made to me by employers' groups and local government groups who recognized that in their changing organization and with the additional responsibilities that were being cast upon them there were people who desired to be and who wanted to be on the management team. They are excluded from this under the present definition of the Code. We therefore looked at the present Code and recognized that the expansion of it could preserve that management team concept without in any way diminishing the rights of those people who are employees to engage in organizing activities.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) also referred to subclassification (iii) . Again, I point out that it is the confidentiality of the position that is the deciding factor.

Now some discussion has taken place with regard to the emergence of some attitudes and some hesitant approaches towards industrial democracy relationships in some of our industries whereby committees which are composed of the management group and of the employees are formed to deal with specific matters. The member for Comox suggested that under the words used in the revised definition of Section 1 those members of the bargaining unit who had heretofore taken their place on such committees would be excluded.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the member for Comox hasn't read the section. It's not the participation in a committee for that purpose that excludes you; it is whether you are employed for that or whether you are hired to do that, not whether it's part of your responsibility to the industrial enterprise. I hope that with the initiatives that we are taking, those attitudes will expand among our industrial enterprises, and there will be the opportunity for management to join together with their employees in reaching these kinds of decisions. But you don't reach that level by ensuring that there is no management ~ left except the president and the secretary-treasurer of the company. In some respects, that's where we are heading.

No, modern management includes many more than that. It is for that purpose, and that purpose alone, that these changes are being introduced.

I must say to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , in response to one of his questions, that I assure you that there was no request to me by the employers for easier exclusion of employees. I would certainly not respond to any such request to make it easier to have people excluded. The only request I've had is for a clearer definition and clearer lines by which decisions can be made as to who is or is not to be in the bargaining unit. The member for

Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) laughs.

MR. KING: You're playing semantics.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: But when you have a situation, Mr. Chairman, where the owner or the board of directors of an industrial enterprise is building their organizational team, do you think it is not of some concern to them whether or not the people they will be calling upon to make management policy decisions and to involve themselves in the confidentiality of planning and advising for the growth of that enterprise ... ? Shouldn't they be concerned? Shouldn't they have it made clear which positions are management and which positions are not?

Under the present Code, that is not the case, As the member for Revelstoke-Slocan says, you must be hired primarily for the purpose of exercising management functions, and you have the right to hire or fire. You can't be much more exclusive than that. One of the two criteria mentioned by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan was exercising primarily management functions, including the right to hire and fire. Now that is a pretty limiting standard and one which is not in keeping, in our view, with reality today.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) referred to the writing of job descriptions, and that's the same problem with respect to the giving of titles. I suggest that this is now done in some areas, and the Labour Relations Board has no difficulty in distinguishing whether job descriptions are being written solely for the purpose of excluding people from the bargaining unit who would otherwise be in the bargaining unit. It is for that reason that the first subclassification was included in section 1: not only must a person be employed to exercise the function but in fact he must exercise that function. It can't be a phony title; it can't be a phony job description. The Labour Relations Board of this province clearly understands what their responsibility will be in this regard.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, remind me not to retain the minister as my lawyer to plead my case or to interpret law. The minister has made a serious error in his understanding of the current definition of "employee" when he indicated that one must be engaged in a confidential capacity and employed primarily to supervise.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't say that,

MR. KING: Yes, you did.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I didn't.

MR. KING: You said: "and." That is not the

[ Page 5798 ]

language of this section; it is "or." In other words, either of those two tests can establish the position of the employee. The minister also misinterpreted, I hope involuntarily, my comments. I did not indicate that the current board was having difficulty with phony titles. I indicated to the minister and to the House that that certainly was the case under the old Labour Relations Act in the province of British Columbia and that is why the new designation of employee was framed for the Labour Code of British Columbia in 1973. So I wish the minister wouldn't inadvertently twist the statements that I make in this House.

The important thing I want to take issue with the minister on.... We've identified the philosophical difference that I would just like to expand on. I think it's useful when this occurs; I think it's useful for the people of the province to understand precisely where the Social Credit Party and the New Democratic Party differ on philosophical lines in matters such as this. I think it's useful for the trade union movement and I think it's useful for management.

It was interesting to hear the minister talk about people who exercise management functions and are privy to confidentiality in management - any matter of confidence, presumably; not just confidential industrial relations information as it used to be but any confidentiality. And the minister says: "Oh, my Lord, if that occurs, then don't let them into the union. Otherwise management rights are jeopardized." That implies to me, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has some inherent belief that as soon as someone joins a trade union, he's prostituted in some way. No more morals, eh?

Does the minister feel that if a professional engineer happens to be employed with a plant -perhaps not performing his profession, perhaps doing some other job - his professional obligations and his professional declarations are compromised by belonging to a trade union? That's what the minister is inferring.

He is saying that some management people don't want to be part of the trade union. That's true. There are some working guys in the plant who don't want to be part of the trade union. That's why we have a representation vote for certification. If the majority of the employees in that unit do not wish to be represented by a trade union, that is their free wish to so indicate, and the trade union is not certified. But t o grant some special privileges t o a middle-management person that are not enjoyed by the worker on the plant floor implies to me an elitist view that thinks that the blue-collar worker is somehow an inferior being with inferior morality and inferior loyalty to the employer than the management person. I think that's an absolutely- astounding viewpoint flowing from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) in the province of British Columbia.

Why is it so wrong that a working guy in the plant should not be privy to management information? Mr. Chairman, we might have a whole lot healthier industrial relations climate in this province if management opened their books completely and challenged the workers of their plant to participate and plan with them. No wonder management doesn't trust the Workers to do so when the minister doesn't!

The minister says "no way." Confidentiality. Any confidentiality in terms of technological change-planning? That's confidential too. That affects the lives of the workers in the plant, but if an adviser or a middle-management person is now involved in planning for technological change, that's confidential information, and we won't let that guy into the bargaining unit. That is trash. That clearly indicates the lines of demarcation in philosophy between that Social Credit coalition over there and the New Democratic Party. I'm happy that these clear points of demarcation can be debated. It's not very often we can smoke the minister out to take a stand and to outline what his point of view is. One day he makes tapes defending his position and the next day there are screaming headlines saying he made a mistake. At last he's shown his true colours: he doesn't trust the working people of this province. He doesn't trust them on the one hand to be a member of a trade union, and to demonstrate some responsibility to management at the same time. How can maturity grow under those circumstances?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, there appears to be a philosophical difference between me and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan. I don't apologize for it. I don't apologize either, for anybody who would twist the words of a member of this House as he has just done, implying that any remarks of mine were in any way to suggest that one prostitutes oneself when one joins a trade union....

MR. KING: That's your inference.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That is typical of what the member for Revelstoke-Slocan has been saying ever since this bill was brought into the floor of this House.

MR. KING: You don't trust them.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: He won't read the legislation. He won't read it fairly, and he goes outside and inside the House and makes inferences with respect to the remarks which are offered in debate.

MR. KING: You don't like me playing your tape.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I said not one word about

[ Page 5799 ]

technological change. Mr. Chairman, if the member would like to listen, if he won't read: "the confidentiality with regard to planning and advisory positions or in the development of management policy." There's nothing whatsoever with regard to technological change, which the member already knows is covered in the Labour Code of British Columbia and is unamended by this Bill 89.

MR. KING: You don't even understand your own bill!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, it's interesting that when the member for Revelstoke-Slocan has nothing left to say, he suggests that misunderstanding of legislation is always the fault. He said it when he was the Minister of Labour, when criticisms were offered to his legislation, and he's still saying it today. I only hope that in the days and weeks to come he will take the opportunity of reading the bill, understanding it, and recognizing that those who are far more knowledgeable about trade union matters and labour relations in the province of British Columbia than he is will be addressing themselves most seriously. I only hope that he doesn't go around making inferences, misleading statements, and confusing the people who have to work with this bill by suggesting it contains implications which it does not.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I certainly apologize if I've twisted anything the minister said. I suspect, though, that the minister is stung by my playing a radio tape at the IWA convention containing the minister's quotations in defence of certain sections of this Code.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was the best speech you ever made.

MR. KING: But they were his own words, Mr. Chairman, repudiated two days later. The minister is stung by that, his feelings are hurt. Mr. Chairman, I reiterate that by inference the minister revealed his contempt and his distrust of working people, and he did infer that management people cannot be a member of a trade union without betraying confidentiality that they may be privy to in a corporation. I asked him, and I ask him again: does he believe that membership in a trade union brings out the prostitution of morality and ethics? That's the inference and that's the direction of this bill.

The minister is a lawyer. He belongs to a closed shop bar association. I wonder what he thinks would happen to his morality and his integrity - whatever it may be - if he took out membership in a trade union. Does he feel by some venomous or poisonous osmosis that his professional responsibilities would be compromised? That is the very elitist attitude inherent in this bill that I resent - that somehow plant workers have no understanding or commitment to morality and integrity. And I want to challenge that, because I've worked for 30 years with working people in this province, and I tell you that I've seen higher morality and greater dignity than I've ever seen flowing from the Bar Association. So I don't want to be lectured by a pompous individual talking about people knowing more about industrial relations than me.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're pompous.

MR. KING: Yes, there are many. There are actually many who know more than the Minister of Labour, who have the bitter experience and frustration of trying to organize representation in this province for their own protection. It galls me to hear this elitist, high-browed viewpoint. It galls me immensely. From West Vancouver, Point Grey, talking down to the people of this province, telling them what they can have for representation....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You should be back in the caboose.

