On May 1st three Private Members Bills were carried through first reading in the Ontario Legislature. If passed, they would fundamentally change the labour relations system and weaken the union movement in Ontario. All three are sponsored by Progressive Conservative MPP Randy Hiller (Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox & Addington) who has been outspoken about his anti-union views since he was elected.

Bill 64, Defending Employees’ Rights Act (Collective Bargaining and Financial Disclosure by Trade Unions)
(Full text: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2786)

This bill is packed full of measures. It would limit unions’ ability to spend on political action, repeal the Rand Formula, dismantle exclusive bargaining rights and majority unionism, and require unions to provide onerous financial reports.

First, it would redefine what “regular union dues” means to exclude expenditures that do not relate directly to collective bargaining or the payment of employees’ benefits “unless the employee has specifically authorized the trade union in writing” that their dues can be spent for other purposes. This is a direct attempt to limit unions’ ability to spend on political action and contribute to political parties. This arrangement attempts to mirror similar proposals in the United States, sometimes known as “paycheque deception” laws by its opponents or “paycheque protection” by its proponents, that limit the ability for unions to use dues for political purposes.

Second, it would repeal exclusive bargaining rights (Section 45(1)) as they are currently defined. Instead, the union would be recognized as the bargaining agent for only those workers in the bargaining unit that choose to be union members.

Third, it would repeal the Rand Formula (Section 47 and 52) and replaces it with an arrangement that states that if the bargaining unit requests a dues check-off clause it shall be included in the collective agreement, but will only apply to those who choose to be union members and thus are covered by the collective agreement. Together these two measures would dismantle the system of majority unionism that has been the foundation of labour relations in North America since the 1930s. This would create division in workplaces and foster more instability in labour relations.

Fourth, it would repeal the ability for membership to be made a condition of employment in a collective agreement. It would also make void any provisions in existing collective agreements that: make membership a condition of employment; grant a preference of employment to members of the trade union; or require any union member to pay dues of any amount greater than the amount spent on collective bargaining, servicing the collective agreement or member benefits. This would outlaw closed shop and union shop arrangements. It also attempts to prevent unions from being able to spend dues on political purposes.

Finally, it also includes provisions that are similar to Bill C-377 at the federal level, which is currently at second reading in the Senate. It places onerous financial requirements on unions by requiring them to provide annual statements to the Minister setting out the total of all dues payable to the union and the total of all expenses. It also requires a detailed breakdown of all expenses greater than $5000. These statements would be published on the Ministry’s website.

Bill 63, Labour Relations Amendment Act (Ontario Labour Relations Board)
(Full text: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2785)

This bill would increase the power of the Lieutenant Governor and reduce the power of the Chair to regulate the practice and procedure of the Ontario Labour Relations Board by: Removing the ability for the Chair to make rules that govern the Board, expedite hearings, and limit opportunities for submissions; and Granting the Lieutenant Governor power to govern the practices and procedures of the Board. The OLRB is currently an arm’s length institution from the government, but this Bill would make it less independent.

It would also remove the stated purposes of the Act.1

It would also make the Board’s orders subject to appeal to the Divisional Court by any party affected by the decision.

It would also make members of the Board and the Minister compellable witnesses in any appeal or judicial review relating to a decision made by the Board.

Bill 62, Defending Employees’ Rights Act (Certification of Trade Unions)
(Full text: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=2783)

This Bill would amend the Labour Relations act so that under no circumstances can a union be certified without a representation vote. This includes removing card-check certification in the construction industry. It also prevents the board from certifying a union without a ratification vote, even when it is deemed the only sufficient remedy to the situation after an employer intervenes in the certification process. This a direct threat to organizing rights in Ontario. Instead of being curtailed, card-check certification should be granted more widely.

1 Current purpose of the Act: “1. To facilitate collective bargaining between employers and trade unions that are the freely-designated representatives of the employees; 2. To recognize the importance of workplace parties adapting to change; 3. To promote flexibility, productivity and employee involvement in the workplace; 4. To encourage communication between employers and employees in the workplace; 5. To recognize the importance of economic growth as the foundation for mutually beneficial relations amongst employers, employees and trade unions; 6. To encourage co-operative participation of employers and trade unions in resolving workplace issues; 7. To promote the expeditious resolution of workplace disputes.”