Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1992

Volume 7, Number 9

[ Page 4493 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I call committee on Bill 84.

LABOUR RELATIONS CODE
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 84; E. Barnes in the chair.

On section 53.

W. Hurd: I have a few additional issues to canvass on section 53, particularly those pertaining to the work of the consultation committee during the term of a collective agreement. In a situation where a substantial number of layoffs would be impending as a result of a technological or material change in the business -- the loss of a major contract or something of that nature -- I wonder if the minister could just amplify whether the consultation committee would be able to materially change or delay the decision of the employer in connection with a layoff under this part of the act. The opposition is somewhat concerned that the consultation committee may actually reduce the latitude the employer has in terms of exercising rights under the collective agreement to engage in the layoff of employees in a situation where his business may be materially affected by the loss of a major contract or something that could place the business in some jeopardy if immediate action were not taken. I just wonder if the minister could amplify on what role the consultation committee might take in the way of delaying that type of decision or whether it would have a role to play.

Hon. M. Sihota: If you read the section carefully, you realize that nothing could happen without mutual agreement, so nobody could do to others without the consent of the others.

J. Tyabji: Yesterday we spent some time discussing this section. The minister was actually quoted in the House as saying that he felt that this was the most exciting part of the bill.

Hon. M. Sihota: One of the most.

J. Tyabji: I think we'd better check the Hansard transcripts. I think it was "the" most exciting part of the bill. That has overtones of social engineering and that kind of thing. I'd like to canvass the minister's thoughts with regard to section 53. It does seem to me that we had situations in the past with employers and employees where there was a sort of continuum as to whether or not they had a good relationship and got along, or the other extreme.

In the event of their having a good relationship, I think the minister will concede that they will automatically consult on issues that are pertinent to the work environment, but when the situation is not good, it will actually exacerbate the situation to force them through legislation to sit down at a table. The comment that I'd like to make to the minister -- I'm sure he will agree with that -- is that forcing people to sit down together when they are not in agreement on things without closure.... Because here section 53 really doesn't say that anything that comes out of this committee is binding.

It seems to me that because section 53 is not binding -- basically you have a committee that is legislated to sit down and talk -- and the composition of that committee is not really being outlined, it doesn't really have a mandate. We do have a provision for a collective agreement in which they have to sit down every two months. I guess the problem I have is that if you look under section 53(3), the part that is automatically to be adopted in the collective agreement actually reads:

"On the request of either party, the parties shall meet at least once every 2 months" -- I have a problem with it being that specific, because that to me is a lot of interference -- "until this agreement is terminated, for the purpose of discussing issues relating to the workplace that affect the parties or any employee bound by this agreement."

Now the thing that strikes me there is that in my mind I'm thinking of this as the Christmas party clause, because technically speaking, the way it's worded here, if it's an issue "relating to the workplace that affects parties or any employee by this agreement," anything -- such as whether or not they should have a staff party -- would fall into that; you have to convene your committee for that.

D. Lovick: Is that bad?

J. Tyabji: I'm hearing people say: "Is that bad?" I don't think what we're getting to here is whether or not we should all sit in a warm and fuzzy environment by a fireplace and discuss whether or not management and employees should sit and discuss staff parties. What we're looking at here and what we were trying to get to yesterday is that this minister was saying that this clause makes the business more competitive. If we have a management that is going to be put in a position where, if the staff person would like to discuss something that has nothing to do with the work environment and everything to do with something on the social aspect of things....

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: According to the legislation, they have to do that, and that's going to interfere very much with the way the operations of the business can continue.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: I heard the comment "Let's be realistic." I am being realistic. The way this provision for the collective agreement is worded, anybody can come

[ Page 4494 ]

forward with any matter and convene the committee. That is not going to make any business more competitive. Just as a worker could come to management and say we have to convene the committee, we could also have management harassing employees. We could have management saying this is my tool to make you sit at the table with me -- on something that they don't really want to talk about.

I'd really like to hear from the minister on three points. First of all, why does he feel that he has to be so specific on the once every two months? Where did that timing come from? Secondly, it says "issues that affect the parties," but is not specific as to issues in the work environment. Why is it so open-ended? Why isn't there some kind of clause that would restrict that to something that affects the work environment? The third point is that there is no closure on this, and there's no mandate for the committee. In actual fact, you're creating a talk shop without a mandate. You're giving it an open-ended area, a wide scope. Anything can come to this committee. Either end can trigger the committee. It could easily be used as a tool of harassment for both ends.

If the minister could address those three points, I think we could at least get it on the record, be a bit more specific and maybe confine what this is, and we could reassure everybody out there that this isn't going to be so open-ended that it will be a tool of harassment for either party.

[10:15]

Hon. M. Sihota: Yesterday, during the course of debate, I noticed that the member for Surrey-Cloverdale was, in his own eloquent way, admonishing me for not defining "regularly" in section 53(2) to mean at least once every two months. I accepted his comments. Now this morning I'm hearing that once every two months is something that gives an hon. member of the same party some discomfort.

Every two months is a reasonable amount of time for the parties to sit down and talk about workplace issues and to see how things are progressing. To answer all your questions, I think it's sensible, wise and prudent, in order to maintain our competitive ability in this province, that workers and employers get together to talk about workplace issues and how they can respond to changes in the economy and to try and promote workplace productivity. So we've inserted this clause in there to make sure that those kinds of efforts, which are good for proper labour-management relations, are found in the section. I cannot for a moment think the Liberal Party would be upset with a notion of consultation or would find it in some way wrong for management and labour to consult. Nor would I think that they should read into the section a requirement to consult for Christmas parties. I don't think that's the intent.

The intent is to deal with, on a consultative basis, changes to the economy, work-related skills development and productivity. Those are good things. We should be talking more often. I think all too often in this province we don't talk about those kinds of issues until we get to the bargaining table. I don't think it hurts to sit down with your employees every two months. I think all of us who have been involved in having employees work under us find that in the blur of day-to-day realities, sometimes months or years go by before we really sit down to have a serious talk with our employees about how things are going or how we can work better to be more competitive. This encourages the parties to meet more frequently and resolve issues. It represents an opportunity for us to move away from what I described earlier as a confrontational and adversarial relationship to one where the parties work together.

J. Tyabji: The comment that I would make on this before asking the next question is that I have a problem with the minister thinking that he can legislate more competitiveness for industry through this section. That's basically what he's saying. He feels he had to put this in here to make our businesses more competitive.

Also, the opposition has no problem with consultation. We do have a problem with the government being so intrusive on business that they have to put a section in to try, in their own perception, to legislate more competitiveness.

We know that there will probably be very few collective agreements in the province that would have something as described in 53(3), because the collective agreement does not contain the provisions. Section 53(3) says: "...it shall be deemed to contain the following consultation committee provision...." To what extent will that be retroactive? Is that to be introduced at the termination of current collective agreements in the next stage? What will the triggering mechanism be for existing collective agreements with regard to 53(3)? How will that get into the ones that are already out there? To give you an illustration: once the bill becomes law, at what point are employers out there, who don't even know section 53(3) exists, going to be confronted with it and in what form?