MR. KING: Yes, maybe I should be back in the caboose. I'm very proud to be in the caboose or the engine, Mr. Attorney-General. I can tell you this: there are more people who have a more healthy, democratic, responsible viewpoint towards society in the plants of this province than there are in this institution. Yes, by all means. But, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General is trying to get me off the track, and I don't intend to be put off the track, either in my former vocation or the current one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be nice if you would get back on the track, and Section 1 is the track.

MR. KING: I'm always on the track; I'm just trying to blow the whistle on the minister.

I want the working people of the province to understand what he's out to do, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps he's innocent. Perhaps he really thinks he's making a fair distinction. I want to warn him that two years from today, the effects and the consequences are going to be felt. That will be when this amendment is administered by the Labour Relations Board of this province.

I'm willing to lay a bet, Mr. Chairman, that the trade union movement and the working people of this province are going to be hurt as a result of this amendment. You see, I don't believe that it's necessary to protect management's rights by excluding all management personnel and saying: "If you're designated management at all, then you must

[ Page 5800 ]

be in the no-man's land between the senior decision-makers and the plant workers who enjoy trade union representation." I don't believe that's necessary, and that's where we depart philosophically.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister did not give us any indication as to how many people he anticipates will be excluded under this redefinition of the word "employee." I've suggested that there are thousands who could possibly be excluded by changing the definition of "employee" in section 1. Now he's given us some very general statements about, "Well, if it's this and if it's that, " but surely he must have some figure in mind or must have some information as to the number of people who might be taken out of trade unions who are now certified under the Labour Code.

The minister did not make any comment either, unless I missed it, with respect to the points raised by the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) as far as the ferry situation is concerned. I would like to have some comments from him on that.

Mr. Chairman, I think the minister is afraid of the trade union movement. I think he's afraid that people in this province will actually exercise their right and become members of the trade union movement. Even though the Labour Code, which has been in effect now for three or four years, did make it easier for people to become organized in this province, there hasn't been a great rush into the trade union movement. There hasn't been that rush. All of these amendments are an attack on the trade union movement and an attack on the ability of the basic right of people to organize if they so wish.

The minister must be afraid of them. I think that by changing the definition in this section, he hopes to exclude thousands of people from organization and from being members of the trade union movement. I think that's what he has set out to do, or perhaps he has just set out to antagonize the people in the trade union movement so that he can have the kind of confrontation that has been suggested this government wants. I think the government is hoping that by dividing, somehow they will be able to conquer at the next election. But that's not going to happen.

Mr. Chairman, the minister did not reply to my satisfaction to the need for adding the words "or personnel" in subsection (iii) of section 1. Before the definition was quite clear. If they were involved primarily for the purposes of exercising management functions they would be considered management. Now, under this redefinition, he has included under the definition of "employee" those people who are "employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations or personnel." Now that "or personnel, " Mr. Chairman, in my view, leaves it wide open for the Labour Relations Board to interpret it in such a way that thousands who are now already trade unionists can be excluded. I wonder if the minister might elaborate further with respect to Section 1 (iii) .

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wish the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) would read the present section which deals with the confidentiality of matters dealing with labour relations. The confidentiality, as I said before, also applies to those matters with respect to personnel.

Specifically, regarding her question as to how many will be excluded, no calculation has been made of that, Mr. Chairman. That's an impossible calculation to make without knowing how many industries are not organized and how many industries would have the classifications which are included in the new definition of "employee." As a matter of fact, to make such a calculation in advance would, I'm sure, lead the member to suggest that it was being done with some malice aforethought.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to make it absolutely clear that I am not afraid of the trade unions. I'm not afraid of workers who belong to trade unions; they have the right, under the laws of our province, to do so. But they also have the right to know that if they move into the field of management, their situation will change. They are entitled to know, as clearly as anyone else, where that line of demarcation is.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised at the direction this debate has taken. It seems to me that the strength of the labour union movement lies in its isolation from management and, at the same time, its closeness to the welfare of a corporation for which it works. There has been in the past a grey area where superintendents, part-time management in this form, have belonged to a union because they formerly belonged to a union and they want to stay there. Some wanted to get out, and there was no clear definition.

I know very well - I haven't been associated with labour movements for many years - that the dearest thing to the heart of a union member is the strength of the movement, not in his quasi-association with management. It's the old story of the bundle of sticks. One stick may be easily broken, where a bundle together has strength. The idea of the labour movement is that in the numbers together they have the strength equal to management, but not greater than management.

By maintaining a position, aloof but yet together, it bodes well for the strength of a corporation. But when you have a grey area enmeshed and mingled in with management - both directions - it becomes a sloppy connection, and anything that is sloppy is bad

[ Page 5801 ]

for business, bad for a corporation and bad for a system.

What we need is a clearly defined line, and certainly no one in the labour movement wants, any part of management - none whatever. A labourman will tell you that before anyone else. They want a clearly defined line. They don't want the responsibility of management, but they want the strength of unionism. They want unionism for what it represents and' what it stands for - it doesn't stand for management - and, at the same time, the cohesion for the common good of the business. That is the principle of unionism.

In this debate here today I'm surprised we are engendering the principle of confrontation. Good unionism is not confrontation. Good unionism is co-operation, and we have co-operation with good unions. We must decimate and disregard completely the attitude that the union was intended to confront management. Confrontation must be the farthest thing from the mind of any good union member, and it is. Confrontation must be the farthest thing from management, and it is. All must work together for the common good.

The common good is achieved by the principle in this section, by a clear and positive line of demarcation. When you have that line you know where you stand, and you know you work together for the strength of the corporation, because the corporation stands for the jobs of the people and for the profit of management all together. It stands for a successful operation.

Separated on the principle of confrontation, which you heard our honourable friend bespeak today, it merely means that you're loosening up the bonds and the strength of unionism. You're destroying the value of management with a sloppy organization. This is a tightening process. I commend the minister on the great thought in this section.

MR. KING: I'm going to try one more question on the minister. I hope we can elicit a bit more temperate exchange, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's got the very short fuse?

MR. KING: The Attorney-General is always jumping in there and suggesting I go back to the railroad - one thing and another. Mr. Chairman, I never left the railroad; I'm still associated with it. If the Attorney-General had the same kind of commitment to the Liberal Party that I had to the railroad, Mr. Chairman, he wouldn't be sitting over there where he is now, and he knows that. So he doesn't have to give me any lessons in dedication and commitment.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going around and around and around.

MR. KING: Yes, but never across the floor, Mr. Chairman. I stick to my philosophy and I stick to my principles. You may disagree with them, but I stick to them.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): You're stuck with them.

MR. KING: Yes, and I'm very happy and comfortable with them. How about you?

Mr. Chairman, when the minister mentioned the third option, I was very interested in that, but I wasn't sure what he meant. He said that more and more there is developing the need for a third option between the trade union movement and management, as I understood him. He talked about the third option. I wish he would elucidate on that, because I would like to understand precisely what he meant. Was he talking about the public interest? Or is he talking about a third option in terms of the realm of industrial relations with any plant? If so, just what does he have in mind?

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): I really want to thank the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) for carrying us back into the Middle Ages. His explanation of what he feels are labour relations was the kind of thing that preceded the trade union movement. But I do want to ask the minister something in relation to the section which, he said, has really clarified the definition. It now reads in section 2: " , . . employed in a confidential planning and advisory position in the development of management policy for the employer." One of the things that concerns me, and perhaps the minister might comment on this, is that over the past year there has been a great debate, not only in Canada but in other parts of the world, about the whole concept of industrial democracy - participation of workers in decision-making.

We've heard that the member for Dewdney feels that there shouldn't be that kind of participation; it's got to be a strict division. He endorsed the minister's actions by saying that what he has really done is compartmentalize the functions. There is a function for the trade union people and a function for management, and somehow they mustn't meet -only across the bargaining table. Whether the member likes to accept it or not, when you meet across the bargaining table there is an element of confrontation - that's what it is. Confrontation is not necessarily something that is violent, as the member might insist, but it's a confrontation - a very serious exchange of ideas on how contracts should be arrived at.

The minister keeps saying that it needs to be

[ Page 5802 ]

defined more specifically. This particular section really is saying that at the present time decisions of this nature are being made. People who are in unions are participating in managerial decisions. We know this from various organizations around the province in various municipalities, where people who are responsible for labour relations are in the unions.

There has been no indication.... It's five years since I was active in the trade union field, but I wasn't aware that management was unhappy with the actual day-to-day kind of operation that was going on. It was that kind of contact and that kind of understanding that was made more helpful by the introduction of the Labour Code. If what the minister intends in this section, as his colleague from Dewdney said, is that he is now separating them, what does this do? It's not tightening up, Mr. Chairman; it's separating. The only thing they are tightening up is the thumb screw. They're completely separating the function.

My first question to the minister is: what does the minister think this kind of thing will do in terms of the ongoing discussions that are going on about industrial democracy? How is this going to help those kinds of discussions? Whether we like to accept it or not, down the road one year, five years or 10 years from now, there is going to be an involvement of the trade union movement in managerial decisions.

MS. SANFORD: Not after this.

MR. LEVI: Not after this; certainly not. But I just point out to the minister the kind of experiences that are going on in Great Britain today. These are particularly in companies from Germany who have invested in England and who have this kind of industrial democracy. The minister is shutting the door on this kind of opportunity that may take place in this country. He is shutting the door. Why is he doing this?

He's often been depicted, prior to his big schmozzle about 10 or 12 days ago, as a man who understood what he was doing and who had some feel for the situation. Now either he's in control or he's not, and it is fairly evident that he's not in control.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I can't use that, Mr. Member; I just can't use that. He wants me to say he's a dummy. He's not a dummy; he's a dum-dum. He's a blunt-end bullet, that's what he is.

