ot Photo courtesy |.W.A. Local ° In late October Local 700 members joined protesters outside of a convention hall in Toronto where Mike Harris was present and were met with barricades and riot police. Left to right are business agent Gary Wylie, local pres- ident Ron Diotte and executive board member Debbie Edelist. Ontario government takes anti-union stance in labour law reform hill Just when the trade union move- ment thought that Mike Harris’ labour laws were bad enough, pro- posed changes by the Ontario Con- servative government are about to take unions even further backwards. A series of amendments to the Labour Relations Act (Bill 139) was introduced on November 2 to the Ontario Provincial Parliament which threatens the stability of unions and union members in the province. © Part of the bill says that employs ers must post a “how to” guide on dece unions. The Ministry of Labour will require that companies poe and keep visible a document on ow to decertify in every union work- place. There is no corresponding requirement that employers in non- union workplaces post a guide on how to organize into a union. “This is absolutely outrageous,” says I.W.A. national fourth vice president Norm Rivard. “Harris has gone way beyond where we thought he would ever go.” Rivard said that this government- promotes decertification campaign ays bare the Harris agenda for workers. Under current legislation an employer cannot interfere with union matters and providing such information is an illegal, unfair labour practice. National fifth vice president Wilf McIntyre said that the government is getting out in front of the union- busting game. “It wasn’t enough for Harris to do away with anti-scab laws and take away automatic certification on organizing drives,” he said. “Now the government intends to play a lead role in trying to de-unionize workplaces in Ontario. We think its a major affront on Canada’s obliga- tions to International Labour Orga- nization conventions.” ILO Conventions 87 and 98, which Canada has long adopted, bind the country and its provinces to pro- mote freedom of association and freedom of collective bargaining. Bill 139 says the employer must provide a copy of the decertification document once a year. “What we see is that the employ- ers would, in collaboration atk the government, bombard workers with information on how to get rid of their union — they would both take a proactive role in influencing workers to go against the union,” said Brother Rivard. “The playing field would be totally tilted against the unions and in favour of employers and the right- wing government of Harris.” To make this worse, Bill 139 opens up the time period where decertifi- cations may be applied for. It would let decerts take place three months ahead of the expiry of the collective agreement rather than two months. The bill also encourages decertifi- cation in first contract situations. It will encourage a minority of work- ers opposed to a new certification to continue to resist the will of the majority and allow the employer to back off from engaging in meaning- ful negotiations with the union. Currently if the employer doesn’t recognize the union or doesn’t want. to take reasonable steps to reach a first agreement, an application can be made before the board to order a first collective agreement. But under Bill 139 the workers who don’t back the union can apply to stop the procedure for a first con- tract by applying for decertification or termination of the union. The Ontario Federation of Labour points out that such changes will encourage employers to drag their heels during first contract talks and wait for frustrated employees to turn on the union. “When workers join the union, they want the union to negotiate a collective agreement without delay. If the employers can delay things enough, these new provisions to decert would click in under Bill 139,” said Brother McIntyre. “This would make it tougher for the I.W.A. to get new contracts for the new members that we bring into the organization.” Among other things, the bill would place obstacles in the way of union- izing, disclose the salaries of union officials (and not employers) and weaken labour legislation covering construction workers by broadening the definition of “non-construction employer.” Summer Strike continued from page two end of the contract, and members on Long Term Disability will get a $200/month increase over the term of the agreement. Extended health care benefits, which include spe- cialty items for the disabled, go to a lifetime limit of $50,000 which dou- bles the old limit. The employer paid education trust fund will maintain its 3 cents per member per hour through the con- Photo by John Mountain e Local 1-80 business agent Brian Butler (1.) checked in with members at Doman’s Chemainus mill during the strike. tract and medical travel will increase to $800 per year and be extended to members eaibeang LTD benefits. “The smplbyare played tough on the benefits but we were able to stick to our position and got a fair agreement.” oe, “When we set out to negotiate in April nobody knew how we would et where we got to — but we got ere,” said Haggard. “If I could say it simply, it’s the solid support of the union’s mem- Berahipthat gotusto what we believe is a good contract.” 60 hr. work week coming to Ontario The Ontario Federation of Labour is also fighting against the Harris government’s Bill 147, which are amendments to the Employment Standards Act. The most controversial change will be the introduction of the 60 hour work week and elimination of overtime provisions. “Although the government says that employers and workers would have a right to mutually agree to work a 60 hour work week, we all know that means that employers have power to look for workers who will be ‘mutual’ to their terms,” says national fifth vice president Wilf McIntyre, who is an executive offi- cer of the Ontario Federation of Labour. The amendments, introduced on November 23, would see employers have the opportunity to get 24 hour- a-day, 7 day-a-week production, says national fourth vice president Norm Rivard. “In workplaces that are not cov- ered by union agreements, the employer would be able to plan the work schedule so they are bringing in people that would work for straight time,” says Rivard. “In many places this happens already — Bill 147 just makes things worse.” Under the current act workers are supposed to be paid at rate and one half for time worked in excess of 44 hours a week, a provision that is rarely enforced. Under Bill 147, a worker could work up to 60 hours a i < = g 5 & 2 é e At OFL protest in Toronto, Local 700 business agent Gary Wylie, with a cop backdrop week as long as the hours average out to 44 hours a week over a four week period. The government claims that employees would still maintain a “right to refuse” working over 48 hours, while getting paid overtime for after 44 hours a week. The government also claims that the Act would be enforced, some- thing that the Ontario Fed loudly disputes. “Cuts to the Ministry of Labour enforcement staff have left the Min- istry incapable of investigating and - enforcing breaches of the Act, and every employer in Ontario knows it,” read a statement from OFL pres- ident Wayne Samuelson. “The only workers who will be able to resist overtime and one day summer holi- days will be unionized workers with a bargaining agent and a collective agreement.” Bill 147 would also force workers to take their holidays in one day allotments as employers look for workers who would “consent.” Under the current Act, holidays must be taken in one week blocks. To add insult to injury the OFL says that employers would be able continued on page fourteen LUMBERWORKER/DECEMBER, 2000/3