Hon. M. Sihota: It would be my view that this section would be in effect upon proclamation. Secondly, it should be known by the hon. member that quite a few collective agreements have this provision. Thirdly, I'm sure there's some way that we can make sure that employers are well aware of this provision upon proclamation. That's a good point: making sure that they know about it. I'll discuss with staff some ways of making sure that they are aware of the existence of that provision.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have just a few comments, and then perhaps we can move on to the next section. As we discussed earlier, section 53 -- in my mind, anyway -- is going to be seen, as time passes, as counterproductive and will not achieve what the minister has asked for. We disagree on that matter. The minister thinks it's going to achieve what he's trying to achieve: goals which I think are held by all sides of this House -- i.e., a good consultation process, a good discussion and some form of productivity discussion that can happen on an ongoing basis for good, harmonious labour relations. I think that's a good goal; I just don't think the minister is going about it in the right

[ Page 4495 ]

way. We went through that at some length yesterday, so I don't intend to repeat myself.

The question of retroactivity, as raised by my colleague, is one that I'm a little concerned about, being well aware that this type of clause does exist in numerous collective agreements already. Isn't it enough to put this in place and have it act...? It's a short question, so perhaps if I could have the minister's attention soon, we could get on to the next section. Does it not make sense to leave those collective agreements that are in place presently as they are until they expire? Then upon their expiration, this type of clause could be put into the collective agreement, as opposed to imposing it on the date the bill is proclaimed.

Hon. M. Sihota: I think the member for Cariboo North wants to speak. I'll let him speak on this issue; I think he can add to it.

F. Garden: I'm having real difficulty sitting here and listening to some of the questioning that's coming from the opposition on this particular question. It boggles my mind that they would be wasting -- and I choose my word carefully on that -- their time on this particular issue. I thought there were other issues in this bill that they were really concerned about, that they would be standing up and waxing eloquent on, and we would be able to sit here and listen attentively to their arguments instead of spending time on this. What it proves to me is that there's a very scant knowledge within the opposition benches and their members of what actually happens in the workplace in these kinds of situations.

You could have the best agreement in the world.... It talks about consultation on technological change and mechanization. You could have the best safety committees in the world in that relationship; you could have all kinds of other committees. But there comes a point in the relationship when some action, on behalf of either the workers or management, sours that relationship. If it's a long-term contract -- three years, for example -- the only time these people get together is within the strict guidelines of these committees. During that time, if either the union or the company wants to get to a meeting place where they could discuss something that affects the workplace, then this clause has provisions in it for them getting together. And if they can't get together, it has provisions for either side applying for a facilitator to bring them together.

I have seen these kinds of things happening to the point where an employer.... I've heard the argument from the opposition benches for the last hour and a half of this debate -- I'm talking about yesterday too -- where they kept emphasizing the employer's rights. But I've seen a situation where an employer wanted to discuss something with his union, notwithstanding all the written agreements and contracts, and the union said: "No, we're not going to meet with you." They wouldn't meet with him, and it was something that required the cooperation of both sides. They couldn't even meet outside the strict parameters that are in present agreements.

This is a good move for both sides, because if you go three years and are not sitting down and talking in a proper manner, by the time you get to the third year, both sides could be so set in their ways that good labour relations are hard to find. This provides an opportunity to break that kind of situation. Somebody said, before the last great war, that it's better to talk, talk, talk than to war, war, war. This clause, in my estimation, is good for both sides -- those sides that already have agreements and those sides that don't -- because it provides an opportunity for a rational discussion on workplace issues. I don't care what it is -- whether it's a social function or not -- there are some companies and unions that work together. Each side will put a dollar or two to build up a social fund. A dollar comes from each member, and the company matches every dollar.

If you don't have opportunities to sit down and talk about these things, it could fester and cause some real problems. I can't understand for the life of me why the opposition is wasting so much time. What it does say to me is that collectively there wouldn't be a good shop steward among the lot of them.

G. Farrell-Collins: I've never heard so much garbage in my life. The reality is that that's not what we've been saying. If the member had been here on an ongoing basis, he would understand that we've said that all of the things the member talks about are laudable goals. Those are appropriate things for them to be doing. The difference is that this government is trying to impose it. You're putting in legislation that they have to get together. If you think you can legislate two people to go to the table to discuss things in a harmonious way, you're dreaming in technicolor, because it will not happen. You can imagine all you want; it won't happen. If you want to achieve....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Ask the Finance minister the same question.

This section has good goals. We support the goals; we do not support the process. We think it's counterproductive, and that's why we'll be voting against it.

G. Wilson: As someone who has had some considerable experience in labour relations and negotiation, I know that those who are involved in private sector industrial unions tend to look down their noses somewhat at public sector unions, particularly those in post-secondary education. We witnessed that in our meeting with the B.C. Federation of Labour.

Let me say that in our judgment section 53 is the sleeper in this bill. There is a very old proverb that I think everybody would agree with, and that is simply that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. We are essentially trying to legislate something that needs to be brought about by common demand or common concern.

The wording of this tends to eliminate past experiences, settled before many councils, going all the way back to the last NDP government -- including one that I was involved with. The present wording in section 53

[ Page 4496 ]

has been well-tested. There is a very strong and very good body of jurisprudence that has determined that the wording of the existing bill is not only adequate and proper but is in fact better in terms of the resolution process that is necessary. The new wording is open-ended and hands the unions a lot of the traditional demands of employers that were made during bargaining over the last 20 years. As a result, unions have achieved a great deal over the last while in terms of the proposed legislation. They are now going to be given an opportunity to collect through this legislative process what they couldn't get through a collective bargaining process.

[10:30]

I'd like the minister to tell us whether or not he agrees that that is a concern. What we are hearing, from not only employers but also members of trade unions and those involved in the collective bargaining process, is that the concept of mandatory consultation simply isn't going to work. It is going to create greater division and diversity, and it is going to erode what has been built up over the last 20 years -- that is, the common need and demand for the two sides to work together.

If I can use the analogy -- and I tread on it carefully -- it's very much like saying that we are going to put into law an agreement which says that no matter how wide apart the parties may be, we are now going to bring those parties together by force, and we are going to expect that there will be some kind of harmonious potential for resolution. I'd like the minister to tell us why this is better than what we have now and to do that in clear terms that reflect on 20 years of jurisprudence that say that, in fact, the existing section is better for conflict resolution.

Hon. M. Sihota: Within this shrinking Liberal caucus that we now have in British Columbia, it's tragic to see that they've now come to the point of opposing anything just for the sake of opposing it, and they're making what are, at best, fictional arguments with regard to various sections. They don't realize a good thing when it's looking them straight in the face. This section is one of those good things that are found in this legislation and is one that I thought would have fallen within the ambit of the 95 percent of the items in this legislation which the Liberal caucus said it could support.

The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that there is a role for preventive work, particularly with regard to preventive mediation in labour relations. We know from our own life experience in being involved in labour relations matters that it is essential that the parties try to resolve disputes, issues and concerns on a preventive basis, long before they become major impediments and hence result in work stoppages or disruptions.

