Bill C-257: dangerous, unnecessary legislation

We owe Perrin Beatty praise for information he provided recently to the annual luncheon of the Dufferin County Manufacturers Association.

Toward the end of the speech, he explained in some detail why the Canadian industry is so concerned about the possibility that later this month the House of Commons will pass Bill C-257, a private member's bill that would bar any federallyregulated employer from operating during a strike.

The bill, which has already passed second reading, currently makes no exceptions for essential services. As a result, a strike by air controllers or almost any other union in the air industry would paralyze commercial air service across Canada.

Beatty pointed out that Canada does not need Bill C-257, since there have been restrictions on the use of replacement workers for nearly seven years and the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB) has not issued a single decision involving the actual use of replacement workers.

Under the legislation passed by the Chrétien government in 1999, a union seeking to have a ban on replacement workers can apply to the CIRB for a finding that an employer is not bargaining in good faith and is simply out to destroy the union.

Beatty says that in the eight years the law has been on the books there have been only 13 such applications. Of these, 11 apparently led the employer to back down, since only two actually reached the hearing stage and in both cases settlements were achieved without the requested ban being imposed.

Perhaps an argument might be made that the onus should be on employers, not unions, with replacement workers not being permitted unless the employer can demonstrate that they have been bargaining in good faith.

However, a complete ban of the sort already found in Quebec and British Columbia and once imposed in Ontario makes no sense and is surely not in the best interests of anyone, including unionized workers.

After all, there is surely no doubt whatsoever that imposition of the "anti-scab" law by the Ontario NDP government served as an effective deterrent to foreign investment in the province, further deepening the recession the province endured between 1990 and 1995.

We'll never know the extent to which the same has been true in Quebec and B.C., but it's obvious that most U.S. entrepreneurs would see such laws as so anti-business that they would shy away from investing there, much less opening plants in a jurisdiction where they could be held hostage to a union.

As we see it, the existing federal law makes good sense and ought to be used as a model by all the provinces. After all, one size fits all labour laws are bound to be unfair to some of the stakeholders.

At the one extreme we have large multinational employers like Wal-Mart who can prevent poorly paid employees from forming a union and threaten to close their stores if (as has already been the case in Quebec) the workers are unionized and seek to have a contract.

At the other extreme, there are huge international unions that can make unrealistic demands on small employers who face tough competition and the prospect of bankruptcy if they cave in to the demands.

Yet, incredibly, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) has been portraying Bill C- 257 as little short of motherhood legislation.

Noting that MPs are to vote on third reading today (March 21), CLC President Ken Georgetti said he hopes a majority of MPs will vote in favour, "because they will listen to their hearts and to the voices of the majority of their constituents who are people who work for wages."

He said essential services are already protected by both the Canada Labour Code and other statutes that deal specifically with federal public services.

As we see it, balance and fairness can only be achieved with flexibility, something that's obviously absent in a law that simply prevents employers from operating their businesses during a strike, no matter how outrageous the union's demands might be.