Introductory Submissions

Transcription

1 Submission for Ratio Review of Powerline Technician (434A) Joint Submission by Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario (ECAO) and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers - Construction Council of Ontario (IBEW-CCO) Introductory Submissions ECAO / IBEW CCO: The Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario (ECAO) represents more than 850 contractors in the electrical industry. Members and associate members of ECAO undertake the majority of contracted powerline work in Ontario. The ECAO, through the Electrical Trade Bargaining Agency is the designated employer bargaining agency for the electrical trade in the ICI sector under the Labour Relations Act. The Local Unions affiliated to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction Council of Ontario (IBEW CCO) represents journeypersons or apprentices in the Powerline Technician trade who are employed by electrical and powerline contractors. Preliminary Submission: Trade Profile Based on the 2006 Census there were approximately 3,585 Electrical Powerline and Cable Workers in Ontario. More than 2/3 s of these workers were employed by utilities, including Hydro One, Ontario 1

2 Power Generation, the various municipal utilities, and other power generators. Approximately 500 of these workers were employed by contractors who undertake work on a tendered basis, chiefly for utilities. The single most important factor to appreciate when considering any matters pertaining to the Powerline Technician trade is that this trade is inherently dangerous. The consequences of an error can be fatal. Powerline Technicians often work at heights, sometimes in confined areas, and always with high voltage electrical power. The risk of electrocution is always present in this trade. Preliminary Submission Applicable to All Criteria The most important aspect of any apprenticeship is that an apprenticeship is first and foremost a job. An apprenticeship is a distinctive job in that it combines work with training, but an apprenticeship is a job before anything else. Jobs cannot be created simply by changing the journeyperson to apprentice ratio. Jobs depend on the demand for skilled labour and, in the contract industry, the willingness of clients (mainly utilities) to accept apprentices on the job site. This is especially important since the electrical utilities are rightly proud of their safety culture and insist on the same high standards of safety performance by their contractors. Especially in the powerline trade, it is impossible to force feed the system with more apprentices than employers are able and willing to employ. The major constraint on employers capacity to employ apprentices is (quite rightly) concern for worker and public safety. 2

3 Current Ratio: The current ratio is set out in Regulation 1067 which reads: Sec. 9 The number of apprentices who may be employed by an employer in the certified trade shall not exceed, (a) where the employer is a journeyperson in the trade, one apprentice plus an additional apprentice for each additional journeyperson employed by that employer in the trade and with whom the apprentice is working; and (b) where the employer is not a journeyperson in the trade, one apprentice for each journeyperson employed by that employer in the trade and with whom the apprentice is working. Essentially the current regulation provides for a 1:1 ratio. It is the joint submission of the ECAO and the IBEW that this Review Panel should make no change to the current ratio. Submissions with Respect to Specified Criteria Criterion 1: The scope of practice of the trades. The scope of the trade is clearly defined in the regulation. The key functions of the Powerline Technician trade pertain to outside cabling and connections related to high voltage overhead and underground transmission and distribution systems. On these key functions there is no overlap with the Electrician trade. There is nothing in the scope of practice of the trade that is relevant to determining the ratio of journeypersons to apprentices. 3

4 Criterion 2: The apprenticeship program established by the College. Apprenticeship training for the Powerline Technician trade is delivered through the Infrastructure Health and Safety Association (IHSA) in Mississauga and the Hydro One facility in Kleinberg. Currently there are also four colleges which have Training Delivery Agency (TDA status). However, the IHSA and Hydro One account for the majority of apprenticeship training. Figure No. 2 shows the number of registered apprentices in the Powerline Technician trade in Ontario. These data are from the Registered Apprenticeship Information System (RAIS) maintained by Statistics Canada. (The data apply to all levels of apprenticeship). The most recent data available for Powerline Technician are for Figure No. 2 Registered Apprentices (All Levels) in the Powerline TechnicianTrade, Ontario Statistics Canada Registered Apprenticeship Information System Year No. of Registered Apprentices , ,314 Since 2004, the number of apprenticeship registrations has increased from 651 to 1,314. Clearly, the current ratio did not impede a substantial increase in the number of registered apprentices. Indeed, it is noteworthy that a national study of the Powerline Technician trade undertaken by the Electricity 4