During the course of the life of this parliament we have seen examples of situations which went way beyond what was necessary, given the absence of preventive mediation. For the hon. member's information, let me give as an example the dispute at Lafarge, which occurred early on in our mandate. I know that the hon. member spoke to that in this House. He and I know full well that had there been an instrument available for preventive mediation, the overwhelming advice from all of those involved was that we would have been able to avoid the type of extended work stoppage we had in that dispute. I cite that as one example, not the only example. But it's certainly an example to make the point that I'm making.

This legislation with regard to labour relations should encourage and foster the development of preventive mediation. It should tell parties that they should get together to deal with issues before they become major impediments to the collective bargaining process. This section does that.

But it goes further. It also says we recognize that we in this province are in a very competitive situation with our trading partners elsewhere in the world. It says that we think there is a value to having workers and employers sit down from time to time -- and the suggestion in this legislation is every two months for those who don't have a provision and regularly for those who do -- to discuss issues relating to productivity in the workplace and the development of work-related skills and to have an opportunity to talk about changes in our economy. Let's reflect on the fact that we are in a highly competitive situation. Let's not overlook that. In order for us to be able to maintain our competitive edge, it is imperative that labour and management sit down and try to work out their differences and make changes in the workplace designed to allow us to compete better and to adapt to changes in the economy.

Again, I can see nothing wrong with that. In fact, I can see a lot wrong with what he and his critics are suggesting: that we be silent on the issue; that we not, through a legislative instrument such as this, in what is admittedly a relatively soft way, suggest to people that we would like to see a shift in the adversarial and confrontational relationship that has so long characterized labour relations in British Columbia.

What we're saying in this section is that we do not embrace the Liberal vision, which is a vision of silence and saying that somehow the parties will work these issues out on their own. We think there has to be a signal in legislation saying: "Look, we expect you to deal with issues of productivity, to deal with issues of adaptation to economic changes, and to deal with issues of skill enhancement; and we expect you to do it every two months because, after all, it is in the public interest that our corporations and our workers remain competitive. It is in the public interest that there be harmonious labour-management relations between workers and employers in British Columbia." So we have made a place for cooperation in this section. We've made a place in this section for a shift in that attitude, and it would be fundamentally wrong and, in fact, a dereliction of duty if we were to do what the Liberals suggest, which is not to have this kind of provision in place.

This is not the heavy hand of state intervention. Only in the eyes of a right-wing opposition would this be considered the heavy hand of state intervention. During the course of the process, reasonable, sensible parties -- labour and business, for example -- agreed that these kinds of provisions had to be found. Time and time

[ Page 4497 ]

again, in my private meetings with both business and labour, they tell me that these kinds of provisions are required, that these kinds of habits must be formed in terms of us being able to remain competitive. To this day I have not heard a scintilla of criticism from the business community with regard to section 53. It's amazing that the Liberal opposition, through the Leader of the Opposition, would then come into the House and take umbrage with a section which all who analyze these matters applaud. It shows an appalling lack of understanding on the part of the Liberal opposition, when we know that it is imperative in legislation to begin to change that adversarial and confrontational relationship, to encourage joint consultation between labour and management, and to try to remain competitive in a competitive situation.

It is of most concern to me that the Leader of the Opposition didn't take the care to read what I said yesterday about this matter. I said yesterday that you can't legislate cooperation but you can only lead people in the appropriate direction. This section leads them in the appropriate direction. It says you've got to sit down every two months if you don't have such a provision. It says you can negotiate these kinds of provisions.

K. Jones: It says you must.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yes, it says you must try to cooperate. What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing.

Only those who are on the most extreme end of the political spectrum, which I guess this party has now chosen to occupy, would find themselves taking issue with what is, quite honestly, an important and central piece in the legislation that we've put before the House. I must say that I express my deep sorrow to see the Leader of the Opposition not understanding the importance of this provision, not taking the time to think it through, not taking the time to talk to the parties, and not taking the time to applaud the government for what is a worthwhile initiative in this section.

With that said, I'm sure the Liberal opposition leader will have had a full rethinking of his position and will concur with the views I have articulated.

G. Wilson: I'll try and go through the comments the minister made one point at a time, and there were a number there.

First of all, our opposition to this has absolutely nothing to do with a position on the political spectrum, wherever the minister may try to place us. It's not a question of wings. This is the right opposition to this bill.

I'll tell you that if we look at what the minister said with respect to not being able to legislate cooperation or people working together, that's very true; you can't. Yet that's precisely what the minister is attempting to do.

With respect to section 53, let me say that when he suggests that he hasn't heard one iota of a whisper from the business community -- especially small and medium-sized businesses -- that's because he hasn't asked them. He hasn't been out there to talk with them, and he hasn't heard, as we have heard, exactly what is coming forward. Had the minister done that, he would have realized that what we are saying is the reflected view of many of the medium-sized and small businesses in the province.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I hear banter from one member who at one time graced the community that I now represent. He should recognize that a majority of collective agreements already contain provisions for labour-management consultation and joint meetings for the purpose of making sure that the issues covered by the collective agreement are properly and fairly interpreted, implemented and administered. Most collective agreements already have that provision in place.

If that's so, why do we need to have this section of this bill come in? I suspect that we really do understand now. It really looks at two things. First of all, if one party or the other is not satisfied, they have the right to grieve through binding arbitration. It may not even be with respect to the entire bargaining unit; it may be on behalf of a specific member of the bargaining unit. That becomes problematic. As a policy grievance comes forward, the issue is important and becomes relevant to the entire membership. It advances the powers within the union, and that is important.

If you look at 53(3) and 53(4), they essentially provide.... This is what I think the minister is really attempting to sneak underneath the sheets, if I can say that. He's essentially trying to suggest that we would allow the union the right to open up a collective agreement during its term and negotiate issues relating to the workplace or any employee that may be bound by that agreement. It would seem to me that if that isn't so, then the minister better look at the wording of that section and tell us why that isn't going on.

The Liberal opposition believes in a collective bargaining process that is free from the heavy hand of state intervention. We don't believe it needs a big, powerful, intrusive government to come down and wield a set of regulations such as section 53 represents, which essentially allows the government to have an ongoing hand in the collective bargaining process. We believe in a free collective bargaining process -- something that this government clearly doesn't want, because they, as the political wing of the B.C. Federation of Labour, want to advance the cause of their membership. That's where our concern lies. It is not that we necessarily have the interests of big business at heart. It is not that we are right-wing. We certainly are not. We are a centrist party that looks after the interests of all British Columbians -- a concept, I understand, that is difficult for the minister to accept.

I'd like the minister to comment specifically on sections 53(3) and (4) with respect to the whole proposition of the sanctity of a collective agreement during the term of that collective agreement in light of the comments he made in the past and in light of the language that's in this bill.

Hon. M. Sihota: I have come to enjoy my time with the Leader of the Opposition both inside and outside the House. In the time I have spent with him, I

[ Page 4498 ]

have never seen such a weak and facile defence on his part.

G. Wilson: You said that once before.

Hon. M. Sihota: Well, if I said that once before, you outdid yourself this time. But I can understand that with that eroding caucus these are troubling times, and perhaps there are other things on your mind.

