The decision in Desbiens v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2009 SCC 55 and the companion decision in Plourde v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2009 SCC 54 was released today.
The workers of the Wal-Mart store at Jonquière chose to bargain collectively through their union, which had been certified by the Commission des relations du travail ("CRT") in August 2004. After unsuccessful negotiations, the Minister of Labour appointed an arbitrator to resolve the outstanding differences. On the same day, Wal-Mart announced closure of the store. Three employees filed a complaint under s. 16 of the Quebec Labour Code claiming that they lost their employment because of the unionization of the store. They sought an order under s. 15 of the Code that they be reinstated in their jobs. The CRT was not satisfied that the store closure was definitive and allowed the employees' complaint, holding that Wal-Mart had failed to discharge its onus under s. 17 of the Code that the dismissals were for good and sufficient reason. It reserved its jurisdiction to determine the appropriate remedies. The Superior Court dismissed Wal-Mart's application for judicial review, but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision.
The Supreme Court, with strong dissents, dismissed the appeal.
Per McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Charron and Rothstein JJ.: The Court of Appeal erred in quashing the CRT decision. On the evidence, the finding that Wal-Mart had failed to rebut the s. 17 presumption was a determination well within the range of reasonable outcomes open to the CRT. However, in the companion case Plourde v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., which dealt with the same factual issue, the CRT heard additional evidence which persuaded it that Wal-Mart had in fact terminated the lease of the building at the Jonquière location and concluded that Wal-Mart had successfully rebutted the s. 17 presumption by proof of a real and definitive business closure. None of the parties now contends that Wal-Mart retains its option to re-open the Jonquière store. As a practical matter it would be a waste of the parties' time and money to remit this case to the CRT to be dealt with on the basis of the Plourde decision. The outcome would not be in doubt. The Jonquière store is closed and there is no possibility of reinstatement of the employees. The substratum of their s. 15 claim no longer exist.
Per LeBel, Abella and Cromwell JJ. (dissenting): The employees' complaints should be returned to the CRT to be heard on the merits. As stated in Plourde v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., a dismissal can be scrutinized for anti-union animus under ss. 15 to 19 of the Labour Code. The dismissals in this case ought therefore to be re-evaluated to determine whether there was an anti-union motivation.
2 comments:
I don't support outsourcing, cheap products from China or poverty level wages, therefore I do not shop at Wal-Mart. If every Canadian did that, Wal-Mart would leave the country. When Wal-Mart opened in South Korea, no one would shop there because it didn't sell Korean products and would put Mom and Pop shops out of business. Wal-Mart closed down.
Jingles, Wal-Mart is the best that ever happened to happen to low-income people. Their dollars go further there because Wal-Mart has the lowest-prices. They can't *afford* to shop anywhere else!
If everyone took your xenophobic, nationalistic approach to business, Canadians as a whole would all be a whole lot poorer, since as a trading nation, we sell a great deal of what we make to other countries.
Post a Comment