For Tender: Bridge builders in the Saskatchewan construction industry.

But to paint this picture with such a broad, stereotypical brush is an injustice to either side of the issue; whether it be the issue of Construction Industry Labor Relations Act itself or the left-wing ideals and ideology vs. that of the right wing. One thing that most everyone aware of the Act would agree upon though, is that it is contentious.

Succinctly speaking, the Construction Industry Labor Relations Act is primarily an act that allows unionized construction businesses to organize into one cohesive bargaining group to bargain with the 16 building trade unions in the province. In essence, it's like creating a union for the employers' side.

Initially created in 1979 during the twilight of the Allan Blakeney administration, the Construction Industry Labor Relations Act was repealed in 1983 after the Grant Devine Conservatives swept to power on a platform based upon Saskatchewan being "Open for Business." Some, like the Devine Conservatives obviously did, viewed the CILRA as a detriment to business, perhaps because it may have been perceived that Saskatchewan favored unionized contractors, as opposed to those who operated in a non-unionized environment.

Many argue the same points today, such as Manley McLachlan, executive director of the Saskatchewan Construction Association. McLachlan says that the legislation was repealed to allow Saskatchewan construction companies the opportunity to compete with the out-of-province companies who were moving into the province to underbid the jobs and hence, take work away from Saskatchewan contractors.

"We've questioned all along the validity of a lot of these policies from a fiscal perspective' McLachlan says, explaining that many tenders, including all government tenders, are only available to unionized contractors. "When you limit yourself to who you're going to accept tenders from, you limit the competitiveness of the bids. It's as fundamental as when you go renovate your basement; are you going to get bids from two contractors or 12? When have you satisfied yourself that you've got the best price possible?"

McLachlan says that contractors are wary of conditions that may be legislated upon them. He says that some contractors avoid all government work, because such work is only available to unionized contractors.

"There's an element beyond the boundaries of Saskatchewan that says beware if you're coming to work in this province," McLachlan says. "I know that because I get calls from contractors in Manitoba and Alberta who may have interest in a particular project here but ask what they need to be worried about. They're asking the question because they know that there are things that they need to be worried about."

Working in an unionized environment is nothing to be leery of, says Sid Matthews, president of the Construction Labor Relations Association of Saskatchewan (CLR), which was granted Representative Employer (REO) status for unionized contractors in Saskatchewan. In fact, quite the contrary, he says. Unionized companies set the standards in virtually all areas, he reasons, emphatically stating that companies improve in many areas upon becoming ratified. From a safety perspective to production, and virtually everything in between, Matthews says that unionized companies can outperform, from a fiscal perspective, those who operate open shop.

Matthews proudly points to Weyerhaeuser's Wood Waste and Low Odor Project at the Prince Albert Pulp and Paper Mill as testament to the benefits unionized contractors provide. That particular project was a three-year, $300-million project which was completed three months ahead of an aggressive schedule. In addition it was completed under budget and without a lost-time accident, despite requiring more than 2.5 million work hours.

"This extraordinary business achievement was the result of new initiatives to achieve excellence in project delivery," states the collateral material which Matthews provides, outlining the project. "In addition to real partnering with stakeholders, the most crucial and unique of these initiatives was the level and frequency of communication between project and construction management and labor."

"The Wood Waste and Low Odor Project established a high degree of trust and co-operation among the participants. This included full labor co-operation with the project substance abuse policy -- a key factor in the project's safety achievement. The 'safety without compromise' approach to the workplace was the most important part of the project delivery goals."

"The project structure allowed for fast and effective decision-making, speedy resolution of problems, and respect and openness among participants. This included communication about the business reasons for project delivery methods and goals -- an effective, non-traditional strategy unique to this project."

"The final outcome was an extremely high-quality project, completed safety, ahead of time, and under budget -- a process and a project unlike any other of this size in Saskatchewan construction history."

