quote:

---

The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear appeals from a number of workers who lost their jobs when Wal-mart Canada closed its unionized store in Saguenay, Que., three years ago.

As is usual, the court gave no reasons for its decision to consider the two related cases, and no date has been set for the hearing.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union won certification at the Wal Mart outlet in September, 2004, but could not reach a contract agreement with the retail giant.

The union asked to take the matter to arbitration, but Wal-Mart then announced it was closing the store.

---

But perhaps I am jumping the gun. The court may come to discover the obvious; that an abstract "right" to belong to a union is pointless if any employer can subvert that right with the most flimsy and bogus justifications that cannot be challenged by the union members.

OTOH, a clear ruling against the union members, and in favor of Wal-Mart and "property rights" might be just the sort of ruling needed to demonstrate once and for all that capitalism is incompatible with the rights of working people and that, therefore, socialism or something like that is essential for society to move forward. That too is a kind of victory if workers in their millions come to see the truth that even in the most "liberal" of capitalist democracies their rights are often little more than paper proclamations. In that case, a conservative institution like the Supreme Court can contribute to fundamental social change of the most radical kind.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

It'd suck, royally, to lose all those jobs...

---

You mean the minimum wage/no benefit service industry jobs brought to you by corporate mega-stores that kill local economy/jobs????

quote:

---

robbie_dee: Hopefully the Supreme Court will consider this fact and adopt a more nuanced reading of the law beyond simply saying that an employer has an absolute right to close down its business, consequences be damned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

But I am not sure that the Supreme Court has to provide reasons for all of its decisions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

I should have added to my remarks that whatever the court decides, it would be great to read their reasoning. But I am not sure that the Supreme Court has to provide reasons for all of its decisions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

But I am not sure that the Supreme Court has to provide reasons for all of its decisions.

---

Feel free to look here to spend as many days or weeks as you would like to read the reasons that the Supremes give for each of their decisions on the substance of every issue they adjudicate. (They don't give reasons on what they choose to hear and not hear -- that's better described as administrative than substantial, IMHO.) There's no charge to access the web site, which has all of the Supremes' decisions since 1967.

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: Robo ]

In that decision, Justice Gonthier held that under Quebec law, an employer has "the right" to go out of business either in whole or in part. He approvingly cited an earlier decision of Judge Marc Lesage in City Buick Pontiac (Montréal) Inc. v. Roy, [1981] T.T. 22 (L.C.), where that judge held: "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." Based on this reasoning, Gonthier rejected the union's submission that the Place des Arts did not shut down its technical services in a genuine and bona fide manner. Even if the employer's reasons had been to thwart the union, Gonthier held, this was allowed provided that the employer "carried out the decision genuinely and did not merely engage in an elaborate sham to break the employees' strike."

I think this was a terrible decision. What will be interesting to see is if the Supreme Court is also reconsidering it in light of its later ruling that collective bargaining is a constitutional right. (See Health Services and Support – Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 391). Does an employer's "right" to close its business, where that right is exercised with a clear intent to undermine union organizing, trump employees' constitutional right to free collective bargaining? We shall see.

[ 09 August 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

[ 07 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Union leaders say they expect Wal-Mart Canada Corp. to shut down a garage it operates in Gatineau, Que., after workers are presented with their first collective agreement.

Guy Chenier, president of the union local representing auto-service specialists at the garage, said Wal-Mart has already hinted it would close the shop.

In 2005, Wal-Mart came under fire for closing a store in Jonquiere, Que., after workers won union accreditation.

In Gatineau, across the river from Ottawa, Wal-Mart garage workers have been unionized since 2005 and are now waiting for their first collective agreement following binding arbitration that ended in June.

It's not clear when the contract will be imposed, but the union says it expects it soon.

The contract will be a first in North America and is expected to have an impact on Wal-Mart unionization efforts across Canada.

"I have the impression that they will want to close the garage," said Chenier, president of local 486 of the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada. "But if they do this, we will help the workers find other places right away."

"If this had been a regular file we would have had a collective agreement in 2005," he added. "A few years later we wouldn't even be talking about it anymore."

At stake are salaries and benefits. On average, workers at the Gatineau garage earn $9.25 an hour.

A Wal-Mart executive has already said the retailer might be forced to close the garage, depending on what's in the agreement, said Louis Bolduc, a UFCW spokesperson in Quebec.

"We are eager to see how Wal-Mart behaves," Bolduc said.

"We hope they will act like good corporate citizens."

Yanik Deschenes, a spokesperson for Wal-Mart in Quebec, said the retailer could only comment on the arbitrator's decision when it's announced.

"The arbitrator is now working on the file, so we cannot speculate on the outcome," he said. "We respect the process and we want to wait for the decision."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
It could be a very smart move for Wal-mart's competitors in Canada to donate HUGE sums of money to unions organizing there. So far, this seems to be the most "successful" way to put Wal-mart out of business. Orthodox business strategies don't seem to be working.

All the stores at once? It's an idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
It could be a very smart move for Wal-mart's competitors in Canada to donate HUGE sums of money to unions organizing there. So far, this seems to be the most "successful" way to put Wal-mart out of business. Orthodox business strategies don't seem to be working.

All the stores at once? It's an idea.

---

There are two problems with that scenario.

First off, Wal-Mart has only closed one store due to union activity. All other union drives have succumbed to other tactics, save the meat cutters in the US who unionized and had their department shut down. This is why, to this day, Wal-Mart has only pre-packaged meat in their grocery operations.

Secondly, most of the other retailers are also non-union and don't have any more interest in becoming unionized than Wal-Mart does. They are no better, just smaller.

I made a documentary on Wal-Mart and unions a little over a year ago, and learned a lot about retail in general, Wal-Mart in specific and also the UFCW. There are no white hats.