[10:45]

I should point out to the hon. member -- and I think he'd be interested in hearing this -- that in written submissions and public hearings the desire to establish a new relationship was expressed strongly by both employers and unions. Employers in general were looking for ways to improve productivity and competitiveness, and unions were looking for opportunities to be involved in decisions affecting these issues. We've responded by placing this section in the legislation.

Secondly, with regard to sections 53(3) and (4), it is regrettable, again, given the fact that we had agreed to give him the evening, that the Leader of the Opposition did not take the time to read what was said in Hansard yesterday. He would have noted that in response to comments -- from, I believe, the member for Surrey-White Rock -- I dealt with the issues that he raised with respect to 53(3) and (4).

Let me tell him this in summary form. Remember that these are sections which require joint initiatives on the part of both parties. No collective agreement can be reopened or changed unilaterally by one party; it requires a joint agreement or a mutual agreement by both parties to change an agreement. So for him to try to read that indirect effort into the clauses is wrong. You're wrong on that point. In your opening comments you talked about comparing this new wording with the old wording. You're wrong: there were no similar provisions in the previous code. And you're wrong on the point with regard to this somehow being an effort to sort of tilt the playing field in favour of one party or the other. It's simply serving the public interest in getting both parties together. So I'm sure you will take the time to reflect on what I had to say in Hansard yesterday.

G. Wilson: In the attempt to keep this debate in a constructive mode, let me assure the minister that I am well aware of his comments yesterday, and he did not, in fact, address this question to any satisfaction. Secondly, with respect to....

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I'm pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the minister acknowledges that the satisfaction part was what was lacking.

Let me say that the question here with respect to the opening up of a collective agreement and the idea that the minister would say that I'm wrong because I said something about current language.... I didn't say anything about current language. I talked about current practice, which is to allow the free collective bargaining process to prevail, as opposed to having state intervention, which is what this is all about. Can the minister then tell us, if he doesn't agree that you can basically, through a policy grievance or a right of any specific member, grieve on the question of these mandatory consultations, whether you cannot de facto in that process amend, change or alter a collective agreement in midterm? It would seem to me, and certainly from the advice we're receiving, that indeed that can occur, and that it will be a back door through which members and unions will effectively open up collective agreements in midterm. I would suggest that in the public sector the minister might want to think of recent events with the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers' Union as a possibility of exactly that kind of situation, with respect to provisions on safety standards and the crewing of vessels, which were not covered and are not covered in the current collective agreement that the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers' Union is currently considering. Is that not a possibility?

Hon. M. Sihota: On the technical point of the ferry workers, that is a safety issue which can be covered under the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act. Secondly, with regard to reopening a contract and altering its terms, that can only be done by mutual consent of the parties.

G. Wilson: If you could just further clarify, you're suggesting that if mutual consent does not take place, and if a grievance is launched and arbitration has taken place.... You're saying that de facto, on the basis of one person moving through a grievance, where there is disagreement between the two -- disharmony, if we can use that word.... Can the minister explain, then, why that -- not through that grievance process and through some form of mediation or arbitration -- can de facto change the collective agreement?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, this section has nothing to do with grievances or arbitrations, hon. member. And secondly, the grievances arise only if there is a breach of contract.

K. Jones: I'd like to address to the minister the fact that not only is business concerned about this particular section of the act, but my friends in the labour movement are also concerned about it. One of the key things they're concerned about is that this concept weakens the role of the shop steward. Have you considered that? Have you even talked to the shop stewards in the unions that this is being imposed upon? It provides an opportunity for management to use this to work against the interests of the union.

One of the gross absences from this section of this legislation is the fact that there is no indication of how these meetings are to be chaired. You leave it open for a great deal of difficulty where one side or the other chairs the meeting and controls the agenda. How is that going to lead to harmony and peace?

Does the section that says "issues relating to the workplace that affect the parties or any employee bound by this agreement" -- that's the collective agreement -- include such things as: "Jane or John Doe isn't doing their share of the work"? Can we have a hit on the

[ Page 4499 ]

individual employee in one of these meetings? Is this the opportunity you're offering to the people: to pick on individuals within the workplace? Is this your intention?

I think you should take this whole section back and rethink it. It is much better when it is a voluntary arrangement, a cooperative education process, not legislation that forces people to take actions which were never intended to be taken in the process between collective agreements. Collective agreements are supposed to be areas where there is a clear understanding of a negotiated arrangement by which, through the term of that agreement, the people would work. They would not have things changing midstream, as our leader has already pointed out to you.

This is indeed a case of government intervention in the workplace, and this is not acceptable for anybody in this province to go along with. The concept of cooperation is very good, but cooperation can occur only where there is an agreement to do that, not an imposition.

J. Tyabji: Last time I canvassed the minister on section 53 -- a couple of minutes ago -- he made it very clear that the provision for the collective agreements in the province under section 53(3) will be adopted on proclamation into existing collective agreements; and I don't believe he gave an adequate answer with regard to why he's specific as to every two months. First of all, we have the intrusion in terms of forced consultation or the co-management provision. Second, there's no justification for something as specific as every two months. As well, the scope of the issues being discussed is being left open-ended.

For the purpose of trying to get a clarification from the minister, I'd like to introduce an amendment to section 53(3) as it reads right now. Rather than saying "at least once every two months," it would read "shall meet regularly." The minister himself said that the reason for this being in here was that he thought there had to be a reasonable schedule for meetings. The opposition feels that should obviously be at the discretion of the two parties in the negotiations and not at the discretion of the minister. So we're hoping that by introducing this amendment, we'll get the minister to justify why he feels that he has better judgment as to the timing of the meetings than the two parties who would be involved in the meetings and part of the negotiations.

On the amendment.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'll deal with it, somewhat reluctantly. If we left it as "regularly" for those parties that do not have a provision in their collective agreement and if the relationship was as diseased as you seem to suggest that many of these are, it would seem to me that the first thing they're going to do is argue about how frequently they should meet. So we've put that in. Secondly, if I may be....

Interjections.

Hon. M. Sihota: It's funny. I notice the inner circle of the Liberal caucus on the front bench there taking some umbrage with my comment.

The Chair: Order, hon. member.

Hon. M. Sihota: Yesterday in this House the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, a member of the same caucus, was criticizing me for having left it as vague as "regularly," and he suggested that I should replace that with the words "every two months" in section 53(2). So it seems to me that there's a difference of opinion within that caucus. If it would assist, I'd be happy to call a recess so that the inner circle can go and talk to the outer circle about that provision.

In addition to that, let me also say that I think you have to have some provision. Two months is not unreasonable. We're talking about a lot of issues that could potentially be captured by sections 53(3) and 53(4), when you talk about work-related skills, workplace productivity and adapting to changes in the economy. What you'd like to see happen is that the parties start off every two months and as they begin to realize the complexity of the issues and the need to work through these types of issues, hopefully they'll start to meet more frequently than once every two months. They both say they want that. As I said earlier in response to the Leader of the Opposition, we had written submissions from both employers and unions asking for something to be done along these lines, and we've done it. That's why the "at least" provision is in there, because there are quite a few issues that they can work on to deal with these matters.

For that reason, and for all the others that I've amplified on, I will advise the House that the government will not be supporting this half-hearted amendment on the part of the opposition.

