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

Wal-Mart Loses Latest Attempt to Interfere with Workers' Choice to Unionize in Sask.

by David Doorey October 25, 2010
written by David Doorey October 25, 2010

Here’s the sorted story.  In 2004, a majority of Wal-Mart employees in Weyburn, Saskatchewan signed union membership cards indicating they wished to be represented by the United Food and Commercial Union.  That should have been the end of it, the union should have been certified,and collective bargaining should have started in 2004.  The  law at the time was that majority support for the union is established by union cards.  However, this is Wal-Mart, which has a long history of not respecting labour laws.   So, as it always does, it set out to prevent the employees’ wishes to engage in collective bargaining.  It made a huge number of legal arguments–including that the UFCW is a company-dominated union (!)–and successfully delayed implementation of the decision certifying the union for 4 years!
But even then Wal-Mart wasn’t done with the legal delays.  It then challenged the Board’s decision on the basis that the decision-maker had been fired by the new anti-union government of the Saskatchewan Party, which was elected in the middle of this process, in 2007.  After being elected, the government fired the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Labour Board and replaced them with a friend of the Party with virtually now experience in labour law.  The government also changed the law to require a certification vote, rather than union membership cards, as the process for certifying a union.  Wal-Mart argued that the law in place in 2008 (mandatory vote) should apply, and not the law in place in 2004 (card-check) when the union actually applied for certification.   In other words, Wal-Mart argued it should benefit from its delays by having the union start all over.
Amazingly, the Saskatchewan Queens’ Bench (the lower court) bought this argument, as I described last May. However, last week, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal quashed that decision.  Here is the Court of Appeal decision. And here is the story in the Leader-Post.
The case was pretty interesting, because it turned on whether the change from a card-check to a mandatory vote model for determining majority union support was a merely “procedural” change, or whether the change affected “acquired”, “accrued”, or “accruing” rights.  The lower court had ruled the method for determining certification was merely procedural, and that procedural changes take effect immediately upon passage of a new law.

Hearing Wal-Mart argue that the method for determining whether a union should be certified is merely procedural is beautifully ironic considering that Wal-Mart and its anti-union corporate friends in North America have spent millions of dollars lobbying governments to address this very issue, while crying that the future of North American capitalism hangs in the balance.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the shift from card-check to mandatory ballots is not merely procedural. Moreover, even if the move from card-check to ballot could be considered “procedural”, the new model still would not apply here, because the arguments had already be made and completed under the old law.  When all that is left if for the decision to be released, the old law governs.
In the result, the union’s certification is now valid, based on the cards signed in 2004.  Of course, Wal-Mart will now try and appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, for the third time since these poor employees asked their employer 6 years ago to bargain with them collectively.
Do you think that the union cards signed in 2004 should still count so as to require Wal-Mart to bargain with the UFCW?

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
Here's How to Improve Employment Standards Compliance
next post
Unionized Workers Earn More. Does that Piss You Off?

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

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Follow

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

TheLawofWork
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
josheidelson Josh Eidelson @josheidelson ·
6h

Scoop: Labor Board prosecutors have concluded Starbucks illegally refused to fairly negotiate at dozens of newly-unionized cafes across the country https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-28/starbucks-illegally-refused-to-bargain-on-zoom-nlrb-lawyer-says Starbucks’ refusal to negotiate if some workers participated via Zoom was illegal, NLRB general counsel says

Reply on Twitter 1640509028567506950 Retweet on Twitter 1640509028567506950 145 Like on Twitter 1640509028567506950 429 Twitter 1640509028567506950
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
alexisshotwell Alexis Shotwell @alexisshotwell ·
11h

This morning the president of @Carleton_U sent out a note underlining his understanding of “how painful labour disruptions can be to communities,” pleading for us to be calm and respectful and to support our students at the end of term. 1/

Reply on Twitter 1640430514627551256 Retweet on Twitter 1640430514627551256 86 Like on Twitter 1640430514627551256 245 Twitter 1640430514627551256
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
12h

Oh fun.

‘AI is on the cusp of taking control: This is how it may all go wrong’

https://apple.news/AWvPXyT8WTVOs5byQvVk-3Q

Reply on Twitter 1640408084093779989 Retweet on Twitter 1640408084093779989 1 Like on Twitter 1640408084093779989 3 Twitter 1640408084093779989
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
  • Newfoundland
  • 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.