5 Sector Council did not even mention current ratio rules as an impediment to recruiting more apprentices into the trade. 1 We conclude, therefore, that based on Criterion Two, there is no argument to be made for changing the current journeyperson to apprentice ratio. Criterion 3: How the journeyperson to apprentice ratio for the trade may affect the health and safety of apprentices and journeypersons working in the trade and the public who may be affected by the work. Health and safety in the Powerline Technician trade is absolutely central to the trade. The inherent dangers of the trade are self evident: working at significant heights, working in confined areas where connections may be required, and working with extremely high voltages. Indeed, it is because of the dangers that are inherent in the trade that the Infrastructure Health and Safety Association was chosen by the industry and by the MTCU to be a lead deliverer of training in the Powerline Technician trade. In addition to apprenticeship training, Powerline Technicians also need specialized training in safe working procedures such as working at heights, fall arrest systems, power elevated platforms, etc. Younger workers and a large majority of apprentices fall into this category are often tempted to cut corners on health and safety practices, especially if safety requirements slow down completion of a task. Indeed, the Infrastructure Health and Safety Association advises that new and young workers in Ontario are four times more likely to be injured during the first month of employment than at any other 1 Electricity Sector Council, The Powerline Technician Trade in Canada, April

6 time. 2 It is important, therefore, that the ratio of journeypersons to apprentices be limited to the current 1:1 ratio. Moving beyond this ratio could tip the balance in the industry s workplace culture from the current diligence on health and safety to a less diligent safety culture. The current ratio achieves this goal. Reducing the journeyperson to apprentice ratio will increase the likelihood of risky behaviour. Figure No. 3 shows the WSIB contribution rates for These contribution rates (per $100 or payroll) are a proxy for health and safety performance. Figure No. 3 WSIB Contribution Rates for Construction Industry Rate Groups Rate Group Premium per $100 of Payroll 704 Electrical And Incidental Construction Services $ Mechanical And Sheet Metal Work $ Power And Telecommunication Lines $ Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Construction $ Roadbuilding And Excavating $ Millwrighting And Welding $ Heavy Civil Construction $ Inside Finishing $ Homebuilding $ Siding And Outside Finishing $ Masonry $ Roofing $ Form Work And Demolition $18.31 As can be seen from the above table, the Power and Telecommunication Lines rate group has one of the lower contribution rates in the construction industry. This reflects the strong safety consciousness culture in the industry. It would be a serious error for the Review Panel to radically reduce the journeyperson to apprentice ratio and thereby risk a dilution of the safety culture in the industry

7 Some may argue that the industry s safety performance is unrelated to the journeyperson to apprentice ratio and that this ratio could be radically reduced without jeopardizing health and safety performance. We acknowledge that there is no clear cut empirical evidence on the relationship between health and safety performance and the journeyperson to apprentice ratio. WSIB claims data are often not readily available at the occupational level and certainly not at a level that distinguishes between journeypersons and apprentices. There may be merit in undertaking such research, but at this time, we must acknowledge that clear cut data are not available. How then should the Review Panel approach the ratio question in then context of health and safety performance? We respectfully suggest that where safety is at issue, and that is especially the case with this trade, the Review Panel should proceed with great caution. In the absence of clear cut and persuasive evidence that the ratio of journeypersons to apprentices could be radically reduced without increasing the risk to health and safety performance, the Review Panel should leave the current ratio as it stands. There is no direct evidence available on the relationship between ratios and health and safety performance. The only indirect evidence that can be marshalled is workers compensation rates in different jurisdictions which may be lower than those in Ontario and which may coincide with lower journeyperson to apprentice ratios. This type of evidence, however, is far too weak to support the strong conclusions that some proponents would ask you to draw. In the first place, the technical definitions of rate groups are often not commensurate across jurisdictions. Second, many factors influence a premium level, including (especially in Ontario) the magnitude of the unfunded liability, the actuarial assumptions used to estimate future benefits costs, and the benefit structure itself. And third, premium rates are based on claims experience, not on actual injuries. Especially in inter jurisdictional comparisons, reported claims do not bear a reliable relationship to actual injuries, since a great many 7

