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

Wal-Mart Continues to Stall Bargaining in Saskatchewan

by David Doorey April 15, 2009
written by David Doorey April 15, 2009

Go to fullsize image   It’s a Wal-Mart theme this week.  So follow along:  In 2004 (!), a majority of employees of a Wal-Mart store in Weyburn, Saskatchewan told the Labour Relations Board that it wanted the UFCW to represent them in collective bargaining.  Under the law in place then, that was sufficient for the union to be legally recognized as the employees’ representative.  In a normal case, the union would have been certified by the labour board,  collective bargaining would have commenced in 2004, long ago concluded, and the second round of bargaining would have started and maybe even concluded.
But this is Wal-Mart, who as we know, is often not bothered by such frivolities as the need to respect the laws of the jurisdictions in which it operates.  So rather than get down to bargaining, Wal-Mart spent over four years paying lawyers huge bucks to find ways to delay the bargaining.  Predictably, the legal arguments of Wal-Mart failed, but winning is rarely the objective, nor is it expected.  Rather, the objective is to delay the process so long that the union supporters get fed up and leave.  That is why we say in labour law that, “labour relations delayed is labour relations denied”.  The money the company paid its lawyers has no doubt far surpassed whatever increase in labour costs the union would have been able to obtain in first agreement bargaining.  The crazy thing is that Saskatchewan law permitted the certification to be delayed this long.  Sounds like the American way.
In any event, the delay was longer than a political term, and during the interim, the right-wing Saskatchewan party was elected and changed the law (in May 2008) to appease companies like Wal-Mart.  (The same thing happened in Ontario in 1995, when the Harris Tories changed the labour laws after Wal-Mart’s attempt to defeat an organizing campaign by threatening to close the store if the union won was unsuccessful)  
The new law requires the union win a vote, rather than obtain the support of workers in written documents.  Wal-Mart is now arguing that that law should apply retroactively to the union’s 2004 application.  Presumably, that would mean that the union’s certification, obtained properly under the law in place at the time, would be dismissed because it does not comply with the law in place nearly five years later.  And the reason that this is even an issue is because Wal-Mart dragged the proceedings out that long.  So Wal-Mart hopes to benefit from its own recalcitrance.
The Labour Board dismissed Wal-Mart’s argument last week, and upheld the order recognizing the union under the law in place in 2004. Wal-Mart argued a judicial review of that decision in court yesterday.  Hopefully, the court will show some common sense, and put an end to this nonsense.  Of course, I’m sure Wal-Mart will try and take this all the way to the Supreme Court if this permits it to avoid complying with the order to bargain, though I can’t imagine it would get leave from that court (but who knows).  And if the union’s certification is upheld, Wal-Mart may simply revert to its other favorite strategy and just fire everyone and close the store.  This is the weakness of law when a company like Wal-Mart feels no shame in refusing to play by the rules.

3 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
Wal-Mart: The Poor, Misunderstood Employer?
next post
Upcoming Conference at Schulich: Hannah Arendt's Labor, Work, Action,

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 219 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
Retweet on TwitterCLWF Retweeted
RSandillRicha Sandill@RSandill·
24 Feb

@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.