Earlier this week, I did a post describing a case from Saskatchewan in which the UFCW argued that Wal-Mart’s conduct in threatening employees and closing a store in Quebec to avoid a collective agreement amounted to illegal intimidation of Wal-Mart workers in Saskatchewan. In this installment of Real Life Pleadings, I am attaching the Union’s application and amended application from that case. Take a look at remedies requested by the Union, which amount largely to a list of orders that would grant the UFCW greater access to the Wal-Mart workers they are trying to organize in Sask.
The Union’s lawyer, Drew Plaxton, who sent me these pleadings (thanks Drew!), informs me that the employer did not file a response to the pleadings, but instead argued that the Board had no jurisdiction to hear the case. The Board dismissed that argument in the decision linked to my earlier posting. Drew tells me–not surprisingly–that Wal-Mart intends to seek judicial review of that decision. Wal-Mart’s usual strategy is to invest thousands of dollars in legal fees reviewing and appealing decisions it loses as high up the judicial pecking order they can go. Better to pay lawyers than actually engage in good faith bargaining with a union the employees have chosen. The goal obviously is to delay, delay, stall, stall. So expect this case to be tied up in legal wrangling for years, unless the union withdraws.
Here are the Union’s pleadings