8 injuries are unreported. 3 For all of these reasons, the Review Panel should attach little, if any weight, to inter jurisdictional comparisons of workers compensation rates. Certainly such comparisons should not be relied on to make radical changes in the journeyperson to apprentice ratio that could weaken health and safety performance in a trade which is intrinsically dangerous. We conclude, therefore, that the current ratio is consistent with health and safety goals and that, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, the Review Panel should not take the risk of lowering the current ratio. Criterion 4: The effect, if any, of the journeyperson to apprentice ratio of the trade on the environment. There are no strong connections between the ratio in the Powerline Technician trade and the environment. No arguments for altering the current ratio can be founded on Criterion Four. Criterion 5: The economic impact of the journeyperson to apprentice ratio of the trade on apprentices, journeypersons, employers and employer associations and, where applicable, on trade unions, employee associations, apprentice training providers and the public. Figure No. 4 shows the current number of active journeypersons and apprentices in the Powerline Technician trade, based on MTCU/CoT data. 3 In a national survey commissioned for the Canadian Policy Research Network and conducted by Ekos Research, it was found that 40% of persons in the work force covered by workers compensation experienced lost time injuries that they had not reported to the workers compensation authority in their province. Harry Shannon and Graham Lowe, How Many Injured Workers do not file Claims for Workers American Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 42, pp (2002) 8

9 Figure No. 4 Implied Journeyperson-to-Apprentice Ratio College of Trades (as of October 1, 2012) Active Journeypersons Active Apprentices Effective Ratio Powerline Technician 5,481 1, :1 As can be seen from Figure No. 4, the current effective ratio, on a provincial basis, is 4.3:1. Clearly, the current 1:1 ratio is not a constraint on the capacity of the electrical industry to increase the number of apprentices in the industry. On the basis of the current ratio, the industry could hire more than 4,000 apprentices without any limitation. In these circumstances, there is no case whatsoever for reducing the ratio. Current and Expected Labour Market Conditions: Although there are no public domain forecasts on the future demand for Powerline Technicians, it is generally agreed that refurbishment of the current power distribution system and the development of new generating capacity (both conventional and alternative) will increase the need for Powerline Technicians. As well, this trade appears to have a high replacement demand than in the case in many other trades. As shown in Figure No. 2 (page 5) there has been a significant increase in the number of new apprentices in this trade. In other words, industry is responding to its future needs. The current ratio is not an impediment to increasing the number of apprentices either to meet future demand or future replacement requirements. Indeed, as noted above, the industry could employ more than 4,000 new apprentices if it wished to, within the confines of the current ratio rule. Based on Criterion 5, we conclude that the current 1:1 ratio should not be changed. 9

10 Criterion 6: The number of apprentices and journeypersons working in the trade. As noted previously, there are currently 5,481 current C of Q holders and 1,278 current apprentices in the Powerline Technician trade. The effective ratio is 4.3:1. Based on the current effective ratio, there is no need to reduce the ratio below 1:1 to increase the number apprentices. Criterion Number Six supports a continuation of the current ratio. Criterion 7: The rates of completion for apprentices in an apprentice training program for the trade The only valid way to measure completion rates is through a longitudinal study that tracks cohorts over time. No such study has been undertaken, although the Ontario Construction Secretariat has commenced such a study. In the absence of a longitudinal study, the only procedure that can be used is to compare new registrations with completions. Figure No. 5 shows the number of new registrations per year compared to the number of completions. While this comparison does not allow an accurate completion rate to be computed, it is suggestive of trends. Two ratios are shown in Figure No. 5. The first compares completions in any given year to registrations in the same year. The second compares completions in a given year to registrations four years earlier (e.g., completions in are expressed as a ratio of registration in ). The logic of this comparison is that the Powerline Technician is a four year apprentice and one would expect persons who register in the trade to complete four years later. For the Powerline Technician trade, the lagged ratio is the better indicator of completion trends. 10

11 Figure No. 5 Powerline Technicians: New Registrations and Completions (MTCU data provided to Ontario Construction Secretariat) Powerline Technicians Year New Registrations Completions Ratio of Completions to New Registrations (Same Year) % Ratio of Completions to New Registrations (Lagged by 4 Years) % % % 50.0% % 48.2% % 52.9% % 37.6% % 73.1% Figure No. 5 shows that the industry had some difficulty with its completion rates, but appears to addressing that problem and making significant progress. If there were an extremely high attrition rate from apprenticeships, there might be an argument for reducing the ratio, although even that argument is contestable. However, the data show that the industry is addressing its apprentice attrition rate and that most new apprentices are now completing their training. Based on Criterion Seven, we conclude that the current 1:1 journeyperson to apprentice ratio should not be altered. Criterion 8: The journeyperson to apprentice ratio, if any, for a similar trade in other jurisdictions. The following table summarizes ratio rules that we believe to be current in other jurisdictions. 11