He's doing something here that is going to create irreparable damage in terms of the ongoing harmony that is expected from the Labour Code and the kind of development that we should expect in terms of participation of labour in managerial decisions. I would ask the minister how he can possibly, in the future, ever make any comments - if he has any comments or contributions to make on industrial democracy - with this kind of legislation on the books which separates, completely and almost for ever, labour and management. Now isn't that the kind of thing where he shuts the door? What is he intending to do sometime later on - open it up?

It becomes more evident all the time that if he has any logic in terms of what he's thinking about for labour peace in this province over the next few years, what he's doing at the moment has nothing to do with the natural progression of some kind of future and enlarged co-operation between labour and management. But what he's doing right now is highly political. It's visibly political and satisfies the right wing of his party and the people who support him. Then they can say and he can say: "We are doing what we said we would do in the election. We're going to tighten up the situation." That's what the member for Dewdney is endorsing.

But what is this going to do, Mr. Chairman, for the ongoing progress that we must expect towards the view that labour and management will be involved in a mutual kind of co-operation in terms of decision-making? This is not going to do it. What we can take from this is, firstly, that we have a political promise being met, and secondly they are not interested in any kind of industrial democracy or that kind of concept which is being talked about. Connaghan didn't go to Germany just on a trip; he was interested in that kind of concept. Well, what are the minister's views on the question of industrial democracy with this kind of legislation that will pass? Or does he have no views at all?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I certainly have views on the matter of industrial democracy and at the appropriate time I'd be very happy to debate them at considerable length. But just let me respond in connection with section 1, without infringing on the rules of the committee, Mr. Chairman.

As the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) said, this is visibly political. It certainly is: your politics and my politics. I know exactly where you stand and I think you know where I stand as well. But it doesn't have anything to do with the matter that you raised in connection with section 1. Section 1 has nothing to do with industrial democracy and will not interfere with the concepts of industrial democracy. The concepts of industrial democracy depend on the existence of two comparable, if not equal, groups, interested in the management of the enterprise: one is management and one is the employees or their representatives.

There is nothing in Section 1 - and I trust that the member will understand this and will not go out from this House and suggest that there is - which interferes with the rights of an employee to engage in

[ Page 5803 ]

the practice of industrial democracy. He does not thereby give up any of his rights as an employee to be a member of the bargaining unit.

Read the words: "In order to fall into the exclusion, he must be employed for that purpose" -employed. Now there are some people, of course, who think of industrial democracy in the very limited sense of holding a position on the board of directors of the company. Quite frankly, that's the very worst concept of industrial democracy. It's one which is being tried in British Columbia with some success, but that's not the level at which success is enjoyed in those other jurisdictions where industrial democracy has flourished.

The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) spoke about the committee concept. That's where industrial democracy really flourishes. To engage in activities of that nature and to engage in the opportunities which that presents for real influence in the operation of the enterprise is not excluded by this section.

MR. LEVI: Well, I just can't follow what the is saying ...

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, think!

MR. LEVI: ... because what you have here, if the minister knows anything about labour relations on the plant floor - and it may be many years since he worked in a plant - is an atmosphere that you want to be able to build on. If you have an existing situation, where somebody who is in the union is participating in management functions, that's good. Now in your separation of this, you're going to close off one avenue of career expectation for some people who may have some very good skills in that area. Yet they may know, because of the years they spent on the plant floor and in the union, that if they want to go on into that kind of thing, they're not going to be covered by the union. Well, it's very difficult for some people to make that kind of decision. You don't spend years in the trade union movement and then suddenly find that if you want to go on to further promotion you're without that umbrella. Why? The minister hasn't told us that somehow there's been incredible pressure to get these people out of that.

I agree with him that there isn't just one form of industrial democracy. But you have to build on the things that work, and there is no indication from that minister that having people in the managerial or functional part of the union has done any harm at all. On the contrary, it's done good, because you have that kind of closeness. But what he's doing is move towards what the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) wants. That's not going to create that continuing co-operative climate.

This is not a simplistic thing. You don't take two or three elements and shake them up and expect that that's how you are going to get industrial democracy. It's built on a great deal of trust. This does not engender the development of continuing trust, because some of the people who are now covered by collective bargaining are not going to be covered by collective bargaining any more. They're going to be on the other side, in a very real sense, from their colleagues in the union, and he hasn't told us why. He's skirted around it. He wants to have a long debate on industrial democracy. It has to do with an atmosphere and a climate. It's not a climate that comes from management; it's a climate that comes from both groups.

I can't agree with the minister when he says that the kind of thing that's gone on in British Columbia is different or perhaps not as successful, although he didn't say ... what I'm suggesting is a comparison of success between what goes on here and what goes on in Europe. It's a different situation. In Europe they were more fortunate; they were able to start from scratch about 25 or 30 years ago and get it going. Here you've got a long history of the kind of confrontation and gradually you've got this kind of buildup. This kind of legislation throws a monkey wrench into the work.

This is like some kind of intellectuals sitting up in an ivory tower, dreaming up what they feel is their concept of proper labour-management relations. It's not. It's a very dangerous one; it's a backward step. I know it's political. It has nothing to do between my philosophy and your philosophy, Mr. Chairman, or the minister's philosophy. It has to do with the bald, practical business of delivering a political promise that you made to the people who supported you. To do that you're prepared to wreck the ongoing labour peace in this province, and this is the beginning. You can't weasel around it; that's the reality.

Somewhere down the line, maybe a year from now, he's going to get up and make a nice speech about industrial democracy having created the kind of climate that you've created as a result of this particular section, notwithstanding what follows in the rest of this bill. This is a Mickey Mouse way of explaining the situation - just weaseling out. There is no future for industrial democracy in this province as a development with this kind of legislation, and you should understand that.

MR. KING: Well, just two things. I wish the minister would answer the previous question I asked about his reference to a third option.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, you should listen. I answered it once. If you didn't listen or you don't understand it, then read the Blues.

MR. KING: I'm very sorry. I just asked the

[ Page 5804 ]

question prior to the member for Burrard, Mr. Chairman, and I didn't hear the minister even refer to the third option. I found that an intriguing remark, coming from the minister, and I'd be very pleased if he would deign to answer it and come down off his ministerial cloud and just expand on what he meant by a third option.

The other point is - I tried to make it before; I just want to make it once more for the record - that the minister is trying to argue what he means by this bill, but the fact of the matter is that now excluded from bargaining units are people employed in a confidential planning or advisory position in the development of management policy for the employer.

I suggest that there are a whole variety of management planning areas that could well be confidential that are in no way compromised by those people belonging to a trade union. I used the example earlier on, Mr. Chairman, of railroaders, where a trade union member directs and supervises fellow employees. Sometimes they're responsible for the dismissal in terms of breaches of the rules and so on. Do you know how long this has been going on, Mr. Chairman? A hundred years. It's not a new thing; it grew by custom.

But when we see this kind of amendment in the Labour Code, the only assumption that can be drawn from it and the only conclusion, if I understand the English language reasonably well, is that any position of confidentiality must be exempt from union membership. Why? Because that confidentiality would be breached? Does the minister think that there's some inherent conflict between the role of a trade union and a corporation which is so destructive and so insidious that the people who have the interest and a role in developing management policy can in no way play a role in the union without breaching that confidentiality?

What does he think a trade union is? Is it a subversive group or something? This is the conclusion to be drawn from the language of the amendment. I think that's destructive. It's my honest opinion, it's my honest point of view, and I suggest to the minister that it's the honest point of view of a great number of people in the trade union movement. I think that it bodes ill for the future. It's not necessary. It flies in the face of experience. It is, as my colleagues have indicated, going to damage the co-operative relationship that has existed in this province.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I'd like to speak in support of section 1, particularly since just very shortly after the election the city manager of Prince George sent down a request that this particular aspect be looked into. The unions were moving up the ladder of management; the city had taken over a larger area to manage with various fire departments scattered all around and they wanted to limit the number of fire chiefs. He said that it's very essential that a distinction be left between management and the labouring or the unionized side of the matter.

Certainly in business as well we can understand the difference in philosophy, of course, because most of the people over on that side were never involved in management or running a business of their own or being responsible for other people's funds. I think it's very essential for anyone in a private business, when you're responsible for the planning or development of a proposal. There isn't any use in starting a bunch of rumours on which procedure you're going to take until you can look into all of the ramifications of the investment and the viability of a procedure.

I think most major companies now do bring their workers in, do ask them for suggestions at different times and do ask them for involvement. But to say that they have to be right up in the top levels of management isn't only unfair to management but it's also unfair to the workers to have this type of rapport going back and forth. I think it's probably just because of the difference in philosophy principally that the other side can't see the difference on this. Certainly I'd be apt to speak in favour of this section.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 28

NAYS - 15

Mr. Nicolson requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 2.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, this Section 1s another one which really socks it to the labour movement in terms of their ability to organize in this province. I fail to understand why the minister would bring in a bill which is so anti-labour throughout that

[ Page 5805 ]

he runs the risk of the kind of disruption that sections such as this one invite. Mr. Chairman, there have been some specific changes here, and I would like to deal with those specific sections and point~out to the minister how this will, in fact, tip the scales in favour of the employers and continue the attack that Section 1 started on the labour movement.