G. Farrell-Collins: I will be brief. I have a number of issues. First of all, the comments by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale the other day were merely to highlight yet another discrepancy, another imbalance, in the bill that the minister has brought forward, where we're seeing one thing in one section and another thing somewhere else. I think it was perfectly appropriate to do that.

Second of all, the minister talks about providing an opportunity for these people to get together and somehow negotiate and debate. The minister isn't providing an opportunity. They have been asking for these provisions, but they don't need legislation to get together and discuss. The legislation is there to force one side or the other to a table to discuss these things. The minister does not need legislation. If people want to get together, they should do it of their own volition; they should not be doing it because the minister orders them to through his bill. To have them meet on a basis that is conducive to their own schedule, and not that of the minister or someone else, is perhaps the better way to go. That's why we'll be supporting the amendment.

[11:00]

[ Page 4500 ]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

D. Symons: I really have just one concern with this section. It seems that the minister has referred to me three or four times during the debate on this particular section, because I was the person who said that I agree with 95 percent of this bill. This is one of the sections that I have some concern with, and if you don't mind, I would express that concern.

The concern here is with the whole collective bargaining process and the effect that this particular section might have on the collective bargaining process. I can envision a situation where a union negotiating with a company might want to bring into their collective agreement, let's say for the sake of argument, a section dealing with secondary boycotts. In the process of this, what they may end up saying is: "In order that you will allow us to bring secondary boycotts into our collective agreement, we will play down the side we're arguing in the collective agreement about staffing levels." As soon as the collective agreement is signed and everybody goes away happy from the table, then the union can use this particular clause to keep bringing back and hammering away at the company about the issue of staffing levels. It seems to me that what will happen here is that a contract is never completely complete. Granted, they do have the contract, and there's nothing within this section that mandates that whatever they discuss in these meetings would have to be enforced; but nevertheless, it does leave that sort of aspect of it, where it seems that once something is agreed to in a contract, the issues that weren't agreed to can keep coming back to the table and going on and on.

I have concerns that maybe this will have some effect upon the way in which contracts are negotiated, on the way that trade-offs will be taking place when negotiating contracts, because this seems to open the door for continuing that process.

Section 53 approved on the following division:

On section 54.

G. Wilson: I'm sure the minister will concur when he reflects on the remarks from the Liberal opposition that section 54 is a disaster waiting to happen. It truly must be dealt with.

[11:15]

I want to acknowledge the fact that the present act is indeed ambiguous in the area. There is no question. At least, it requires an arbitration board with the powers to bind all persons to decide that the employer intends to introduce technological change. That is something that needs to be looked at. With respect to section 54 -- I think it was the former section 76 -- that can be looked at and agreed to by the minister. So we've acknowledged that the current situation is not good.

What he is proposing to put in place is much worse. It's believed by the Liberal opposition that the new section 54 gives virtually every union a sense of security and expectation that simply won't be realized in a very quickly changing global economy or in a situation where maximum flexibility in the workplace is required in order to maintain companies and keep them current.

We recognize that confrontation and unrest is likely to be created more than alleviated by what we see here, and we're taking issue with it. On the surface we seem to be sending a message to the unions that notwithstanding a collective agreement.... Again, the fundamental principle the Liberal opposition is trying to protect is the sanctity and flexibility of a freely negotiated collective agreement within the abilities of

[ Page 4501 ]

both the employer and employees to match and maintain.

The suggestion is that whenever you feel uncomfortable with the employer's efforts to manage, under section 54(1)(b) you will have the right to require the employer to meet whatever you may seek clarification on in good faith. Further, if your skills -- that is, the skills of the employed person -- become redundant, for whatever set of reasons, you can expect to have counselling and retraining at the employer's expense. We don't take issue with the fact that we need to have adequate, sound and proper identification of redundancies and retraining and opportunities for people in the workplace to stay current and upgrade their skills so they can maintain themselves as effective workers; but we do have some serious concerns about the reality that is going to be put in place if section 54 moves forward as it is proposed. So we would ask the minister, in considering section 54....

For example, a recent decision by this NDP government with respect to the ruling not to hear the B.C. Ferry Corporation submission to claim compensation against the union was that that should be directed within the terms and provisions of a collective agreement. When we start to look at the changing nature of the technologies of the delivery of service -- whatever that may be.... Surely the government was saying, in a sense, that the sanctity of a collective agreement needs to be looked at; that there is a provision in the collective agreement for adequate care to be taken with respect to the change in nature of the delivery of a product or, in this case, transportation services; that therefore the government should stay out of that process and not introduce legislation that essentially binds an employer and an employee into what may be an unworkable situation; and that if you do believe in the sanctity of a freely negotiated collective agreement between the union and an employer, that should provide provisions with respect to the concepts of change and not have the kind of wording that is so all-pervasive that it is going to allow the employee to have expectations that the employer simply may not fiscally be able to deliver on.

I would like the minister's comments on that.

Hon. M. Sihota: I don't know if there's a new theme emerging this morning from comments made by the Leader of the Opposition that may point to differences in the approach between this administration and the opposition or if it's simply because of sections 53 and 54. Let me just go back and make a number of points.

As I listen to the Leader of the Opposition, it sounds almost as if he's saying that these matters should be left entirely within the scope of the collective bargaining process, that the matter of adjustment plans ought to be negotiated between the parties, and therefore there ought not be any provision in legislation with regard to these types of matters. I don't see him shaking his head as if I have misunderstood what he's saying, so I'm working on the assumption that I have come to understand the position he's taking.

I don't agree that there should be no provision in legislation to deal with the matter of technological change. Technological change can have a significant and massive effect on the employment of individuals at a site, and it can have a massive and radical effect on the competitive ability of a plan. Therefore consideration has to be given to dealing with the human resources problems that arise when one proceeds with technological changes. In particular, it would seem to me that consideration should be given to matters relating to counselling and retraining, let alone for older workers in terms of pension and severance pay entitlements.

I said that perhaps there is a fundamental difference of view between ourselves and the opposition. This section is in this legislation to encourage and assist the parties to develop better relations so they can address issues of workplace change. In conjunction with section 53, this section says that the parties must develop a process that they can agree or to deal with the the consequences of technological change, both before it's introduced and after. It has a minimum 60-day notice for that requirement, which is certainly not an unreasonable time period. The intention of the section is to place the onus on the parties to a collective agreement to provide for viable adjustment plans that meet their mutual and individual needs. In other words, you can't say, "I'm all right, Jack," and proceed with your changes without dealing with the issues enumerated in section 54.

So the theme of this legislation, as I keep on saying over and over again, is to get the parties to work together, to encourage them to work out their differences, and to deal with fundamentally changing that adversarial and confrontational relationship between labour and management that we have in British Columbia. Rather than having these kinds of provisions develop at the height of confrontation, i.e. either when the technological change is proposed or during collective bargaining, we've mandated in legislation that they must introduce these measures to effect the terms and conditions and the security of employment to give protection to employees and comfort the companies that these issues are being dealt with in a non-confrontational way.

