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 Store Closing is Off to the Supremes

by David Doorey August 8, 2008
written by David Doorey August 8, 2008

The Supreme Court of Canada granted leave yesterdayto hear two appeals from the Quebec Court of Appeal involving the decision of Wal-Mart to close a store in Saguenay, Que. several years ago after the union was certified to represent the workers.  Nearly 200 employees lost their jobs.  A good summary of the events is set out in this piecefrom Business Week. 
The main facts for the purpose of the law cases are: (1) the union was certified by a statutory card-check in Sept. 2004; (2) the parties began bargaining, but bargaining stalled; (3) the union applied for first contract arbitration under the Quebec labour legislation, and on Feb. 9, 2005, the Ministry of Labour appointed the arbitrator; (4) that same day, Wal-mart announced it was permanently closing the store and terminating all of the employees; (5) in late April, 2005, all of the employees were dismissed and the store was closed.
There are two cases moving onto the Supreme Court: Gaétan Plourde v. Wal-Mart Canada  and Johanne Desbiens, Ingrid Ratté and Claudine Beaumont v. Wal-Mart Canada .  The facts of the cases are summarized briefly in the SCC’s leave application notes.  The litigation began at Quebec’s labour board.   In both cases, the dismissed employees argued that the store closure and the dismissals were in response to unionization, and that this violated the employees’ rights under s. 15 of the Code, which prohibits a dismissal in response to the lawful exercise of union activities.  They relied on a reverse onus provision in the Code, which provides as follows:

17. If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commission that the employee exercised a right arising from this Code, there is a simple presumption in his favour that the sanction was imposed on him or the action was taken against him because he exercised such right, and the burden of proof is upon the employer that he resorted to the sanction or action against the employee for good and sufficient reason.

Therefore, a key issue in the cases is whether a permanent closure is “a good and sufficient reason” for the dismissals.  If it is, then Wal-mart will have successfuly rebutted the presumption.  
The Supreme Court has agreed in an earlier case called I.A.T.S.E., Stage Local 56 v.Société de la Place des Arts de Montréal, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 43 with a ruling that found that Quebec labour law does not prohibit the closure of a business, even if the reason for the closure is based on “socially reprehensible considerations”:

In our free enterprise system, there is no legislation to oblige an employer to remain in business and to regulate his subjective reasons in this respect . . . .  If an employer, for whatever reason, decides as a result to actually close up shop, the dismissals which follow are the result of ceasing operations, which is a valid economic reason not to hire personnel, even if the cessation is based on socially reprehensible considerations.  What is prohibited is to dismiss employees engaged in union activities, not to definitively close a business because one does not want to deal with a union or because a union cannot be broken, even if the secondary effect of this is employee dismissal. 

So, it came as a bit of surprise that the Quebec labour board found in favour of the employees in one of the two cases (Johanne Desbiens).  The employees argued that the earlier decisions had not considered the effect of the Quebec Charter, which in Section 3 protects ‘freedom of association’, and the labour board ruled that in fact Wal-Mart had fact not satisfied it that the store was permanently closed because Wal-Mart had a 20 year lease that remained  in effect, notwithstanding that the store had been emptied of its contents.
That decision was overruled by the Quebec Court of Appeal (the decision has not been translated, so I only have the French version.  American readers might want to our friend Paul Secunda to translate!).
So the Supreme Court has agreed to hear appeals from the employees in both cases, presumably on a consolidated basis.  The case has some intrigue in light of recent SCC decisions.  Firstly, the Court ruled recently that the Canadian Charter of Rights protects a right to unionize and a (limited) right to collective bargaining.  One question raised in these cases was whether an interpretation of s. 17 that permits employers to undermine the exercise of these fundamental rights by simply closing the workplace and firing everyone is consistent with the new, broader interpretation of freedom of association crafted by the SCC.  
A second issue of interest is how the Court will apply its new standard of review as crafted in a case called Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick.   In that case, the Court dropped the old standard of “patently unreasonable” in favour of a new “reasonableness” standard, but also affirmed that expert labour tribunals would usually be granted considerable deference when interpreting their own home statutes:

Deference will usually result where a tribunal is interpreting its own statute or statutes closely connected to its function, with which it will have particular familiarity…. Deference may also be warranted where an administrative tribunal has developed particular expertise in the application of a general common law or civil law rule in relation to a specific statutory context: … Adjudication in labour law remains a good example of the relevance of this approach

So, we will have to see how the SCC deals with the finding of the Quebec labour board that Wal-mart violated the employees’ rights under the code when it closed the store and dismissed the employees.  If I were the employees, I’d keep my expectations low.  
Of course, at the bottom of all this is the policy question:   Should an employer be able to prevent collective bargaining by simply closing every workplace that becomes unionized?   What interests are advanced by allowing this, and what interests are sacrificed, and where should a democratic state stand on this issue? 

0 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
The New Ontario Human Rights Model
next post
Guest Blog: Gorsky on Anticipatory Breach of Contract at Ford (Oakville)

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 225 other subscribers

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

CLWFFollow

CLWF
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
17 Mar

New on @CanLawWorkForum from Prof David Doorey (@TheLawofWork)

#Uber #WorkerClassification #EmpLaw

David J. Doorey@TheLawofWork

Lots of chatter about Uber announcing it will kind of, sort of treat drivers as "workers" in the UK.

How does the UK's "worker" category compare to Canada's "dependent contractor" status? Some thoughts in my new post here on @CanLawWorkForum:

https://lawofwork.ca/uberworkerstatus/

Reply on Twitter 1372255751985631237Retweet on Twitter 13722557519856312371Like on Twitter 13722557519856312371Twitter 1372255751985631237
CanLawWorkForumCLWF@CanLawWorkForum·
10 Mar

Good day to reflect back on this recent timely post explaining the PRO Act that would dramatically alter U.S. labor law.

For labor law students:

What changes in the PRO Act are already law in all or parts of Canada?

David J. Doorey@TheLawofWork

A primer for Canadians by ⁦@Harvard_Law⁩’s Jonathan Levitan on what is contained in the U.S. Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO Act) which recently passed in the House south of the border.

(From ⁦@CanLawWorkForum⁩) https://lawofwork.ca/amp/bidenagenda

Reply on Twitter 1369671304274608134Retweet on Twitter 13696713042746081341Like on Twitter 13696713042746081342Twitter 1369671304274608134
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
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.