The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Did Target Purchase Collective Agreements, as Well as Leases from Zellers?

by David Doorey November 29, 2011
written by David Doorey November 29, 2011

I noted a while back that Target had purchased some 179 Zellers stores with plans on moving into Canada.  I queried then whether Target would ‘target’ any of the 15 unionized Zellers.  Recall that Walmart moved into Canada by purchasing Woolco stores, but it was careful to avoid the unionized Woolcos. In Canada, we have strong “successor rights” in our labour statutes.  These provisions are designed to prevent companies from eliminating unions, collective agreements, and unionized workers by means of  the transfer of a business.  If the transfer of a business eliminated a collective agreement, then collective agreements would be very precarious.  Therefore, our governments have long required collective agreements to transfer along with the business.
I was surprised to learn that Target had chosen some of the unionized Zellers.  Therefore, this would trigger the successor rights provisions, provided the business transfer falls within the meaning of a “sale of business”.   Target has not shown itself to be an upstanding corporate citizen so far in its foray into Canada.  It insisted that all of the Zellers employees be fired, regardless of their length of service or productivity, so that it can then hire all of its own employees from scratch. [We will be watching carefully if it tries to use its indoctrination antiunion videos that it used in the U.S…  Will these be illegal here?]   Trouble is, the unionized Zellers employees can not be dismissed on mass if the collective agreements follow the transfer of the leases from Zellers to Target.  The collective agreements would prevent a mass termination of employees for no cause.
All of this will come to a head in what is probably a series of “successor employer” applications.  The first one has been filed in British Columbia, as explained in this Globe and Mail piece. The UFCW is arguing that Target is the successor employer for the store in Burnaby, and that the old Zellers collective agreement applies to the new Target store opening in that location.  Target is claiming that this was not a sale of business at all, but only a “real estate” deal,  a transfer of leases for a series of buildings.   I’m called the B.C. Bar, but it’s been a while since I practiced labour law there, so I won’t claim to be current on the state of B.C. labour law.  The definition of a transfer of business in Section 35 of the Code is pretty broad, similar to legislation throughout Canada.  Here is what it says:

35 (1) If a business or a part of it is sold, leased, transferred or otherwise disposed of, the purchaser, lessee or transferee is bound by all proceedings under this Code before the date of the disposition and the proceedings must continue as if no change had occurred.
(2) If a collective agreement is in force, it continues to bind the purchaser, lessee or transferee to the same extent as if it had been signed by the purchaser, lessee or transferee, as the case may be.

Target purchased the “leases” from Zellers.  Section 35 refers expressly to the transfer of “leases”, but the question remains whether buying a lease for store is the same as buying a lease for “a part of business” of Zellers.  Is ownership of store leases part of the business of a retailer?  Certainly, Zellers’ retailing business could not operate with stores, and the location of the stores no doubt has substantial business value.  Note too that the statue is broader than just the ‘transfer of leases’;  it includes as well the sweeping phrase, “or otherwise disposed of“.   Section 69 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act is similarly broad.
Does that language seem broad enough to catch this situation? Any B.C. experts want to chime in? Labour lawyer Steven Barrett (quoted in the Globe piece) from Sack Goldblatt in Toronto says that this seems to be the sort of situation that the successor provisions were designed to address.

If the UFCW wins the successor argument, do you think the Labour Board should order Target to rehire all of the dismissed Zellers’ employees?
Should the Board order a vote of the newly hired Target employees to see if they would like to be represented by the UFCW?
Would that be a fair outcome to the terminated Zellers’ employees?

We’ll keep our eye on this, and on Target, to see whether it proves to be a better corporate citizen than Walmart, which has been willing to violate Canadian labour laws in order to keep in tact its low wage, precarious employment model in tact here.

1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
Strike Ends (Maybe) at Brandon University. Are Profs "Essential"?
next post
Is it Religious Discrimination to Force Employee to Wear a "666" Sticker?

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

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

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

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

Subscribe via Email

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

Join 337 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦Follow

Law Prof. Talking #labor & #employment #law #Gig to the masses. Alpaca ❤️ @YorkUniversity @OsgoodeNews @LSELaw @LWPHarvard @Jacobin @OnLaborBlog https://t.co/5V9r8VPHsh

David J. Doorey🇨🇦
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
13h

A Nationwide Bargaining Unit to Fight Starbucks Is a Moon Shot Worth Trying

My latest on ⁦@jacobin⁩. https://jacobin.com/2022/08/starbucks-service-unions-nlrb-law-centralized-bargaining/

Reply on Twitter 1556339370461786112Retweet on Twitter 15563393704617861122Like on Twitter 155633937046178611211Twitter 1556339370461786112
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
16h

Luck is part of it for sure. Right time right place. True of a lot of jobs not just academia.

But in my experience sitting on lots of academic hiring committees, people selected have superior CVs. 60 applicants, one position. Not all luck. It’s a very competitive job market.

David Webster@dwebsterhist

I've been hired for 2 tenure track jobs and been on multiple committees, sent in more than 100 job applications, and done multiple interviews. Here is my thread 🛢
of job market advice for early career academics based on decades of experience:

1. Get lucky.

Reply on Twitter 1556285407817506817Retweet on Twitter 1556285407817506817Like on Twitter 15562854078175068171Twitter 1556285407817506817
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey🇨🇦@TheLawofWork·
6 Aug

Sunflowers!

Reply on Twitter 1556032894640037890Retweet on Twitter 1556032894640037890Like on Twitter 15560328946400378905Twitter 1556032894640037890
Load More...

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • 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
  • Sports Labour
  • 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.