Press Release
| Article | |
| 01 August, 2007 | |
 | |
|
Province-Wide, Single Trade Collective Bargaining – 30 Years Later ____________________________________________________________________________ Some of you will clearly remember the circumstances that led to province-wide collective bargaining in the ICI construction industry. “Whip sawing” and “leap frogging” were common practices that ultimately led to sequential work stoppages, higher construction costs and unpredictability of project completion dates. Bargaining structures were fragmented by trade and geographic area. In response to these problems the Franks Industrial Inquiry Commission, appointed in 1974, concluded that fragmented bargaining patterns remained a persistent source of labour-management instability and that restructuring was required. Franks’ major recommendation was that single-trade, province-wide bargaining in the ICI sector of the construction industry should be made mandatory. This recommendation was enacted by way of amendment to the Labour Relations Act in 1977. The ICI construction industry experienced its first round of province-wide, single trade bargaining in 1978. Now, nearly 30 years later, we have an opportunity to reflect on the impact of province-wide, single-trade bargaining, some of the legislative changes that have been introduced since 1978 and the ability of the existing regime to help address the issue of competitive advantage. Changes in bargaining structure alone cannot overcome the influence of economic factors and market conditions. In the early 1980s, projected increases in construction activity combined with double-digit inflation prompted strong calls from union leaders for large wage settlements. Consequently, while the frequency and overall number of work stoppages declined under province-wide bargaining, the number of workers involved and overall man-days lost increased dramatically in the years immediately following the new bargaining structure. More recently, work stoppages have moderated in part to economic conditions and commitments to “no strike, no lockout” agreements. While province-wide, single-trade bargaining addressed the fragmentation of the industry’s bargaining regime, the industry continues to look for ways to address ongoing competitive advantage. A number of legislative tools have been introduced over the years to help address market conditions and competitive advantage. Bill 31 introduced Project Labour Agreements to the construction industry. Many unions have established Market Recovery and/or Stabilization Funds to help win work in targeted sectors. In Bill 69 the government introduced “name hiring” and increased flexibility for mobility of the workforce. Bill 69 also enabled employer groups to seek mid-contract modifications to their provincial agreements where it can be shown they are at a “competitive disadvantage.” Each of these legislative changes has “tweaked” the existing bargaining regime. Some regions and trades have had successes with these tools, others have not. At a recent labour relations conference in Toronto, OCS put together a panel to discuss some of the challenges faced by the unionized construction industry. Panelists included Pat Dillon (Provincial Building & Construction Trades Council of Ontario), Bill Nicholls (International Union of Painters and Allied Trades), Geoff Smith (EllisDon) and Paul Richer (PCL Constructors). All panelists spoke of the importance of labour-management partnerships whether in the area of attracting and training workers, safety, bargaining, or trying to gain a bigger share of the construction pie. As Geoff Smith stated, “non-union ICI hours are growing exponentially.” He further emphasized the need to address competitive issues now before the next downturn in the economy which in his words could be “devastating” for the union sector. Pat Dillon summed it up by saying labour and management need to be partners in “good times and bad” if the unionized ICI sector wants a bigger share of the pie. He further acknowledged that some of the legislative amendments have provided opportunities where as others have hurt the unionized sector. OCS has the mandate to “facilitate collective bargaining.” At this year’s Annual Conference, we challenge the Employer and Employee Bargaining Agents to think “outside the box”, examine current issues, critically look at the most recent round of bargaining and talk about what works in bargaining and what doesn’t. Perhaps the adversarial model on which collective bargaining is based needs revisiting. How do we as an industry address the burgeoning non-union sector? How do we grow our competitive position? Who has already undertaken new initiatives and achieved success? Let’s take time to reflect on our successes and explore new opportunities. Working together, exploring options and being open to change is central to our ongoing survival. Committed partners working together helping each other succeed is what we should strive for. Katharine Jacobs (Research Analyst) - OCS _______________________________________________________________________________ “Whip sawing” and Leap frog bargaining” where settlements in one trade or area tended to lend to pyramiding higher settlements in the other trades and areas. Whip sawing refers to trade-to-trade pyramiding and “leap frogging” refers to area-to area pyramiding |
|