Canada court rules against Wal-Mart over Quebec store closure

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Wal-Mart violated labor laws when, in 2005, it closed a store in Quebec after the store's workers unionized. 

Jae C. Hong/AP/File
A worker pushes shopping carts in front of a Walmart store in La Habra, Calif. on May 9, 2013. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the company violated labor laws when it closed a store in Quebec after the store's worker's unionized.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc violated Quebec's labor code when it closed a store in the province that had become one of the first in Canada to successfully unionize, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday.

The ruling was a rebuke to the world's largest retailer, though its impact on unionization efforts at other Quebecand Canadian stores may be limited. The decision took issue with the timing of the 2005 closure, but it did not address the company's right to shut operations.

The court sent the case to an arbitrator to determine appropriate remedies, which will likely include compensation for the 190 workers who lost their jobs when the store, in Jonquiere, Quebec, closed. The closure came shortly after the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union was certified to represent the store's workers in 2004.

Wal-Mart had said it did not close the store because it was being unionized, pointing to the fact that it had reached a collective agreement with the same union at a store in St-Hyacinthe, Quebec.

"We are disappointed by the decision," Wal-Mart said in an emailed statement. "This was an appeal of a unanimous decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal to reject the UFCW's claim, which in our view was a legally correct decision."

The company said it was reviewing the decision to determine its next steps.

In 2009, the Supreme Court backed Wal-Mart's right to close the store, but Friday's win came after the union brought a fresh challenge under a different article in the Quebec Labor Code.

Quebec, a largely French-speaking province, has traditionally been one of the most labor-friendly jurisdictions in North America.

Friday's ruling found that Wal-Mart erred in closing the store during a "freeze" period, which starts when workers file to unionize and ends when they get a contract, go on strike or are locked out. Quebec law limits employers' ability to change working conditions during the freeze period.

"Once a union has been certified, you have to negotiate," said Gilles LeVasseur, a professor and labor expert at the University of Ottawa.

LeVasseur said the ruling does not prevent Wal-Mart from closing unionized stores outside of the freeze period. Financial penalties would not be material to the retail giant, he said, but public relations will be an issue.

"A lot of people in Quebec will say, are they respecting our actual distinct-society way of seeing labor relations? We have a way of doing things in Quebec," he said.

Wal-Mart is a formidable competitor in Quebec and the rest of Canada and has said it will invest about C$500 million ($467 million) this year to expand in the country.

The United Food and Commercial Workers called the ruling a "historic and positive milestone in protecting workers' rights."

But David Doorey, a labor law professor at York University in Toronto, said the decision does not fundamentally alter the dynamic between the retailer and its Canadian workers, given that the unionized workers still lost their jobs.

"That message leaves a chill over all other Wal-Mart employees who would dare to exercise their legal rights to choose collective bargaining," he said.

The Supreme Court decision was split 5-2.

In the dissent, Judges Marshall Rothstein and Richard Wagner argued that applying the relevant law to a store closure would have "absurd results", blocking a closure during the freeze period but allowing it, for any reason, immediately after that period ends

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.