Section 2, Mr. Chairman, takes out some wording which I think is very important in part (c) of the section. I'd like to read this again: "No employer, and no person acting on behalf of an employer, shall, " section (c) said, "seek by intimidation, by dismissal by threat of dismissal, or by any other kind of threat: or by the imposition of a penalty, or by a promise, or by a wage increase, or by altering any other terms of employment, or by any other means" - that's in the old definition - "to compel or to induce an employee to refrain from becoming, or continuing to be, a member or officer or representative of a trade union."

Now, Mr. Chairman, that section before enabled employees who felt they were being intimidated by some other means not specifically noted under section (c) to appeal to the Labour Relations Board and say: "Look, the employer in this case has, by some other means that is not listed here specifically, been interfering with our right to organize and to become a trade union." Now by taking out that "or by any other means, " it leaves the union with no option except the specific words that cover the options now available to them. In other words, if the employer uses some means other than the ones specifically listed here, such as dismissal or threat of dismissal or by changing wages or altering the conditions of employment - and I want to deal with that later under another section - the employees cannot go to the Labour Relations Board and say: "Look, the employer is being unfair while we are attempting to become organized."

Why did he take it out? "Or by any other means, " left some option to employees who felt that the employer was being unfair during the period of time when they were attempting to organize. That has been removed. Now there are lots of instances where employers could be interfering with the right of the employees to organize other than the ones that are listed here. For instance, an employer could go on a radio show, or he could hold a press conference, and he could talk in general terms about the terrible state of the industry that he is involved in, which is an indirect threat to those employees.

Legitimately, before, under the old Act the employees could go to the Labour Relations Board and say: "This is an unfair practice by the employer while we are attempting to organize." They can't do that now because that's not specifically covered under the section. Why take out the "or by any other means, " and do away with any options that the employees have to go to the Labour Relations Board and say this is unfair? This is an employer's section, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the employers. It's only to cause more difficulty in the peaceful industrial relations that we have seen in most recent times. Why does he want to threaten that? Why does he want to upset the balance? "Or by any other means" was an excellent wording in the old Labour Code. Why does he want to take it out?

[Mr. Kahl in the chair.]

What if he makes a threat? What if the employer under this section makes a threat and says: "Oh, I was thinking out loud."? It's just an offhand sort of a threat that he could make to his employees. He's just thinking out loud. The employees now cannot go to the Labour Relations Board and say that this is unfair because it was an indirect sort of thing. It's not included as a direct threat under the definition of this section.

Mr. Chairman, the old section 3 has been removed entirely and I would like to read that for the interest of the committee this afternoon. This is section 3 (2) (f) , if you wish to follow it in the old Labour Code. This has been taken right out, Mr. Chairman, and I think this is significant. Before, it was considered to be an unfair labour practice to: "Interfere with lawful concerted action by employees for the purpose of obtaining collective representation."

By taking that out, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that you are saying that it's okay to interfere with lawful concerted action by employees for the purpose of obtaining representation. If it was specifically prohibited before, and then you take it out, then you are to a certain extent condoning interference with the lawful concerted action by employees.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're encouraging it, not controlling it.

MS. SANFORD: Sections (g) and (h) certainly have to be mentioned as well, Mr. Chairman, because these two sections are going to make it almost impossible for people in the province to organize. Section (g) will now allow the employer to communicate and to express an opinion to the employees during the period when they're actually seeking certification. It's now okay for the employer to state his opinion that "if you people organize, I'll shut down the business." It says it's illegal to threaten them, but if he is so opposed to labour unions in this province or at his place of business, he can say to them, and justify it under this section because it's his opinion: "In my opinion, because I hate labour

[ Page 5806 ]

unions so much, I will close this place if you people organize." That might be quite a legitimate opinion held by that employer.

There are a number of employers in this province who cannot tolerate the thought of any trade union organization at their place of business. It's a legitimately held opinion. I'm sure that the employer could justify it before the Labour Relations Board and say: "That's what I believe. It's my opinion, and under section (g) I'm allowed to communicate it to my employees during the period of time when they're seeking certification." What it means is that it will allow the employer to intimidate employees in the future when they're seeking certification.

In spite of what the other section says, if you have - and the minister is again shaking his head - an employer who holds that opinion and wishes to communicate it to his employees, he's entitled to do so. Whatever opinion he holds, no matter how anti-labour, no matter how erroneously held that opinion might be, it's his opinion and he can communicate it. What it means is that the previous section where it says that he is not allowed to threaten or to intimidate during that period of time is nullified under section (g) because he can communicate now, he can threaten, he can intimidate employees who are attempting to become organized because of this additional subsection (g) . That's what it means, Mr. Chairman. That's the kind of section that's going t o cause disruption in the labour-management field.

The other thing it says, Mr. Chairman, and I refer you now to subsection (h) , is that an employer is now able to make any change in the operation of the employer's business reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of that business. Now let's have a look at that.

The employer could go to the Labour Relations Board, if those people are attempting to become organized at his place of business, and tell them: "I'm going to give my employees a raise in pay now because, after all, I have not given them a raise in pay for two and a half years and I have made quite handsome profits in the last couple of years. Therefore it's reasonable to me to make this change in the condition of employment." There's no reason why they can't go ahead now and raise those wages. If the employer goes to the Labour Relations Board and says, "But look, my profits have been way up and my employees, the poor things, have not had a raise for two years, or two and a half years, or a year, " he can justify that. He can justify giving them a wage increase at that time. There's nothing in subsection (h) to prevent him. Both subsections (g) and (h) nullify the wording of the previous section.

He can change conditions within his plant if he so wishes. If it is reasonable that there has been some difficulty with some part of the operation and it's been going on for a long time, it may be that that's one of the reasons the employees wish to become organized - so they could talk to the management and get some necessary changes made. He can say: "Well, this has been going on for several years and I've now seen the light. I think that the employees are correct and I should make this particular change in my business. It's reasonable and it's logical as far as the operation of my business is concerned."

Now if you combine all of the changes that have been made under section 2 of this Act, you see an all-out assault on the labour movement and you see again a caving-in to the employers. I will wager that the minister will have to admit: "Yes, the changes that I have referred to in this section were at the request of the employers of this province." I don't think he even consulted with the labour people. I know they didn't ask for those changes.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the member for Comox has referred to how the minister's making it easier for an employer in the midst of an organizing campaign to alter the conditions of work of the employees to discourage them from joining the union. Of course, he can now, under this section that we're debating today. It might be a small lumber operation. He'd say: "Oh, take somebody off the edger and put him on the green chain for a couple of weeks. See how that works out, eh?" So a little message is conveyed there.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): How much time have you spent on the green chain?

MR. MACDONALD: On the green chain itself?

MR. KEMPF: That's right.

MR. MACDONALD: Just a minute. Am I not entitled to protection? Do I have to answer this man here? I'm not a minister of the Crown; I'm not under oral questions. Why should I have to answer that man?

MR. KEMPF: You answered it. Thank you.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm appealing to the Chair for some protection in this House. He shoots a bunch of questions at me and then he takes right off to write some letters to his constituents telling them that this union-busting bill is going well in committee.

Now the legal firm of Gardom and Volrich acted in one of these unfair labour practice cases. It was Kidd Brothers Produce Ltd. against retail-wholesale.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That was Volrich, not me.

[ Page 5807 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Ah! Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General says that he had nothing to do with it. You know, your partner went right to the union meeting where they were organizing and where they were going to take a strike vote. Mr. Volrich, who is now the mayor of Surrey.... No, no, he's the mayor of Vancouver. (Laughter.) That's McKitka who's the mayor of Surrey, isn't it?

HON. MR. GARDOM: What year was that?

MR. MACDONALD: What year was that? The hearings were in 1976; the activity took place in 1975.

Jack Volrich goes right to the union meeting where they are taking a strike vote. It's a small produce firm. He says, "I want to be sure this strike vote is taken legally, " and he is the counsel for the employer. The Labour Relations Board had to say that Gardom and Volrich were engaged in strike-busting activities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. MACDONALD: The whole pattern of what we're talking about is apparent in this case.

First, they fire a guy called Mr. Carrado because he was active in helping to form the union. Then let's see what Mr. Kidd does with Mr. Carrado. He had to be reinstated by the board. "Mr. Kidd says words to the effect that he did not want anyone working for him who was hanging around with Carrado." Now I would think that would now be legal under this section. He hasn't come out against the union; he has just said: "I happen to know this fellow is active in the union." You're taking out intimidation by any other means, so maybe Kidd will be in order now, eh? He just told them: "Don't hang around with that guy Carrado, your fellow employee."

"Bruce Poatsah then told Carrado to wait on the sidewalk and that he would drive around the block and pick him up after Harold Kidd left. A few minutes later when Poatsah stopped to pick up Carrado, Harold Kidd appeared in his car and honked his horn as Carrado stepped into the car. The next day Poatsah and Morberg were individually reprimanded for having given Carrado a ride home." That's a quote from the decision of the Labour Relations Board in the Kidd Produce case.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what we're dealing with here is a very serious matter, because there are all kinds of invisible intimidation against employees, particularly in the service trades and the smaller businesses who join a trade union. They are fired or they get an intimidating message. In the same case, it refers to one of the female employees who was told not to go to the union meeting directly, and she didn't go.

Are you not opening the floodgates to unfair labour practices, Mr. Minister, with this section? It's been analysed by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) , and correctly analysed. For any government at this period in our history to take out the words, making it an unfair practice: ". . interfere with lawful, concerted action by employees for the purpose of obtaining collective bargaining." Why do you take that out? When you take that out of a statute, are you not saying that an employer can , interfere with the lawful, concerted action of employees to form a trade union? Why do you take it out? Why are you taking that out of the statute? When you have it written into the laws of the province and then you take it out, the implication is that it is now open season to do that very thing: to interfere with the lawful organizing activities of employees. It's ridiculous to take a thing like that out. I'd like to know why you are taking that out.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You sit down and I'll answer your question. I'll explain it.

