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

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·
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.