Otherwise it will inevitably invite confrontation, hon. member, and that's why I said at the outset that perhaps there is a difference of opinion. Maybe the Liberal Party is saying that these kinds of provisions have no place in legislation. I'm saying that efforts to assist the parties to avoid confrontation do have a place in legislation. Maybe that's reflective of a fundamental difference.

Having said that, it is important to note that these changes being proposed in section 54 are materially different from sections 74, 75 and 76 of the previous code. The previous sections had a provision with respect to binding arbitration. That is not in here. The previous sections allowed for the possibility of mid-contract strikes. Obviously, as a matter of public policy, we don't think that is something that should be countenanced. In this section it also does not require the parties to make the provisions required in subsubsection (1)(b) and then sub-subsubsections (i) to (vi), but rather says that they may, in developing their adjustment plan, include provisions for matters such as

[ Page 4502 ]

counselling, retraining, notice of termination, human resources and alternatives to the policy that's being proposed. The reason for that is because the structure of the previous sections were seldom, if ever, used. We're hoping that by moving to what is admittedly less draconian -- if I can put it that way -- that use will be put to these sections to allow the parties, in a mutually conducive way, to resolve differences.

G. Wilson: I would argue that there is a fundamental philosophical difference between the direction of the government and the Liberal opposition, and that we believe in a freely negotiated collective agreement between union and management without legislation effectively introducing what has been bargained for by a lot of unions over the years that they were not able to gain. I'm advised by labour practitioners, who are the people who negotiate collective agreements on a day-to-day basis -- not necessarily labour lawyers who simply arbitrate and mediate on the question, but those who are on the front lines negotiating -- that this demand has been on the table from a number of unions for the last 15 or 20 years. It's in those areas and sectors where they have had a difficult time gaining this that there has been the greatest pressure: namely, the BCGEU, the BCTF, the HEU and a number of other public sector unions.

I'd like the minister to comment. Given that the government of British Columbia -- i.e. the taxpayers -- is one of the largest employers in the province, how does the minister expect that the government, as an employer, will be able to stay current and be modified in the direction and delivery of government services to make sure we run the most fiscally competent and frugal kind of government if in fact the government itself becomes fettered by section 54 of this bill? This government is the largest employer in the province. I'd like the minister to comment on how he's going to deal with that question, because clearly and surely we need to streamline the delivery of government services and reduce the tax demand on the people of British Columbia.

Hon. M. Sihota: We are getting into fundamental differences of approach. If the Liberal opposition had its way, they would willy-nilly move into the public sector and make all the technological changes that it wants and throw people out on the street without any of the sensitivity that's required in these kinds of cases. There has to be sensitivity in terms of working together with your employees to bring about technological change; talking to your employees about appropriate adjustment plans; making provisions for pensions; dealing with matters of severance and retraining to make sure that some who may be affected by those changes can be accommodated into making the public sector far more efficient.

So you're right. If you had your way, hon. member, what you would do is just take a bulldozer right through the public sector and let people scatter where they may, and create the chaos that we don't want. We want a measure of stability, cooperation and discussion between the parties. We think that progressive, sensible labour relations in the 1990s require and place an onus on employers and employees, when dealing with technological change, to sit down and work through the adjustment plans.

If you want to go your route, go ahead and do it. Be my guest and make that kind of an argument. But most sensitive employers in British Columbia -- and I'm not just talking about the public sector -- have come to realize over time that if you want to proceed with technological change, you do it in a structured, rational and methodical way. You don't walk through and just toss a sledgehammer at your own workers. We're not going to do that. We're going to say very clearly as an employer in British Columbia that yes, we're going to offer to that clerical worker who may be affected by technological change the opportunity for retraining, so that he or she can make sure that they can move on within the public sector to a position commensurate with their skills. And yes, we're going to say to that worker who has been there for 20 or 25 years and who seeks to proceed with a pension adjustment that yes, we're going to sit down with you and make those kinds of provisions. Those kinds of provisions, I think, ought to be made and, as a matter of public policy, ought to be encouraged. This section encourages the development of those kinds of provisions by mandating them through the provisions of section 54.

I make no apologies whatsoever, hon. member, for suggesting in legislation that there ought to be adjustment plans. I would suggest that you should make apologies for suggesting that you would take a bulldozer through the public sector and deal with technological change in the rather haphazard way that you are suggesting. Shame on the Leader of the Opposition for suggesting that somehow employers ought to proceed willy-nilly with making those changes. He does not realize that we're living in the 1990s, not in the 1940s. He wants to throw the clock back to making changes with brute force. Well, I'll tell you what that will get you, hon. member. That will get you work disruption and work stoppages. We don't want that. This section prevents it. We make no apologies for this section. You ought to make apologies for the rather cavalier position you are taking on these issues.

[11:30]

G. Wilson: We're talking here about technological change, and the minister is talking about us using a bulldozer. Actually we'd use a laser sword, which is a far easier way to start to pare something down. You don't use bulldozers, and neither are we suggesting that. That's the advice of the minister.

The fact of the matter is that if you look at the provisions of section 54 and if you recognize that the government is one of the principal employers of a very large segment of people in the province, what we're hearing from the minister is that under this bill we can expect massive increases in the cost of maintaining and running government. Not only do we now have a need to provide the 60-day notice period under this bill -- which is going to be difficult for many companies, especially those in the communication and technology business -- but we are also going to find that the

[ Page 4503 ]

employer, as an additional cost in terms of their plan to do business, is now going to need to build in money for retraining, upgrading and providing additional services to employees, which may be a very desirable thing.

Absolutely nothing out there in the free collective bargaining process precludes any company from working out a reasonable and properly negotiated technological change clause with their employees that will look after the interests of the vast number of members. At the risk of getting the member for Cariboo North on his feet again, let me use Powell River as an example. In Powell River, MacMillan Bloedel, which has undergone extremely difficult times, has a clause within their collective agreement that allows them to freely negotiate with the union -- management and union coming together -- means of protecting and looking after the interests of employees who are being reduced, laid off or retrained. No government law required them to do it. They did it because they're a responsible company and a responsible union working together by mutual consent. That is what the Liberal opposition is saying is flawed in this bill.

I'd like the minister to comment on this. We have heard now from a number of labour practitioners, and they tell us that this is providing in legislation what many unions, particularly public sector unions, could not win at the bargaining table, and that it is going to provide extremely vague language with respect to what is meant by "measure," by "policy," by "practice" and by "change." What we're looking at here is incredibly ambiguous language that is going to allow the unions and the members of the unions to have increased expectation about the obligations of an employer when the employer seeks to become more progressive in terms of delivery of service. In fact, that may mean reducing employment, or even increasing employment but hiring employees with a different set of skills, with a different set of directions than the employees they may currently have on site.

So I want the minister to comment on that. I want him to tell us that in fact this government really does not believe and doesn't understand that this is going to increase the cost of doing business as government, and therefore increase the deficit. Before he tells us about how much labour strife we're going to have, let me just go back since November 5 to remind the minister about HEU and VCC and a wildcat with the marine workers, and now we've got Transit ready to go out. This minister has nothing to crow about when he talks about labour unrest in British Columbia, because it's out there right now, on top of a $2.8 billion deficit. Let the minister tell us why this is not going to increase the cost of doing business as government, since the government is one of the largest employers in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. M. Sihota: If the Leader of the Opposition had his way he would simply throw people out into the streets. That's the attitude that he brings. He says: "Look, it's going to cost us money to retrain, it's going to cost us money to pay severance, it's going to cost us money to deal with pension adjustments, so to hell with it. Let's just throw people out on the streets as we make technological changes in government." Well, you know, that kind of careless, cavalier, throw-them-out-on-the-street attitude may have had a place in labour relations in British Columbia some 50 years ago, but it doesn't now.