MR. MACDONALD: While the minister is up, let him answer this: "to communicate to an employee a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business." Now this is opening the floodgates for an employer propaganda campaign against employees joining a union. That is bad labour law, Mr. Chairman.

Labour does not interfere in the internal affairs of the employer and the employer should not interfere in the internal affairs of labour. That's what you're doing. Now the two meet. There's room for the employers to state their position when they come to sign an agreement. But in terms of the formation of a trade union, the law should favour that formation and make sure there is no interference from the employer at that stage.

I don't think you'll find anywhere in North America that a Legislature is debating that kind of a section. It has always been good law and good sense and proper protection for trade unionists that in the decision as to whether they should have a union or not, there shouldn't be employer interference. Now you're saying the employer can interfere in a propaganda way by facts or opinions, by saying, for example, "I'm going to lose money if you form a trade union; I'm going to change conditions; I'm going to have to go out of business, " and that kind of thing. The point is: at the stage of collective bargaining, the employer can make these representations, but not at the stage where the employees are deciding among themselves whether or not to have a trade union to appear at the collective bargaining table. That's bad law and it is definitely detrimental to organizing activity in the province of British Columbia. This whole Section 1s all the way

[ Page 5808 ]

through.

Take the words of subsection (c) , if the minister is going to answer these points: the employer may not by intimidation, dismissal, threat of dismissal and so forth, or by an unfair penalty or promise.... It now reads:. ". . . or by any other means, seek to compel or to induce an employee not to belong to a union!'Now by taking out "any other means, " the employer, unless he's within these exact words of the section, can find some other form of intimidation to persuade the person to get the message and to not join a trade union. He can't do it by the factors mentioned. He can do it if he thinks of some other way of getting that message through to the employee that it's not in his interest to join the union.

Again, those words should remain in the Act, because the Act doesn't cover by any means all the cases of intimidation. The Labour Relations Board, if they find intimidation by any means.... They find an offence today; tomorrow they have to find it right within the words of the statute. When you take those words out, you're making it easier for an employer to intimidate employees from joining trade unions.

This is an anti-organization section. It's maybe all right for the strong trade unions of the province of B.C. They may be able to survive under this kind of a section because when somebody is fired they may be able to get some help; they may be able to get work somewhere else. But there are an awful lot of unorganized people - more than half the work force in British Columbia - for whom the minister is making it harder and harder to have collective bargaining. I think that's a tragedy and a step backwards. I think it's an anti-labour section. I think that the unfair labour practices that are written into the Labour Code of British Columbia should be strengthened and not diluted as they're being in this section.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vancouver East, with his, I'd say, customary and expected whimsy, would have me participating in some kind of a labour dispute. I would just like to inform the hon. member that his remarks are interesting but not factual. My practice ceased in December, 1975. They might be using the old letterhead, but it's got nothing to do with me.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I recognized it. The Attorney-General didn't write that letter of May 5,1975. It's signed "John J. Volrich, " but it's Gardom and Volrich.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: That's the one. In May, 1975. Perhaps the Attorney-General was in the Legislature filibustering against the government of that day at that time. I'm sure the Attorney-General had nothing to do with the letter.

Do you know what Mr. Volrich did in that nice little letter? He helped to break the trade union organization in there by saying this: "Mr. Kidd" -that's the owner of the business - "advises that he proposes increases in rates as of September, 1975, so that Mr. Poatsah will then be receiving another 5 or 10 cents."

Just a nice little bit of intimidation - changing of conditions - which the minister is making easier to do under these amendments, easier for the employer by a promise.... In the middle of an organizing drive, when you're trying to get your first contract, the employer comes along and he can write that kind of a letter. Today it would be legal. '~I'm just giving you a little increase. Maybe that will take the edge off your organizing campaign, eh?" That's what we're talking about in these amendments. They're going to make it very much harder for the unorganized to be organized in this province.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Just by one word of response, I'm not aware of the mayor of Vancouver having any ghost writers. But I'm certainly happy to assure the hon. member that I was not it, if he did have any.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I know that the first member for Vancouver East has had a long experience at the bar and a lot of very good trade union clients. They've been very lucrative clients, too, I might say. I happen to know that. They used to give them gifts: fancy briefcases and so on.

But I do wish that when he is considering bills before the House, he would address them with the same degree of skill that he does when he's practising at the bar. In his recent reference to the Kidd case and the offering of a wage increase, there's very specific prohibition in this section against that, as there is in the present Code. It's still there.

Let it be very clear to any employer in this province whose employees may be in the process of organizing into a trade union that they cannot by any kind of intimidation or any kind of dismissal if there's more than one, or by threat of dismissal or by any other threat or by the imposition or a penalty or by any kind of a promise or by a wage increase or by altering any other terms of employment.... That's the widest possible prohibition that one could have. The present Code says: ". . or by any other means." If we've forgotten anything else, then there's nothing else you can do either. But the only thing that was ever forgotten in the former Code was the right of the employer in the course of his business to transmit factual information to his employees.

MR. MACDONALD: Why take the words out?

[ Page 5809 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Just relax. I'll come to that if you will just take the care to read the section. What happened with words "by any other means" was that there was no ability on the part of the employer to communicate with his employees on a matter of fact or any opinion that he might reasonably hold with respect to the employer's business. We put that into subsection (g) of this new proposed section, but we also put in the words: , , except as expressly prohibited."

You can't communicate a statement of fact or an opinion if the purpose of that is to intimidate or threaten. I made it clear during second reading debate that there was to be no electioneering under this legislation. It's not the intention of this legislation to facilitate campaigning with regard to for or against the trade union movement. The words were very carefully chosen. Yes, an employer can communicate a statement of fact ...

MR. MACDONALD: And opinion.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: ... or opinion, reasonably held. That's a judgment that will have to be made in the proper case ...

MR. MACDONALD: That's electioneering.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: ... with respect to the employer's business. Now he can do that unless it is expressly provided for elsewhere in the section -unless it constitutes an intimidation, a threat or any other matter. That protection is still there. As I said in second reading, I don't know why the members say we're anti-labour and so on. This is to clarify this particular problem that existed of how the words "by other means" were being interpreted by lawyers. I'm sure the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) would never give them this interpretation, but the use of the words "by other means, " was that if you get into an organizing situation, don't do anything. You can't communicate to your employees at all. That's unfair, both to the employees and to the employer; therefore the adjustments were made.

Now mention has been made of the fact that in the course of this change we have removed subsection (f) , which was a prohibition against interfering with lawful, concerted action by employees for the purpose of obtaining collective representation. I just suggest that both the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the first member for Vancouver East should go out into the corridor with the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) so he can explain to them what that subsection means. What it says is that you shall not interfere with an organizational strike -that's lawful, concerted action. That's already prohibited under the laws of this province - in fact, the laws of the whole nation. There are no organizational strikes permitted in this jurisdiction. So to say that you can't interfere with something that you can't do lawfully is not much of a change in the Code.

MR. MACDONALD: This is to interfere with lawful activities, not an organizational strike.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Lawful, concerted action, and that's an organizational strike. As a matter of fact, if the member for Revelstoke-Slocan would take the opportunity of going back into the notes that were prepared very extensively during the days when the Code was being formed, you would know perfectly well that that section was imported from the American law. It was quite obviously not applicable in Canada.

MS. SANFORD: Not applicable?

MR. KING: The minister has asked me to comment and I'm pleased to. Section (f) is very clear. It is a prohibition against interfering with ". . . the lawful, concerted action by employees for the purpose of obtaining collective representation."

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, "organizational strike" - you know exactly what those words mean. Come on!

MR. KING: No, organizational strikes are expressly prohibited under the Labour Code.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I know, and that's why this section doesn't need to be there at all.

MR. KING: Is the minister seriously suggesting, Mr. Chairman ...

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There's no such thing as lawful, concerted action.

MR. KING: ... that we are providing a clause in the Labour Code to protect against an act which is illegal? Of course not. What the minister doesn't seem to understand is that there are a variety of concerted actions which a group of employees may take, in a completely legal fashion, to further their organizational campaign. That, Mr. Chairman, could be a meeting - a concerted meeting - of the members within that unit - a membership drive for the union to put forward their campaign to obtain certification. Section (f) expressly prohibits employers from interfering with that type of activity by their employees.

Now it's my feeling that in an organizational drive the employer should be strictly neutral. I believe that there is no role for the employer to take in terms of

[ Page 5810 ]

the right of his employees to make their free choice as to whether or not they wish to have union representation. By implicating the employer in that process as, in my view, these amendments do, by opening up and expressing the precise circumstances under which an employer may comment publicly and may, to some extent, comment on matters affecting the campaign, it is inviting a situation, where the true wishes of the members in that unit might be influenced adversely. That is dangerous. It may not be the minister's intent, again, but in terms of the Labour Relations Board policing the kind of subtle nuances that can be incorporated into statements by employers, it's going to be extremely difficult to police and administer. Statement of fact sounds innocuous, but it could be a statement of fact that if the employees decide to organize and ask for higher wages and better fringe benefits, then the costs of the employer are going to go up. Perhaps his competitive market will be adversely affected. It's a statement of fact.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Aren't the employees entitled to know that? '

MR. KING: It could be a statement of fact in the eyes of the employer. He may believe that, and as such it could be construed to be a threat to the employment security of the employees within that unit. These are the kind of subtle situations which the minister is inviting by opening up the law to allow the employer to participate in any way in the free wishes of his employees.