Aside from the debate raging regarding the benefits of the unionized contractors vs. those of open shop contractors, there is also some dispute over the involvement of CLR itself. Unilaterally appointed as Representative Employer (REO) status when the CILRA was legislated in 1992, justly or not, CLR has become a lightning rod for some of the contractors' dissatisfaction with unions. They reason that the CLR, because it only represents contractors who are unionized, is too closely tied with the unions.

"CLR was an organization that did not have the support of the majority of the contractors," says Larry Seiferling, a lawyer with McDougall Gauley in Saskatoon who has been intricately involved with the construction industry. "They also basically were in bed with the unions according to a large number of people in the industry. They just didn't trust this organization to represent them. So CLR has never been effective from 1992 until now."

"The government has taken away the freedom of association -- the right for all of these contractors to associate with an organization that they are happy with," adds Seiferling. "And they've done it for no valid reason. Because this legislation is supposed to be for the contractors, but the government seems to want to take away the right of the contractor to select someone they have confidence in to represent their interests."

"CLR is a contractors association and we're in the business community of unionized construction," Matthews clarifies. "We are management, we do all construction services."

"What's unique about us, I guess, we work in the unionized sector," he continues. "We're obligated to hire only union members. And as such the role of CLR is to look after the interests of unionized contractors, both in collective bargaining and working with them through problems on projects with what's the union's interpretation and whatever issues may develop on the work site."

"Our contractors are unionized contractors. In most cases they didn't decide to become unionized contractors," Matthews asserts. "They were unionized when their employees exercised their right to be represented by a union."

"We're really not unlike Safeway, the Hotel Saskatchewan, the Leader Post, IPSCO, we're really no different," he notes. "We're a unionized employer."

"There's one big difference though," he continues his comparison. "Where those companies have plants or facilities that are stationary; the employees have continuous employees with them, construction companies, our place of work is all over. It's not at where we have an administrative office, but it's all over."

"The continuity of employment is quite different in the unionized sector, because we have to hire union members. When you don't have work, they go back to the union hall and they get dispatched off to another contractor."

"On the question of the Construction Labor Relations Association being named the Representative Employers association, the key factors were threefold," explains Carol Todd, spokesperson for the Department of Labor. "One was that the CLR had been representing the unionized contractors in bargaining with the unions since 1992 and had an excellent relationship with both sides."

"The other factor is that the other organization that was there at the time, the SCLRC, the Construction Labor Relations Council, had represented unionized contractors prior to 1992. After 1992 we were told at that time that there was no set membership to that and it was kind of a very loosely based affiliation. As well a large number of these, because we had never seen a membership list, but to the best of our knowledge, that organization at that time represented a large number of companies that had spinoffs and as such it wouldn't have been appropriate for them to be involved because they didn't represent entirely unionized contractors."

"It makes no sense whatsoever for an employer organization to be bargaining with unions when that employer organization doesn't represent contractors that are unionized. It doesn't make sense to have a non-union contractor negotiating with a union. It has to be a unionized contractor that negotiates with a union."

Indeed a key bone of contention amongst both sides is the issue of a unionized company having non-union subsidiaries. Contractors argue that they need to have open shop subsidiaries to remain competitive in a highly competitive industry. Strictly unionized contractors, however, say that having this duality creates a highly unfair scenario, given that some contractors could bid on some jobs as unionized companies, and others as non-unionized entities.

"When it comes to the whole question about membership in CLR, the people that are members of CLR are in a unique situation, in fact our situation is unique in Saskatchewan relative to construction. The Construction Industry Labor Relations Act really allows people to work both union and non-union during a period of time," Matthews reasons. "Our people are obligated to work solely union. There are other companies that have had the latitude, if you wish, to work both union and non-union. You can see that that in essence would create a great advantage if you were a contractor and you could bid this job either union or nonunion, pick and choose which way you want to work; me, I don't have a choice."

"We don't have an issue with how people run their businesses. A company can go and do that, work union and non-union. But I think where we take issue is that we don't think that they should be part of CLR's side; what is in a union agreement and how we have to work because we are solely bound by these collective agreements."