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

Target Not a Successor to Zellers, B.C. Labour Board Rules

by David Doorey November 12, 2012
written by David Doorey November 12, 2012

The B.C. Labour Board ruled last week that Target is not a successor to Zellers.  Here is a Vancouver Sun story. This means that Target does not inherit the collective agreement that covered Zellers employees at a store in Burnaby.  It also means that the 137 Zellers’ employees can be fired and replaced with new people when the Target store opens.  If the union had won the case, then the employees’ jobs would probably have been protected by the collective agreement’s ‘just cause’ clause.
Target acquired 15 of the Zellers unionized stores, and this is the first decision on whether Target is a successor employer under Canadian labour law.  This case doesn’t decide all the others, since the facts in each case will vary somewhat.  But given that in this case, there was clearly a transfer of some parts of Zellers’ business to Target (a customer list and an exclusive brand licence), yet the Board still found that no transfer of ‘part of business’ had occurred, I wouldn’t be optimistic of a different result in the other stores.
Here is the Decision.
Facts
In 2012, Target initiated “Project Bacon”, its plan to conquer the Canadian retail market.  This lead to the decision to acquire Zellers at a cost of nearly $2 billion.  Target selected 189 of Zellers’ 275 stores, assigning some to other retailers and keeping the majority to be changed into Target stores.  In some stores, Zellers was told to terminate the lease and strip clean the store to an empty shell.  This is what happened at the Burnaby store.  Target purchased Zeller’s pharmacy customer list, but then sold it back to Zellers for $10 million, who then flipped it to Loblaws for $35 million, suggesting that the list had a considerable market value.  Target also acquired from Zellers the exclusive right to use of a brand called Cherokee. Experts were called by both the union and Target.  The Target expert contrasted Target and Zellers in this little zinger: “While Zellers is cheap, it is not cheap chic like Target.”  Oooh, “cheap chic”.  He argued that Target’s objective was distant itself as far as possible from Zellers, which he called a shabby operation full of junk.  The Union’s expert basically argued that a central item of value purchased by Target was the location and market, or ‘locational goodwill’.
Decision
The relevant section of the B.C. Code reads as follows:

Successor rights and obligations
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.

This section has parallels in the other provinces.  Its purpose is simple.  It is to protect a collective agreement and employees covered by it in the case that a business is transferred from Company A to Company B.   The collective agreement ‘flows’ through to the successor employer.  The legal question is whether “all or part” of the business of the Burnaby Zellers was “sold, leased, transferred or otherwise disposed of” to Target.  That’s very broad language, though the Board found it was still not broad enough to catch this transfer from Zellers to Target. 
It found that Target purchased real estate and market access by acquiring the Burnaby Zeller lease.  The location of the Zellers store was an important asset of value in the exchange, but that location is not an asset owned by Zellers.  So the Board assigns no value to the locational aspects acquired by Target in terms of the successorship issue.

“Component” of a Business versus “part” of a business:  Here’s an interesting, and potentially controversial part of the decision.  The Board found that the transfer of millions of dollars worth of pharmacy customers (a market value of $35 million it seems) to Target was “a component of Zellers’ business“, but NOT a transfer of “part of the business” (para. 82).  That’s a tricky distinction, isn’t it?  I have to think about how a $35 million “component of a business” is nevertheless not a “part of the business”.  Do you think that the legislators intended such a fine distinction when they decided to include the words “part of a business” in the statutory definition of a successor employer?  
Is the Board just using creative syntax to allow it to get around an inconvenient fact?  Or is there a substantive distinction between a “component” of a business, and a “part” of a business?  How do we draw a line between those two things?

The Board also found that while acquiring the right to the brand Cherokee was also valuable to Target, it too did not amount to a transfer of part of the business:

I find that Zellers and Target are the same type of business. I am not persuaded, however, that there is a discernible continuity of Zellers’ business at Brentwood Mall even though there was a transfer of pharmacy records and the Brand Waiver with respect to Cherokee. These are not definitive parts of Zellers’ business or a discernible part of it such that would indicate that its business is being continued, even if Target opens in the old Zellers’ space in the Brentwood Mall.

The fact that Target employees and Zellers employees will do basically the same work–retail work–that also is not enough to establish that part of Zeller’s business has been transferred to Target.  The fact that the there will be a hiatus of between 6 months and 3 years between the end of the Zellers store and the opening of a Target store is important, according the Board, since customers will easily distinguish between the two businesses.
Questions for Consideration

The result of the decision is that Zellers will terminate all of its employees to clean house for Target.  Target can then hire whomever it likes.  Do you think this is a good outcome for public policy?  Why or why not?

The Board found as fact that business value passed from Zellers to Target, in the form a pharmacy list worth millions of dollars and an exclusive brand licence.  Does it follow therefore that ‘part of Zellers’ business” transferred to Target?  Why or why not?

Does “part of a business” really mean a “BIG” part of the business?  Should it?

1 comment
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
Rogue Ontario Employer Sentenced to Jail for ESA Violations. A Good First Step?
next post
The Temporary Foreign Worker Program and the Neoliberal

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·
24h

@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 13646276777858211853Twitter 1364627677785821185
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
TheLawofWorkDavid J. Doorey@TheLawofWork·
24 Feb

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 13646239761740923168Like on Twitter 136462397617409231613Twitter 1364623976174092316
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
24 Feb

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.