I think it's wrong. I think it's going to be more difficult for the board to administer, and I think it's certainly going to make the job of organizing unorganized workers more difficult in this province. Now the minister protests that that's not his intent. He apparently misinterprets altogether section (f) of the former Labour Code, because it certainly wasn't intended and directed towards organizational strikes. Indeed, it was my very strong conviction that organizational strikes should be prohibited. In so doing and stressing, we tried to make it very fair in terms of protective legislation for employees to pursue their organizational campaigns without intimidation and coercion from employers. That's why we took the thrust that we did in the Labour Code. So in terms of counselling my colleagues on what section (f) meant, I find that my counsel is necessarily directed toward the minister rather than my colleagues.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the minister certainly hasn't convinced me that the addition of (g) and (h) does not, in fact, nullify the other section about not allowing intimidation or threats or dismissals. I'm sure that most employers could convince the Labour Relations Board that in carrying out various changes that an employer might carry out during the period of certification, he could, for instance, change the hours of work.

Many employers, for instance, ask people to come in 10 minutes early and ask them to stay an extra half hour now and again. The employer could suddenly realize, and justify this before the board, that these extra hours that they are putting in - coming in early and staying late - are really against the labour standards of this province. Many employers have been doing this kind of thing, Mr. Chairman, asking them quietly to do this or quietly to do that. They have not been in contravention of the labour standards -or at least they have been but it hasn't been brought to their attention. Now suddenly the employer could discover that, "Gee, I've really been contravening the labour standards and unless I make this change I'm afraid that the labour standards people are going to get after me."

That's a legitimate change in conditions varying the conditions of employment. It may be that these extra hours and extra few minutes here and there that the employer has been asking the employee to put in are one of the reasons that those employees want to become certified. If the employer, during this certification period, suddenly changes his mind, and announces to the employees, "I'm not going to ask you to do this any more, because I realize that I shouldn't really have been doing it all along, " that can be justified to the Labour Relations Board. There's no way that the Labour Relations Board is going to say: "You can't change that."

AN HON. MEMBER: Voluntary overtime.

MS. SANFORD: Right. The whole thing of voluntary overtime comes into this. The minister has not indicated to us yet, Mr. Chairman, what kind of statements an employer can make to employees which are a matter of opinion. It's his opinion, if this group organizes that: "Because I hate trade unions so much, " he's saying as an employer, "I'm going to close this place down." That's his opinion. It's legitimately held. The minister has not dealt with that.

The other aspect, Mr. Chairman, is that the employer can make all kinds of changes in terms of work. He can move people around, here and there. He can move a person from one section to another because in one section of a plant they're getting kind of active and they may wish to become organized. "I fear that out of that particular section of the plant there may be enough activity to swing this whole plant; therefore I'm just going to make a few changes."

The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) talked about moving somebody onto the green chain.

[ Page 5811 ]

That's quite possible, and an employer can justify that before the Labour Relations Board. That's a "normal change" in the operation of that employer's business? I think an employer could justify that to the Labour Relations Board.

But what the minister has failed to realize, or has failed to take into consideration here, is that for the whole rest of the year, the employer has those employees under his jurisdiction, at his beck and call all day long. He can talk to them at that time about his opinions about becoming organized; he can talk to them at that time about hours of work and voluntary overtime and everything else; he can talk to them at that time saying: "Look, I don't want you people to become organized here. Let's sit down together and see if we can;t work out our differences and operate this plant mutually without you people becoming certified." He has the opportunity for the rest of the year to do that. He has them all of that time. Every day from morning to night he can convey his opinions to those employees.

Now surely during the period of time when people are trying to become organized and certified, the employer should not have that capability where he can actually intimidate, change the working conditions or raise the wages, if he can justify it to the Labour Relations Board. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if the employer hadn't given a wage increase to those employees for a year and a half or two years, he could justify a wage increase to the Labour Relations Board during that period of time when they were being certified. This is a backwards step that the minister is taking.

You know, the old anti-labour legislation that used to exist under the previous Socred government was often attacked by this....

MR. KING: He's getting to look more like Lyle Wicks every day.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, I think you're right.

But, Mr. Chairman, the member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound, now the Minister of Labour, who used to sit over there in the Liberal benches attacked all the anti-labour legislation that was brought in by the previous Socred government. Well, I would like to remind the minister that in the old Labour Relations Act, which fortunately the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) did away with when he introduced the Labour Code, under section 12 (9) , there was a clear stipulation that while certification was in process, no wage increase could take place and no change in working conditions could take place. That's the old anti-labour Labour Relations Act that even that member, the Minister of Labour, was pleased to see done away with and replaced by the Labour Code.

He's going back further than that in time when he brings in changes here which in effect mean that the employer can change wages, can change working conditions and can express his opinion to them and intimidate them and threaten them in spite of what that other section says. If that's the way the employer feels, it's his opinion; he can say it to the employees. When that employer has all the opportunity during every other period with those employees - he can talk to them and tell them what he thinks - why does the minister think it's necessary for him to be able to do that during the period of certification?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, you're going to enjoy my comments, because you were not very happy with my vote on section 1.

I've listened to the arguments pro and con. On the question of the right of an employer to open his mouth and state certain opinions that he holds.... I'm a little disturbed that the official opposition should take this extreme position that somehow or other the employer.... You may be right in suggesting that the employer hates trade unions, although I think that's a strong word. I think there are very few employers who hate trade unions and have their apprehensions about them, and I'm sure the unions have their apprehensions about employers, but I am a little upset because I think this particular debate on this section underlines the paranoia that exists in this province and the deep distrust between the two opposing factions which makes European type of industrial relationships impossible in British Columbia.

As far as I'm concerned, if we talk about being democratic, I can't for the life of me see that there is anything but democracy incorporated in this particular section. The employer should have the right to communicate to an employee a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held.

Now the member for Revelstoke-Slocan has made the point that that could be distorted and could be used as intimidation. I agree; it could be. But are we going to stop trying to improve legislation in this country just because there is a possibility that one or the other party might prostitute that section? I think if we're going to come into this House with such a protective, scared, negative attitude to any attempt at improvement then of course we're going to continue to have the head-on confrontations that have marred the labour scene in this province for all too long. I've acknowledged that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan knows very well that I'm not deeply versed in these problems. I have to try and judge it by the wording I have in the Act before me and the comments of more informed members of the House, such as the member for Revelstoke-Slocan and the minister. But I think we've reached a sorry day in this province if the language spelled out in section 2, particularly

[ Page 5812 ]

subsections (f) and (g) , are to be regarded as some kind of open-sesame for the employer to intimidate employees who are in the process of being organized or are considering work action.

I listened carefully to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, who said that he felt the precise wording of the subsections would make it very difficult for the Labour Relations Board to police the implementation of the section. I wonder if the minister could clarify the manner in which this would be policed. In other words, if the member for Revelstoke-Slocan is correct in his fears that certain employers would abuse the rights given to them in this section, I presume the normal challenge to unfair labour practice would take place under the jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board. I just think that all along in this debate and in other debates we've had on labour matters, we've always talked about balance. But you can't allow too much power to go in either one or the other direction, whether it be to employers or unions. It's my impression from reading all the editorials and newspaper comments and listening to the debate that in fact this Section 1s not an unreasonable shift of power to allow employers to make a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to their business or to make any change in the operation of the employer's business reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of that business. I also acknowledge that it can be abused, but so can almost any provision of this kind of legislation. There has to be some relative degree of interpretation and authority attached, no matter what wording this minister chooses to put in this Act or the former minister might have chosen. I think that when we try to look at it in a balanced way and in an overall context, the authority which this Section 1s giving to employers, in my view, is not unreasonable, provided that the minister can demonstrate the prompt and effective way in which the Labour Relations Board will be able to deal with employers who abuse the wording of sub-sections (g) and (h) for their own particular bias.

Provided that we can have some clarification by the minister as to how promptly and effectively he believes abuses of the section can be dealt with, then I'm not opposed to this amendment.

I Mr. Veitch in the chair. I

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Oak Bay, all matters of alleged unfair labour practices are reported by those who would allege to the the board. Investigations are carried out, and if necessary hearings are held and the board makes a determination.

Now it isn't just simply a determination that there has been unfair labour practice. The employers of this province fully recognize that under the Code the board has authority, and exercises that authority, to order reinstatement of employees who have been dismissed as a result of an unfair labour practice, with retroactive payment of lost wages.

The power of the board to make right orders is quite clear. The hon. first member for Vancouver East referred to a case in his remarks on this debate a few moments ago, in which the board did apply their authority. There was a recent announcement in the press, which was really the second announcement of the case, where an employer in this province was subjected to financial loss in the amount of $50,000 in the first instance as a result of practices of this kind. Therefore there is nothing in the amendments in Bill 89 which will take away that process or interfere with that obligation, that responsibility, of the board.

I would like to just say once again that this amendment preserves the prohibition against intimidating acts, threatening acts, dismissals, alteration of wages, or alterations of any other terms of employment designed by the employer to compel or induce an employee to refrain from becoming, or continuing to be, a member of a trade union. Those are express provisions, which the employer would breach at his very serious peril. -

When we come over to looking at the rights that are preserved for the employer with regard to communication, it is also provided that, except as expressly provided in the Act, an employer may do these things. When you read the two together, if it is alleged that the communication of a statement of fact by an employer to an employee was not for that purpose alone but was for the purpose of intimidation or threatening to compel that employee not to become a member of a trade union, then the employer falls foul of the section, and all of the penalties that he faces would flow from that.