He uses the example of Powell River. Well, let's talk about Powell River for a moment, because I suspect that at some point there were no provisions in the collective agreement that dealt with technological change.

G. Wilson: In 1938.

Hon. M. Sihota: Whenever. Let me even accept the hon. member's argument that they first came into being in 1938. Let's accept that for a moment. Hon. Chair, one has to ask: why were those provisions negotiated in 1938, and why have they subsequently been negotiated in all sorts of other agreements in British Columbia? I'll tell you why. Because at some point some employer with the same type of reactionary attitude as just expressed by the Leader of the Opposition took a throw-them-on-the-streets attitude, proceeded bluntly with technological changes and had to deal with the consequences of the work disruption that came as a result of imposing that technological change. Then employers got smart.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, please. I would ask hon. members to please respect the decorum of the committee and the Legislature and not speak from their seats. If they do not realize it, such behaviour is extremely offensive to this Legislature. I would ask members to conduct themselves accordingly.

Hon. M. Sihota: I trust the hon. member can now restrain himself.

Those provisions were negotiated because an employer took the same kind of attitude that the Leader of the Opposition wishes to take in 1992. Back in 1938 someone in Powell River was smart enough to figure out that it's better to negotiate provisions or have provisions developed that allow for adjustment plans to be made in the case of technological change. Accordingly, most employers started to recognize that this had to be done through collective agreements. Some didn't.

Governments across the country began to realize that some employers would wish to proceed with the cavalier throw-them-on-the-streets attitude that has just been amplified by the Leader of the Opposition. Governments began to realize that the sensitivity that some smart, good employers demonstrated in their agreements were sound labour relations policy, were in the public interest and therefore took the view that these kinds of provisions ought to be found in legislation. I believe that at least back to 1972 -- if not before -- legislation in British Columbia started to have provisions in relation to technological change. We see this in the current legislation in sections 74, 75 and 76, and we find it in section 54.

[ Page 4504 ]

I'm not prepared to go back to 1938 and remove these provisions. I'm prepared to accept that some employers will negotiate these provisions. They've got nothing to fear, therefore, by these provisions being in there.

I'm also prepared to acknowledge that, sadly enough, there are some extreme employers who have the same kind of attitude that the Leader of the Opposition exemplifies, who think that they can proceed without concern for the people whose lives are being impacted by technological change, and who force those changes upon the workplace without the threat of subsequent disruption. It doesn't work that way, hon. member. In addition to that....

Interjection.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Chair, I'm telling you that if the hon. member, the mining critic for the Liberal Party who has chosen for the last ten minutes to heckle about a particular issue, has a concern, he should get up on his feet, and we'll deal with that issue in the context of this section. If he can't do it in order here, he should do it during question period; but he should settle down for a moment, because we're engaged in another debate here with respect to section 54.

What does contemporary labour relations policy require of governments, or of any sensitive employer? It says that we have an obligation as a society -- if not as an employer, both public and private sector -- to make sure that those people whom we have invested in as part of our workforce, people who may have been working for us for anywhere between a year and 20 years, are given an opportunity to retrain, so that we can gain from the measure of that investment, and so that we can keep them on our workforce, not throw them out in the streets, as you would suggest, hon. member.

As a matter of good public policy, we say to older workers who do not wish to be a part of the adjustment plan that we have an obligation as a society -- and remember, section 54 only says "may include" the following provisions -- to make sure that they are dealt with with dignity; hence the provisions with respect to pensions.

There are others who may want to get on with other opportunities in life, and we say in these sections: "Look, you've got to consider the opportunity of providing them with notice of termination and severance pay." That's just sensitive, commonsense, contemporary human relations policy. It looks ahead to where we should be going as a society that is inevitably going to be faced with significant and radical changes in terms of technology. It only embraces the kind of contemporary thinking that we have today in British Columbia and in North America; and it rejects the old-world attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, who suggests that we can simply throw people out on the streets without anything.

He is motivated by his concerns about fiscal costs to government and doesn't seem to understand that governments have demonstrated over and over again that we can attend to fiscal costs in terms of human relation planning, but at the same time provide people with opportunities with regard to termination, severance, pensions and retraining.

If you don't agree with me, hon. Leader of the Opposition -- and I see you shaking your head -- then I guess I'll have to conclude that in your view of the world we ought not to be giving people termination notices or severance pay, we ought not to be dealing with pension issues, and we ought not, in legislation, to be dealing with retraining our employees. If that's the kind of callous, cold-hearted, antiquated attitude that you want to bring to employer relations, then you will deal with the consequences as much as someone in Powell River dealt with them prior to 1938. So throw yourself back to the thirties, hon. member, and that kind of reactionary attitude on your part will do little to serve labour relations in the 1990s.

G. Wilson: I have to say that I'm really impressed. The minister really could give Jimmy Swaggart a run for his money on that crusade.

Let me say this, and then I will yield to the member for Langley, who has some time constraints and wants to get into this debate. Nobody is talking about throwing people willy-nilly out into the street -- not the Leader of the Opposition or anybody in the Liberal Party. Neither are we saying that there shouldn't be adequate provision for retraining or some provision within our society to ensure people are upgraded and trained. In fact, government should be attempting to do that with a sound and properly funded education system. If this government were spending a little more attention on that, then maybe we would have that kind of training. However, I digress, and I need to come back to this section.

Let me simply say briefly that nothing the minister has talked about with respect to retraining, technological change with human resource planning or employee counselling and all of those provisions has absolutely anything in it whatsoever that precludes it from being carried in a properly negotiated collective agreement in the model of 1992 labour relations in British Columbia. The problem is that this bill is trying to address grievances that ended in the 1950s and 1960s and hasn't kept up to date with what's going on in 1992. It strikes me that we come back again to what is clearly a philosophical problem between the government and the Liberal opposition, where the government believes that they should legislate what unions couldn't negotiate, because they're doing so on behalf of a debt that needs to be paid.

With that I would yield to the member from Langley.

Hon. M. Sihota: We have witnessed this morning, as we have in the past during the course of debate on this labour code, a posture from the Leader of the Opposition which I think should be noted. He comes in here all puffed up to make arguments with regard to certain provisions....

[11:45]

[ Page 4505 ]

The Chair: Order, hon. minister! We are on section 54, and I would ask all members to address the section before us.

J. Tyabji: On that point of order, hon. Chair. We are on a very specific section.

Hon. M. Sihota: And only then do others find that the position they're taking is riddled with holes. If one wants to talk about provisions that ought to be placed in the fifties and come from that kind of thinking, then one ought to take a look at sections 74, 75 and 76 of the existing legislation. Those provisions are antiquated. If you want to talk about something that's contemporary, look at section 54. This section imposes -- and I'm using the word thoughtfully -- a collective bargaining regime upon employers and employees, a system of thinking which we think ought to be found in collective bargaining, an approach which we think has a place in labour relations, and a method which says that there's value, if you're dealing with retraining, severance and pension considerations with regard to technological provisions.