12 Figure No. 7 Journeypesons-to-Apprentices Ratios Red Seal Secretariat Ellis Chart British Columbia Powerline Technician N/A Alberta 1:2 Saskatchewan 1:3 Manitoba n/a Ontario 1:1 Quebec n/a New Brunswick 1:1 Nova Scotia 1:1 PEI 1:1 Newfoundland & Labrador 1:2 Yukon Territory 1:1 North West Territory 1:2 Nunavut Territory 1:2 We do not regard ratios in other jurisdictions as especially germane to Ontario policy. Labour market conditions in Alberta and Saskatchewan are clearly different from those in Ontario. Criterion 9: The supply of, and demand for, journeypersons in the trade and in the labour market generally. As noted earlier, there are no public domain forecasts for supply and demand in the Powerline Technician trade. It is expected that there will be increased investment in refurbishing existing high voltage distribution lines and installing lines to connect with new generating sources. Overall, demand is expected to increase. As will be discussed under Criterion Number Eleven, replacement demand in this trade may be higher than for many other trades. That being said, the 1:1 ratio for Powerline Technicians is lower than the ratio for most other trades. Most trades allow a 1:1 ratio for small 12

13 employers, but then increase the ratio for mid sized and large employers. This is the rule for 28 or the 34 trades with prescribed ratios. For Powerline Technicians, the 1:1 ratio applies regardless of employer size. Clearly the current ratio is intended to allow for an increase in the flow of new apprentices into the trade. As noted under Criterion Five, the current 1:1 ratio leaves the industry with the scope to hire more than 4,000 new apprentices without being limited by the 1:1 ratio. Based on Criterion Nine, the current ratio is appropriate to the industry s long run requirements and should not be altered. Criterion 10: The attraction and retention of apprentices and journeypersons in the trade. Figure No. 5 which, for convenience, is reproduced below as Figure No. 8 shows registrations and completions in the Powerline Technician trade. Figure No. 8 Powerline Technicians: New Registrations and Completions (MTCU data provided to Ontario Construction Secretariat) Powerline Technicians Year New Registrations Completions Ratio of Completions to New Registrations (Same Year) % Ratio of Completions to New Registrations (Lagged by 4 Years) % % % 50.0% % 48.2% % 52.9% % 37.6% % 73.1% 13

14 There have been strong and significant increases in new registrations, completions and the ratio of completions to new registration. These are all positive indicators. They show that the industry is not experiencing either an attraction or a retention problem. Based on Criterion Ten, there is no justification for altering the current ratio. Criterion 11: The average age of apprentices and journeypersons in the trade and the projected attrition of journeypersons working in the trade. Figure No. 9 summarizes the age distribution of Powerline Technicians, based on the 2006 Census. Figure No. 9 Age Distribution - Powerline Tehcnicians, Ontario Statistics Canada, Census 2006 Age Group Number Percent of Total 15 to 24 years % 25 to 34 years % 35 to 44 years 1, % 45 to 54 years 1, % 55 to 64 years % 65 to 74 years % 75 years and over % 3, % The Census data do not point to a serious demographic challenge. However, MTCU data indicate that the average age of current C of Q holders is 61. The MTCU data are difficult to reconcile with the Census data. We suspect that there may be an error in the MTCU data. The possibility of an error is also supported by the data in Figure No. 8 which indicate that in the last 8 years, there have been 1,832 new apprenticeships and 619 new completions. The data on new apprenticeship and new completions indicate that the industry dealing with its replacement challenge. In any event, the solution to the 14

15 replacement challenge is to hire more apprentices as would be permitted under the current ratio not to reduce the ratio. Based on Criterion Eleven, the current ratio should not be changed. Conclusion Taking all of the criteria into account the Review Panel should keep the current 1:1 ratio in place. Reducing the ratio would potentially jeopardize health and safety in a trade which is inherently dangerous. Moreover, the current effective ratio in the province is 4.3:1. Even within the limits of the current 1:1 ratio rule, the industry could employ more than 4,000 additional apprentices. Having regard for all of the mandated criteria the Review Panel should confirm the current 1:1 ratio and should make not changes to that ratio. Respectfully submitted Eryl Roberts Executive Vice President, Labour Relations Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario John Grimshaw Executive Secretary Treasurer International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Construction Council of Ontario 15