I would say to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan that in the course of his debate he was the only one to raise the question of coercion. There are no words, of coercion in this section, nor in the section which it amends. That's covered under another section of the Code. I would refer the members to section 5 of the Code, which prohibits any coercion or intimidation of any kind with respect to the matter of becoming or continuing to be a member of a trade union. That remains unchanged.

I think that as a consequence, as the member for Oak Bay says, the change which we are today debating merely restores the democracy and the even-handed relationship which, surely, we have to accept and adopt in this province, or the attitudes of confrontation will continue.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of things. I'm certainly familiar with the provisions regarding

[ Page 5813 ]

coercion in the Labour Code, but I'd point out to the minister that statements can be coercive. My real concern he ' ie is that the strict neutrality that was required of employers with regard to the rights of their employees to organize, into a trade union has now been modified and, to some extent, abridged. In my view it is going to be very, very difficult for the board not only to look at and give effect to the language but to come to grips with the underlying intent and motivation of statements that the employers can make respecting organizational campaigns and so on.

Section (g) does clearly indicate that this right to communicate to an employee a statement of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business.... It sounds innocuous, Mr. Chairman, but that is in the context of organizational campaigns by trade unions. It is in the context of organizational campaigns and must be seen and viewed that way by the Labour Relations Board in terms of their application and policing of that particular section.

It's going to be very difficult for them to make that kind of definitive decision over some statement which, on the face of it, may appear fairly innocuous, buy may also, due to peculiar circumstances in the plant and peculiar relationships born out of historical relationships which are not readily discernible to the public, be coercive and can indeed be damaging to the right and the freedom of those employees to freely express their preference.

The even-handed approach? Let's not confuse that. There's a role for the even-handed approach and that is in the collective bargaining process, where there should be a reasonable economic balance. We're not dealing with even-handedness here. We're dealing with the absolute right of employees to organize, free from intimidation or interference by someone who has not got a legitimate interest in their preference. The employer has absolute rights, too, and they're enshrined in legislation. That minister is diligently protecting them.

The even-handed approach really doesn't apply here, in my view. It's not just here and it's not just some peculiar socialist viewpoint; it's recognized throughout the world. The World Council of Churches and the United Nations measure the democracy of nations on the basis of the freedom of workers in that state to organize, free of harassment, free of coercion and free from involvement of management, who, after all, on the face of it, as a general rule, are not going to encourage trade union organization. It's not a matter of hating them. It's a matter of self-interest.

The employer is not going to pay out more money than he has to in terms of wages and fringe benefits. I'm not condemning him for that. That's a fact of life. It's irrefutable. He's certainly not going to encourage it. But it's my strong view that he should be rendered completely neutral in terms of the statutory law of this province, when it comes to workers' rights to express their own preference for organization and representation.

MS. SANFORD: I think the point made by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan is one which applies so clearly under sections (g) and (h) . You talk about even-handedness and yet, when you recognize that the employer has access to those employees at all other times ... he can communicate with them, he can convince them, he can cajole them, and he can attempt to persuade them that they should not become organized. Mr. Chairman, if the workers are going to exercise that right that they have to organize, it's essential that they don't have this kind of interference from the employer during that period of time. I think the minister is making a grave error here.

The other point that was raised earlier, to which the minister has not responded, relates to the removal of section (f) . He suggested that the reason that section (f) has been taken out is that the word "action" means strike. He did not justify the reason for removing that section. "Action, " as was pointed out to him, can mean things other than strike. A strike, of course, is prohibited under the Labour Code during that period of time.

What about these other actions? If they wish to have a meeting to discuss the possibility of becoming organized, off premises and not during the time which they are being employed, the employer can now interfere. That's what the removal of that section does, and I think the minister owes us an explanation as to why that is being taken out, because it is clear that "action" can mean something other than strike.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 28

NAYS - 13

[ Page 5814 ]

Ms. Sanford requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 3.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, we are very much opposed to this section, as well, which will remove the right of the organizing group to obtain the names, phone numbers and addresses of the employees within that unit.

I'm afraid, Mr. Chairman, that this is going to mean a waste of the board's time. The Labour Relations Board is going to be faced with requests from organizing unions, saying: "Look, we have what we think is 35 per cent of the employees in that unit signed up, and we would like to have a certification vote." But the thing is that once this section has been removed, there is no way that the group that is being certified or the union that's doing the certification is going to know how many people are in that unit. They do not know who the employees are; they don't know how many there are; they don't know what their names are; they don't know what their addresses are.

I would ask the minister how he expects the union that is out to certify is to obtain all of those names and addresses, to know how many are within that unit, and to know when they have 35 per cent so that they can go to the Labour Relations Board. I suspect that what's going to happen is that they're going to run to the Labour Relations Board as soon as they have a given number, assuming that that is 35 per cent of the unit, only to find out that there are in fact far more employees within that unit. They didn't know about them and they couldn't get the names and the addresses from the employer for this. I wonder if the minister would tell us how this is going to happen.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think it will happen as it happened historically in this province, and that is that the members of the work force, the employees, know who each other are. When they are in the process of organizing - and this is done at the instigation of the employees - it is quite a simple matter for them to communicate this information.

The question of who is in the intended unit, of course, has always been the decision of the board because it's the board who decides what is appropriate in the way of a unit. It's always been the case that the trade union had to concern itself with what the intended unit was.

As I indicated in second reading, the purpose of this amendment, by deletion of this section, is only to ensure that the rights of workers are preserved. Their home address and their telephone number are their own business. It's provided to the employer only because the employer requires it in connection with his business; and if the employee wishes to give it to the trade union, that's his choice. There are any number of examples where the giving of telephone numbers, addresses and other such information in other walks of life is seriously criticized. I just don't believe it should be extended into the Code.

MS. SANFORD: Despite what the minister is telling us, he feels that it's a threat to the employees to have their names made available to people who are out organizing. But this again, because of the nature of certification, of belonging to a trade union, of going through that very difficult procedure of becoming certified, makes it far more difficult. It is in fact just another aspect of the anti-labour approach that we see in this bill. I am opposed to it.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to prolong debate on the section, but I wish to assure you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee that this section doesn't make it any more difficult to become certified. It may make it more difficult for a trade union organizer to sign up an employee as a member of the trade union but it doesn't make it more difficult to be certified.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

On section 5.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, this is the section which puts a heavy interest on the words "public interest." I tried to point out to the minister during second reading that if he is really interested in the public, the best thing he could do is to avoid the kind of anti-labour legislation which this is. By attacking the labour movement in this way, as we've pointed out through the various sections we've already discussed, he is in fact inviting the confrontation that will come and he's inviting the chaos that we saw prior to 1972 in this province under the other anti-labour legislation. This is only another step in that direction. In the public interest, Mr. Chairman, the best thing he can do is to ensure that he doesn't use this kind of approach if he wants any kind of industrial peace, because that is in the interest of the public.

The other point I would like to make on this section, Mr. Chairman - and I think this is a very serious change that the minister has initiated - is that he has changed, under section 5 (2) , which is just over the page on page 3 The board may from time to time formulate general guidelines in furtherance of

[ Page 5815 ]

the operation of this Act. . . ." That's a change from "policy" to "guidelines." In my view, this change could be very, very significant because what in fact has been happening is that decisions which are brought down by the Labour Relations Board have been precedent-setting, almost as they are in the court system.

The decisions which have been arrived at by the Labour Relations Board have become policy of the Labour Relations Board - not stated directly, but unstated. The trend has been there, and the policy which has been developed is as a result of the carefully made decisions of the Labour Relations Board. Very often, for instance, the trade unionists might be most unhappy with a decision that was brought down by the Labour Relations Board, but at least they knew why it was happening, and at least they could understand that this was the kind of thing they could expect in the future. By substituting the word "guidelines" for "policy" what will happen is that decisions that are made are not based on any kind of policy that has been set by the Labour Relations Board over the years that it's been in operation. Instead there'll be some sort of guidelines.

It may be a change that may appear innocuous on the surface, but it seems to me that there is an inherent danger. I don't understand why the word "policy" would have been changed to "guidelines." The chairman of the board, for instance, when writing out decisions made by the Labour Relations Board, would often make reference to discussion and debate that had been held in this House. Based on that debate and the intent of the Legislature at the time this section was passed, it becomes a policy of the board. Now we change "policy" to "guidelines." Who is it that's going to set those guidelines? It's no longer going to be policy-setting or precedent-setting decisions, but some kind of vague guidelines. I see a danger in this, and I hope that the minister will be able to clarify for us why he's made the change from "policy" to "guidelines."

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: First of all, I wish to respond to the suggestion from the member for Comox that we are attacking the trade union movement. We are not attacking the trade union movement or the trade unions with this legislation. Indeed, we are enshrining in the Code, through these amendments, some of the best practices of trade unions in this province. We're going to make them applicable to all trade unions.

With respect to the semantic discussion as to using general policy or general guidelines, if the member would take the time to look at the present subsection (2) of section 27, these general policies are for the guidance of the general public. It just happens to be our view that a quasi-judicial administrative tribunal such as the board is quite within its rights and the discharge of its responsibilities in the establishing of guidelines for the guidance of the public, but not the establishment of policies.

It is also obvious that it is inappropriate to talk about the establishment of policies when the board itself is not bound by those policies. Therefore, in the circumstances, the word "guidelines" is more appropriate to the function and to the wording of the section.