We don't think, hon. member -- and I said at the outset that this is the difference between the opposition and us -- that those matters ought to be left solely to the discretion of the parties with regard to collective bargaining. But out of the public interest, there must be signals provided in legislation saying that these kinds of adjustment issues have to be dealt with. It is imperative that these kinds of specific provisions then find themselves in legislation to make it clear to employers and employees that we expect them to make the necessary shifts to deal with adjustment plans. Why? Because we on this side of the House say that the time has come to bring about the kind of attitudinal change that has been lacking for so long in British Columbia. We're not prepared to leave these kinds of issues at the bargaining table where they're dealt with at the height of confrontation. They can be dealt with there to some measure, but if they're not dealt with, we want to make sure that parties are invited to deal with issues in a cooperative and consultative way. That's precisely what we're doing with the provisions of this section.

There's nothing wrong with saying to the parties that they've got to work together and deal with adjustment issues. There's nothing wrong with saying that, yes, there's a place for that in collective bargaining, but there also has to be a place in legislation so as to make sure that the parties understand the importance of having these kinds of provisions. That's why these provisions are here, and that's why they'll stay here.

L. Stephens: As a former employer and businesswoman, I think all of us in business realize and accept the desirability of working out differences and dealing with workplace changes in as cooperative and non-adversarial a manner as possible. However, in the final analysis business has the duty and the responsibility to protect their customers, their employees and their investment. What business is looking for in this bill -- and from you, Mr. Minister -- is some comfort that the employer's traditional management and fiduciary rights are not in jeopardy in sections 53 and 54. I would like to ask if you agree that this section does or does not represent a significant statutory usurpation of management rights.

Hon. M. Sihota: No, I don't think it adversely affects management rights. It recognizes that there's a place for management to make fiscal decisions and the adjustments they require to remain competitive, but it establishes a framework within which discussions must occur.

L. Stephens: Mr. Minister, would it be fair to say that section 54 is, in effect, co-management, a sharing of decisions between business and labour?

Hon. M. Sihota: It depends in which context you mean that. There is an element of co-management here with regard to the development of adjustment plans. Subsection (2) says: "If, after meeting in accordance with subsection (1), the parties have agreed to an adjustment plan, it is enforceable as if it were part of the collective agreement between the employer and the trade union." So to that extent you can see that there's a thought here that the parties must participate in the development of a plan.

There's also a provision in here that requires 60 days' notice, which the employer must give to the union. But that's only after an employer introduces, or intends to introduce, a measure that's contemplated within section 54. It clearly says that there's a place for an employer to make a decision, but it also recognizes that there is provision for mutuality, in terms of discussion.

L. Stephens: I would like to discuss the 60 days under section 54(1)(a). I know the minister stated he didn't feel it was unreasonable that at least 60 days' notice must be given before a measure, policy, practice or change is to be effected. What then happens at the end of that 60 days, when they've gone through the process of trying to determine the course of action on whatever policy, practice, change or measure is effected? What kind of resolution mechanism is there for any wildcat walkouts, confrontations or whatever may result from it?

Hon. M. Sihota: If there's a wildcat walkout, you would go to the Labour Relations Board, and you have remedies under the code that deal with wildcat issues.

L. Stephens: What happens in the interim, between the 60 days and the resolution? Does the employer act unilaterally? What kinds of decisions is this employer allowed to make? Does the failure to agree to an adjustment plan constitute unfair labour practices?

Hon. M. Sihota: Section 54 is not tied into section 6, which would allow for an unfair labour practice application. There is no provision that ties it in with unfair labour practice.

[ Page 4506 ]

To answer your first question, during the 60-day period we expect the parties to work through the issues before them. Only if they agree does subsection (2) then apply.

With regard to your question on the interim, once a wildcat strike occurs, the employer obviously has to deal with that situation. Let's also face facts: the reality of the matter is that the Labour Relations Board deals with dispatch with regard to wildcat issues. As you know, this code frowns upon disputes in mid-life of a contract.

L. Stephens: Even in the event that it didn't get to the point of a wildcat strike, if the negotiations are not going anywhere, what remedies or actions does the employer have? Is he limited in what he can and cannot do to deal with whatever circumstances may arise to save his business when there are joint consultations going on? Is there a time frame? Does there have to be a time limit? If not, it's a very untenable position, minister.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'm not sure if you've studied section 74 of the existing legislation. Under the existing legislation, if there was no conclusion, they would go to binding arbitration. Under this legislation, the parties are only required to go through the process of a 60-day period in good faith. The good faith element can be brought, for example, before the Labour Relations Board. If there is no agreement within the 60-day period, the parties are free to go on as they wish.

L. Stephens: Where, Mr. Minister?

Hon. M. Sihota: Wherever they want to go. Under the old legislation, you had two things that were not found in the new legislation. You had a provision for binding arbitration, which meant that that's where they would go; and you had the opportunity for mid-contract strikes. We've taken both those elements out, and I'm sure you would agree with both of those changes.

We have simply allowed the parties 60 days to resolve this issue. If they haven't resolved it on their own over that period, then that's the end of the matter. It may have to be dealt with in the larger framework of the negotiations between employers and employees in the collective bargaining process.

L. Stephens: In section (1)(b)(i), where it says "...including amendment of provisions in the collective agreement," would this in fact open the collective agreement to any further changes, or would it be just an amendment to it? What are the ramifications of that particular phrase, "including amendment"? What are the limitations? What are the extensions? Within that, you mentioned earlier in your last remarks that the collective bargaining process would be where these resolutions came from. I'm asking if this is the particular sentence where that would apply. Would you please explain it?

Hon. M. Sihota: "Including amendment of provisions in the collective agreement" has to be read in conjunction with subsection (2), where it says: "...the parties have agreed....." You can't unilaterally alter the provisions of a collective agreement; both parties have to agree to it.

L. Stephens: I understand that both parties have to agree. What I'm asking you is: does this particular (1)(b)(i) mean that "measure, policy, practice or change" -- negotiated resolutions -- open a collective agreement and, in effect, limit the employers and the employees to the security of a negotiated collective agreement over a period of time -- the security that that affords?

Hon. M. Sihota: It only allows them to reopen and renegotiate, to re-establish terms in a collective agreement and have the security that comes with it if they agree. So if they agree to something, they put those provisions in there, and then they've got the security and knowledge that they're there.

L. Stephens: Section 54(1)(b)(vi) says: "A bipartite process for overseeing the implementation of the adjustment plan." Could you give me some idea of the reason for this particular clause, and whether or not it's another consultation or another group? Is this another formation of some kind of organization?

Hon. M. Sihota: No. It says that the parties may establish a bipartite process in the development of an adjustment plan. In other words, two of them work together to oversee the implementation of the plan, so they work together to make sure that the plan they've agreed to is implemented -- and that's only if they want to.

With that said, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. M. Sihota moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada