A long-fought labor (or labour) case involving the closing of a Wal-Mart in Quebec when it tried to unionize is now in front of Canada’s Supreme Court, and this week judges began hearing arguments from both sides as to why Wal-Mart was wrong (or not) to close the store back in 2005. A pleasant mix of French and English has turned the courtroom into something akin to a UN summit, as many had to wear headphones that would translate what was being said into their native tongue.

The closing of the Wal-Mart in Jonquiere, Quebec, happened 7 months after employees there voted to become North America’s first unionized Wal-Mart store. Each side is, understandably, taking a firm stand on its position - Wal-Mart believes it has the right to close any store it wants, anytime it wants to; labor attorneys are arguing that intimidation of employees who seek to form a union is illegal, so necessarily the threatening and subsequent closing of an entire store wishing to unionize clearly fits under that description.

If you had mainly black employees and a store is going to close for discriminatory reasons, that would not and should not be allowed,” union attorney Bernard Philion told the nine justices - five men and four women - according to the simultaneous translation provided on headsets in the courtroom. He added that since Canadian labor law clearly protects individual employees from reprisal for union activities, it certainly should protect whole stores-full of employees.

The case appears that it will hinge on who has the burden of proof - that is, which side has to go out and proactively prove its argument. Will Wal-Mart have to show that it had various other good and legitimate reasons for closing the store? Or will labor have the burden of proving that Wal-Mart discriminated against its employees by shutting a store down that tried to unionize? The Court will have the final say on that, though Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin did point out that it will be up to Canada’s labor courts, and not the Supreme Court, to decide penalties against Wal-Mart should the retail giant lose.

Quebec labor law would not force Wal-Mart to reopen the store and give union employees their jobs back. Rather, the Supreme Court could remand the case to Quebec’s labor court, which could order Wal-Mart to pay penalties and damages to the employees for their lost wages.

Those looking for more info. on the case can check here - the case is Gaetan Plourde c. Compagnie Wal-Mart du Canada Inc., 32342, Supreme Court of Canada (Ottawa).
We know those involved in this similar closing will be.

Sides argue in Wal-Mart Canada case [Arkansas Democrat-Gazette]

Read the rest of this story ...

When we hear about Wal-Mart being in the ‘top-five’ of something, we usually assume it’s in CEO salary, quarterly earnings, highest number of lawsuits pending against them or worst places ever to buy bassinets.  Today it’s among the worst corporations on worker’s right to organize. The International Labor Rights Forum [ILRF] released a report today called: “Working for Scrooge: 5 Worst Companies for the Right to Associate,” and guess who made the list?  We weren’t surprised either.  Wal-Mart has a very real history of anti-union propaganda and bigotry. 

The report cites several of the more highly-publicized anti union stories such as Jonquiere, Quebec where a tire and lube shop was shut down after workers successfully unionized it and Jacksonville, Texas, where the meat department of a retail outlet successfully unionized and Wal-Mart responded by shutting down the meat department in every Wal-Mart, nation-wide.  Will the newly-unionized Saskatchewan outlet meet the same fate?  We sure hope not…

Other finalists included: Dole, Del-Monte, Russell Athletic, and Nestle.  The union-busting must be stopped.  Write your local representative and tell them to support the Employee Free Choice Act today! 

The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board (SLRB) has agreed to hear a complaint by the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW Canada) accusing Wal-Mart of engaging in unfair labor practices as defined by Saskatchewan law. What’s more, the SLRB has ruled that Wal-Mart’s actions outside the province of Saskatchewan can be taken into account in assessing whether it is engaging in unfair labor actions within the province.

This means that the SLRB can take into account the example of Jonquiere, Quebec, when ruling on UFCW Canada’s complaint. It was in that small town, just over 100 miles north of Quebec City, that Wal-Mart announced it was going to shut its doors after workers voted to make the Jonquiere store the first unionized Wal-Mart in North America. The closure put 190 employees out of work, served as a warning for workers at other Wal-Mart stores who may have considered unionization against the company’s wishes.

Board chair James Seibel said the board was not required to determine whether Wal-Mart had acted illegally in Quebec to consider whether its actions “intimidated employees in Saskatchewan” from exercising their right under the province’s Trade Union Act to “organize and be represented by a bargaining agent of their choosing.”

“The fact that the actions of Wal-Mart upon which the allegations are based were committed outside the geographic confines of Saskatchewan does not mean that they cannot constitute (a) violation of the restriction on intimidation of its employees in the province,” Seibel ruled.

As the UFCW Canada complaint moves forward in Saskatchewan, it will be interesting to see if Wal-Mart’s actions in Quebec play a significant role - the company’s labor issues have yet to fade away there. According to the National Union of Public and General Employees:

The ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks for Wal-Mart in Canada. The company recently shut down a second operation in Quebec – a tire and lube shop in Gatineau – after failing to stop a union contract from being imposed there. Meanwhile, a Supreme Court of Canada case arising from the Jonquiere closure is scheduled to be heard within months.

We’ll keep you posted.

Wal-Mart actions in Quebec intimidate employees elsewhere [National Union of Public and General Employees]

Read the rest of this story ...