Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
  • Home
  • About
    • Professor David Doorey
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Submissions
  • Student Blog Initiative
Canadian Law of Work Forum (CLWF)
Law of Work Archive

SCC Upholds Wal-Mart's Decision to Close Store to Avoid Union in Quebec

by David Doorey November 26, 2009
written by David Doorey November 26, 2009

   Congratulations to Wal-Mart Canada are in order:  its decision to dismiss about 200 employees in Quebec who had the audacity to exercise their Charter-protected right to unionize survived a Supreme Court challenge!   Another giant step forward for corporate Canada …
I described last year a case involving a decision of Wal-Mart Canada to close a store in Quebec and fire all of the employees after they joined a union and the union requested first contract arbitration.  Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of Wal-Mart.  There are two decisions involving two different complainants, but the lead decision is Plourde v. Wal-Mart, which you can find here.   Here is a story from the Globe and Mail.
This decision is not likely to have much impact beyond Quebec, and it is questionable whether it will have much impact even within Quebec.  That’s because the majority took a very narrow view of the issue before it, finding that the only issues were whether a reverse onus section of the Quebec legislation applied when a workplace has been permanently closed, and whether employees can claim ‘reinstatement’ when their workplace has been closed.  Binnie J. for the majority ruled that Section 17 of the Quebec Labour Code, which shifts the onus to the employer to prove its actions were not tainted by anti-union animus, does not apply when the employer has closed the workplace.

17. If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commission that the employee exercised a right arising from this Code, there is a simple presumption in his favour that the sanction was imposed on him or the action was taken against him because he exercised such right, and the burden of proof is upon the employer that he resorted to the sanction or action against the employee for good and sufficient reason.

And, the majority ruled that employees terminated due to a closure of the business cannot claim reinstatement under the Quebec Code.  That is how the law has been interpreted in Quebec for years anyhow, and even outside Quebec, it would be highly unusual for a labour board to order an employer to ‘reopen’ after it has closed a workplace and moved the work elsewhere.
The Court upheld that peculiar interpretation of the legislation that the reverse onus does not apply in the case of a complete closure of the workplace.  That interpretation was first applied in a case called City Buick Pontiac (Montréal) Inc. v. Roy, [1981] T.T. 22, which was later cited with approval in a SCC case called I.A.T.S.E., Stage Local 56v.Société de la Place des Arts de Montréal, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 43 .  It is of note, though, that Binnie J. clarified that employees and unions can challenge a workplace closure tainted by anti-union animus under the normal unfair labour practices sections of the Code, it’s just that the reverse onus doesn’t apply.  So, in other words, the Court ruled that the union should have framed their case differently.  Thus, if the Quebec government doesn’t respond to the case by  bringing its law in line with other Canadian jurisdictions, Quebec unions have now been told how to structure their store closure cases.
The Court’s conclusion that the reverse onus doesn’t apply to closures is a significant benefit to union-busting employers like Wal-Mart, since it forces the union to prove “on a balance of probabilities” that the motive for the workplace closure and resulting mass termination of the workers was due to the employees’ exercising union activities.  The reason why we have a reverse onus in Canadian labour law is that employees and unions don’t have the information to ‘prove’ why an employer does what it does–the union is not in the board room when the decision is made.  Legislators across Canada (except in Quebec, apparently) have long believed it makes more sense to require the employer to take the stand and prove that its decision to terminate all of its employees has nothing to do with the fact that the workers joined a union and tried to bargain a collective agreement.
One of the most interesting things about this decision is the scathing dissent written by Abella J.   Lebel and Cromwell JJ. agreed, which is interesting in itself, since these three all have backgrounds that include expertise in labour law.  Abella J.  is the most experienced labour lawyer on the Bench, and was formerly Chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.  She argues that the majority decision is contrary to the entire history of Canadian labour law and Quebec law itself.  She also emphasizes perhaps the most curious aspect of the approach taken by the majority–that its interpretation provides employees with the protection of the reverse onus in all cases of employee retaliation against employees for union activity except with respect to the most drastic form of retaliation:  mass dismissals in the form of a complete closure of the workplace:

It strikes me as oddly tautological to conclude that a business closing is a good enough reason for closing a business.  The effect is to suggest that under the Code, an employer’s conduct can be scrutinized for anti-union motives if a single employee is dismissed, but not if all employees are dismissed.  Closing a business can in fact be the most severe form of reprisal for union activity.  To close a business in order to avoid a union is to dismiss employees because they have engaged in union activity.

Hard to argue with that logic, isn’t it?  In any event, contrary to some of the newspaper reports I’ve seen, the case doesn’t stand for the proposition that an employer is free to close a workplace without penalty to avoid a union in Quebec.  It just means that it will be harder for a union and a dismissed employee to meet the evidentiary burden of proving the closure was retaliation for union activity.
In Ontario, by the way, the reverse onus section of the OLRA (Section 96(5))would apply to a complaint by a union or employee that an employer has closed a workplace and dismissed the workers as retaliation for the workers exercising rights under the legislation.

2 comments
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is the Director of the School of HRM at York and Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and on the Advisory Board of the Osgoode Certificate program in Labour Law. He is a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program and a member of the International Advisory Committee on Harvard University’s Clean Slate Project, which is re-imaging labor law for the 21st century

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

previous post
Broadbent on Government Policy and Child Poverty
next post
Looks like its Back to Work for Train Engineers…

You may also like

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

A Successful Strike Vote is All That Stands...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Putin Invites Trump to Moscow for Second Meeting...

August 27, 2018

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 218 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
2h

@SCLSclinic and I were so fortunate to represent this client last year. I am thrilled that this decision brings more clarity for family status accommodations rights amidst a pandemic that has tested parents, caregivers, and families like never before. https://twitter.com/CanLawWorkForum/status/1364605259071561730

CLWF@CanLawWorkForum

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364627677785821185Retweet on Twitter 13646276777858211851Like on Twitter 13646276777858211852Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
2h

Here's my latest in @jacobinmag.

If Ontario's labor laws applied in Alabama, the Amazon vote would have been held months ago so workers could get back to their jobs. Instead, the NLRA permits Amazon to conduct a months' long onslaught of anti-union propaganda. https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/1364613560425275392

Jacobin@jacobinmag

Amazon workers in Alabama are voting on whether to unionize, but the company is bombarding them with anti-union propaganda. In Canada, by contrast, votes are held quickly, making it harder for companies to stack the deck — a model that can work in the US. http://jacobinmag.com/2021/02/amazon-alabama-canada-labor-law-union-vote

Reply on Twitter 1364623976174092316Retweet on Twitter 13646239761740923165Like on Twitter 13646239761740923168Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
3h

New from @RSandill (counsel for applicant), discussing important new "family status" discrimination decision from OHRT:

"Kovintharajah v. Paragon Linen & Laundry: When Failure to Accommodate Child Care Needs is “Family Status” Discrimination"

https://lawofwork.ca/13360-2/

Reply on Twitter 1364605259071561730Retweet on Twitter 13646052590715617304Like on Twitter 13646052590715617304Twitter 1364605259071561730
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.