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 Wins One: Delays Collective Bargaining Over 4 Years and Counting …

by David Doorey May 8, 2009
written by David Doorey May 8, 2009

I noted last month the ongoing attempts by Wal-Mart in Weyburn Saskatchewan to avoid a labour board order certifying the UFCW as the representative of its employees.  Wal-Mart had stalled the process so long that by the time the Labour Board finally issued its order certifying the union, the law governing how unions are certified had been changed by an anti-union government.  Thus, even though the union satisfied the legal requirements in place when it applied to represent the workers in 2004, by the time the Board got around to issuing its decision in 2008 (!), the rules had changed.  Wal-Mart argued that the new rules should apply, which required that the union win a vote, presumably to be held some 5 years after the union’s organizing campaign.
What wasn’t clear to me from the material I saw at the time was that Wal-Mart was also arguing that the decision ordering certification in 2008 was invalid because the adjudicator in the case had been terminated by the government prior to the date of the decision.  Neo-conservative governments in Canada like to do this:  when they get elected, they just fire decision-makers who they think do not share their opinions. Labour Boards are favorite targets. Mike Harris in Ontario did the same thing, firing several labour board adjudicators mid-term. This completely undermines the independence of the tribunal, but that’s another story.  
Wal-Mart went to court arguing that the labour board’s decision certifying the union should be stayed (put on hold) until Wal-Mart gets an opportunity to argue before the courts whether the Board decision should be voided on the basis that the decision-maker had been dismissed by the government before the release of his decision.  So there is an issue about whether cases that were pending before the dismissed chair of the board could be released, or whether brand new hearings needed to be held in all undecided cases the Chair had presided over.  
Wal-Mart won the argument to stay the order.
It managed to convince the motions judge that it would suffer ‘irreparable harm’ if forced to comply with the Board’s order, because it would need to give the union information about the companies’ policies as part of the collective bargaining process.  If Wal-Mart ultimately won the case, and the Board’s decision was quashed, the union would still have that information.  The court doesn’t explain why the information involved–like HR policies and existing wage levels–is so valuable that it would cause Wal-Mart irreparable harm if it gets out.  We are to just assume that to be self-evident, I guess.  The court simply concludes: “It is clear however that it is Wal-Mart’s rights that are affected when disclosure of its employer policies are sought.”  
The Board dismisses the argument of the union that it too would suffer irreparable harm if Wal-Mart is permitted to stall the bargaining even longer.  Recall that the union proved majority support of the workers 5 years earlier, and Wal-Mart had stalled the process ever since.  The court said only: “There is no certainty of irreparable harm to the Union. To not stay will cause irreparable harm to Wal-Mart.”  
So there you have it.  Way to go Wal-Mart.   It managed to find another way to avoid dealing with the union its employees selected to represent them, at least for a few more months until the case is heard on its merits.  This fiasco in Saskatchewan, in which an employer is able to avoid collective bargaining for years by paying lawyers to devise delay arguments is a common feature of American labour law, and is what Obama is trying to put an end to south of the border.

0 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
Ontario Introduces New Workplace Harassment & Violence Law
next post
The Law and Ethics of Notice of Termination

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 ·
5h

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 140 Like on Twitter 1640509028567506950 412 Twitter 1640509028567506950
Retweet on Twitter David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to Retweeted
alexisshotwell Alexis Shotwell @alexisshotwell ·
10h

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 84 Like on Twitter 1640430514627551256 242 Twitter 1640430514627551256
thelawofwork David J. Doorey🇨🇦 @TheLawofWork@mas.to @thelawofwork ·
11h

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.