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Chairman, the board was certainly not bound by the policies as such or by previous decisions. But this change, Mr. Chairman, opens up the possibility of the board making decisions which are unrelated to previous decisions. While they were not required to follow them as policy, they were certainly following decisions that had been made and became precedent-setting. I think that this subtle change in wording here could be very dangerous in the future. I suppose, Mr. Chairman, the only thing we are going to be able to do is to watch and see what happens on this one.

MR. KING: I just wanted to add my note of concern regarding the philosophical change and directive that is contained in this new section. I think that it is liable to affect some decisions of the board in terms of the public interest regard that they are instructed to exercise in their -decisions. I think this adds a dimension which could certainly colour some of the decisions flowing from, if not this board, certainly subsequent boards. I think it's implicit in the whole Labour Code that the striving for industrial harmony in this province in itself serves the public interest. To try and set up a situation where there are three parties is, in my view - to some extent anyway - to create the inference that the parties to collective bargaining are less than citizens of the province, less than members of the public. While it's a bit bland and while it's not a hard thing that we're going to raise any great debate about, I think the philosophy behind it is perhaps going to prove counter to the stated interests of the minister.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 6 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The amendment restates the section as it appears in the original bill. Mr. Chairman, in moving that amendment, I also wish to

[ Page 5816 ]

move from the floor a subamendment. I have copies of the proposal for the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) . I wish to assure the House that there is absolutely no change whatsoever in the substance or the wording by reason of these amendments.

The purpose of the subamendment is to take what is subsection (1) and move it down to subsection (5) and move all the other sections up and renumber them. It's a straight renumbering and there is no other change.

I'll explain the reasons for the subamendment. The decisions of the Labour Relations Board with regard to section 39 refer to subsections as they are now numbered. We wish to restore the numbering of amended section 39 so that the subsections are the same, so that when people are reading existing decisions they can do so without having to translate from one subsection to the other. The new proposed subsection (1) is moved down to (5) and all the others are moved up and renumbered (1) , (2) , (3) , and (4) .

Amendment approved.

On section 6 as amended.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak on the section as amended. I remember that the government used to make a big thing out of amendments to bills that were before the House. I don't think I've ever seen a statute that's been amended so many times as the one that is before us at the moment, with apparently a good degree of confusion in the minister's mind as to precisely what he wanted to put before the House and what the guidelines and underlying philosophy of it was.

However, we had that debate in second reading. I don't want to open old wounds and I don't want to see the minister bleed any more than he already has. But, Mr. Chairman, I do take strong exception to the basic change which requires that 45 per cent of the employees in a unit be members in good standing before application can be made for certification. This approach clearly indicates to me that the government basically is not out to encourage the greater organization of the unorganized people of this province by making organization more accessible and attainable. Rather they are out to put obstacles in the way of workers gaining certification for the purpose of collective bargaining.

To increase the percentage of workers in a unit to 45 per cent, whereas under the Labour Code as it exists it was a 3 5 per cent requirement, is just another obstacle in the path of getting that vast number of workers in the province who as yet do not enjoy the benefit of collective bargaining to that point. The Minister of Labour, in my view, should be one who encourages collective bargaining as the normal relationship between workers and their employer. If the Minister of Labour has no commitment to that premise, then I think the times ahead look very bleak for working people.

I believe only 43 per cent or 44 per cent of the work force in this province is organized. That means that certainly the vast majority are not.

MR. WALLACE: It's 44.9 per cent.

MR. KING: Is it 44.9 per cent? It's still not a very healthy percentage of our work force that is organized and enjoys trade union benefits.

The increased requirements under the amendments to section 39 make it that much more difficult and are a disincentive to trade unions applying for certification on behalf of many small units in the service sector, and so on. I'm pleased that the minister removed from his legislation the 55 per cent requirement before certification would be granted. I'm pleased that he removed that, after some considerable confusion, but I would draw to the attention of the minister and the Premier that there are a number of members sitting in this House on the government side who failed to get 45 per cent of the vote in the last provincial election. There may be some on the opposition side, too.

There certainly are a number of members in this House who never received that kind of mandate, but they're elected and they're accepted under the rules of this House with a mandate and the authority to represent their various constituencies, and yet this government, for some philosophical reason, to serve some purpose, says that the rules that apply to members of this illustrious chamber are just a little too good for the average working guy out there. Perhaps they're afraid that if they give too much democracy to the working guy, then there might be problems in terms of the government's authority. Maybe that's the fear, I don't know. But I don't believe in double standards. I believe there should be a fairly even-handed yardstick and measurement for giving people their preference in this province.

It is an irony that the Minister of Labour is saying under this amendment that before the union can make application even for a representation vote to determine whether they can win a majority support of the workers within that unit, they have to have actually signed up 45 per cent of the members in that unit. It's more of an irony and it's more of a disincentive to trade union organization, taken in conjunction with the previous amendments in this amendment statute which now will open up the exercise to comment and involvement by management.

It's a disincentive all the more when in the same bill, unions are denied access to the names, addresses

[ Page 5817 ]

and telephone numbers of the workers within the unit. How on earth are they going to win a majority if they don't know who's in the unit? All of these things taken together just have to be viewed as a hostile gesture and as a hostile attitude toward the rights of working people to express their preference as to whether they want to be represented by a trade union or not. This comes down on the side of discouraging rather than encouraging trade union organization.

I think it's most regrettable, and I suppose we're not going to change it. The government still has a majority over there, but I want to advise and admonish them, Mr. Chairman, that majorities can be quickly eroded away when proper respect for the people of this province are not given full regard. I suggest that come the next election, many of the Munchkins are going to pay for the reactionary conduct of this minister.

MR. WALLACE: First of all, perhaps I'm not as concerned about the outcome of the next election as perhaps the other members in this House. I would tell the backbenchers who sent me a note.... When I voted for the government on section 2 of this bill, it was decided that I wasn't a pinko; I was only medium rare. But anyway, I'm reappearing in my pinko garb on this section.

I just want to reiterate my feeling, Mr. Chairman. We talked about balance and I feel that this section does add an unfair obstacle to organizing. Since the unorganized sectors and the low-paid workers in our community are the ones who least need further obstacles put in their way, if you really believe in balancing the rights and access of workers to organizing as contrasted with the rights of the employers to present their point of view, that's why I supported section 2.

I just think this is an unnecessary and unfortunate move by the government which inevitably must antagonize the trade union movement. The minister said in second reading that this would strengthen the mandate of organized workers. It certainly will, in the same way that it would strengthen the mandate of any government. If each one of us in this House had to have a certain stipulated percentage of the votes cast in an election, if every member in that government or of the government of the day had to have 45 per cent of the votes, for example, then indeed you would strengthen the mandate. But you wouldn't make the system necessarily any fairer or any more democratic.

The fact is that this is making it harder for workers to become organized. The unfortunate group who most need help to further their own interests in the marketplace are the people on minimum wage or low wages who, in light of this section, are going to find it harder and harder to become organized. For that reason I just think it's a shift against trade union activity at a time when a reasonable balance seems to have been reached.

I think it's very unfortunate. It may well lead to problems and antagonism by the trade union movement in this province, not just in this section or in relation to this point but because the trade union movement feels that the government is anti-union in the light of this kind of amendment. I think the unions will respond perhaps aggressively or obstructively to the minister in other areas where he could be making changes. I think it's a regrettable amendment and wish to oppose it.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Leave granted for divisions to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

FAMILY RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Family Relations Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Davis, on behalf of the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , presented the annual report for the year ended March 31,1977, of the Land Commission of the province of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

[ Page 5818 ]

APPENDIX

S9 The Hon. L. A. Williams to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 89) intituled Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1977, to amend as follows:

Section 6: By deleting section 6 and substituting the following: "Application for certification.

"6. Section 39 is repealed and the following substituted:

"39. (1) In this section, 'period' means the seventh and eighth months in each year of the term of a collective agreement or of a renewal or continuation of it.

" (2) Where no collective agreement is in force and no trade-union is certified as bargaining agent for a unit that is appropriate for collective bargaining, a trade union claiming to have as members in good standing not less than 45% of the employees in that unit may, at any time, subject to the regulations, apply to the board to be certified for that unit.

" (3) A trade-union claiming to have as members in good standing a majority of employees in a unit that is appropriate for collective bargaining may, subject to the regulations, apply to the board to be certified for that unit where

(a) no collective agreement is in force, and either

(i) 6 months have elapsed since the date of certification of a trade union for the unit, or

(ii) the board has consented to an application before the expiry of the period of 6 months, or

(b) a collective agreement is in force only during the period; but where

(c) one or more applications have been made during a period, and regardless of the outcome, or

(d) the board, pursuant to section 57 (3) , certifies a council of trade-unions as a bargaining agent for a unit, or varies a certification by substituting for the trade union or trade-unions named in it a council of trade unions as the bargaining agent for a unit, no trade-union may apply to the board to be certified for that unit or, in the case of a council of trade-unions, for any constituent part of the unit, until the second period next following the date of the application, the certification, or the variation of a certification, whichever is the latest.

" (4) Notwithstanding subsection (3) (b) , (c) , or (d) ,

(a) a trade-union that is a party to a collective agreement, but is not certified with respect to the employees covered by that agreement, may apply to be certified at any time, and

(b) a council of trade-unions comprised of trade-unions that are parties to collective agreements may apply to be certified at any time in place of those trade-unions.

" (5) Two or more trade-unions claiming to have as members in good standing in those trade-unions a majority of employees in a unit that is appropriate for collective bargaining may join in an application under this Part, and the provisions of this Act relating to an application by one trade-union, and all matters or things arising from it, apply in respect of the application and those trade-unions as if it were an application by one trade-union."