Peter F

Ah. The employee's screwed themselves out of a job...and how did they do that? They voted to Unionize. Apparently that simple fact - not any new contract; no raises in pay; no restrictions on hours of work - gives the employer the right to sack the lot of them. Sorry Jeff. If the employee's right to collective bargaining is a real right, then the employer must accept the employee's choosing collective bargaining. As has been pointed out previously, any employer can open or shut thier businesses as they please...except they cant do so to nullify employee's rights to collective bargaining. If Wal-mart cannot come to an agreement with the unionized workforce over terms and conditions of employment - fine, they can close down and move out. If Wal-mart finds that they have entered into an agreement with thier unionized workforce that makes thier operations unprofitable/unworkable then fine, they can close down and move out. But they cannot close down because thier employee's are unionized where otherwise they would not close down at all - as was the case here.

I insist nothing of the sort. What "terms" have I claimed that Wal-mart must accept that they aren't already willing to accept?

Obviously so. Negotiations, either collectively or individually, is part and parcel of the above

...additional to the above... The dispute, I believe is this: Employee's have a legal right of association. Employee's have a right to form a union for collective bargaining purposes. Given that not all employee's at a particular work-place wish to be in a union, there are laws in place which specify the how's and wherefores of establishing collective bargaining rights - or rejection of those rights. The employee's at this particular (no longer in existance) Wal-mart went through this process of voting to see if they would have collective bargaining rights or not. Wal-mart did not close the store down when they became aware the process was going to happen. They accepted that the employees get to determine, according to the laws of the land, whether to have collective bargaining rights or not. Management made it very clear to the employee's that Collective Bargaining would be a bad choice for the employee's. At no time did management tell the employee's that should they accept collective bargaining the store would be closed. During the first certification vote, Wal-mart did not dispute the result or the process involved. After the second certification vote Wal mart closed its doors. The question is: Do employee's have a right to collective bargaining? If the process of determining wether a worksite will have collective bargaining or not is legal and legitimate and acceptable to the employer, should it the vote turn out one way, why does the employer then have a 'right' to close down if the vote goe's another way? Should not Wal-mart shut down as soon as they become aware of the certification vote? Once they have accepted the process and the employee's right can they then close up once the vote doesn't turn out as they wished? The right to association and collective bargaining is not an 'empty' right. It is a real right and Wal-mart or any other employer has no 'right', as I see it, to cease operating simply because a work site becomes unionized.

Certainly. But that isn't the dispute.

Sorry Jeff, I don't buy your line that the employer is always right...take the money they offer and be happy to even get that. Employer's are not Gods.

Live well.

Are you suggesting that a company would hire two employee's where it can get by with one?

You are correct, of course. The Quebec labour code would apply. My understanding is that a provincial Labour Code must also comply with the Canada Labour Code as the CLC is the minimum standard across the country. But perhaps I am mistaken about that too.

Interesting. You appear to be correct - as long as the shut down is permanent they can do whatever they want...which I suppose is what the UFCW disagree's with and why they appealed to the SCC. Is that not legitimate? I think so. If that is why Walmart shut down the store, and its perfectly legal and within thier rights to do so, then why don't they just say so? Is their intent to fool the public into thinking different? Why the charade?

Sure, there are hundreds of reasons to shut down shops. But a unionized workforce isn't one of them.

And you are very wrong, Thus the court cases that decided against the UFCW and in favour of Walmart.

Yes, that was the message: Don't unionize or we will shut you down

Canada Labour Code PART I INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Division I Basic Freedoms Employee freedoms 8. (1) Every employee is free to join the trade union of their choice and to participate in its lawful activities. Unfair Practices Article 94 Prohibitions relating to employers (3) No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall (a) refuse to employ or to continue to employ or suspend, transfer, lay off or otherwise discriminate against any person with respect to employment, pay or any other term or condition of employment or intimidate, threaten or otherwise discipline any person, because the person (i) is or proposes to become, or seeks to induce any other person to become, a member, officer or representative of a trade union or participates in the promotion, formation or administration of a trade union, ...you will no doubt note that Walmart has claimed that they are acting within the bounds of the above. They did not close the store because the staff are unionized, because they know that is illegal. They claim instead that the store had become unprofitable for other reasons. So even Walmart does not agree with the position that the employer can go out of business for "whatever" reason they choose. They cannot go out of business simply because the staff are unionized.

Yes. So far the UFCW has failed to do so.

I think you are mistaken. I think Walmart shut it down as an example to every other employee. You unionize and we shut you down.

It certainly is. I don't dispute that. They cannot punish employee's for unionizing. The argument that a company can do so as long as they punish themselves somehow is without any legal basis whatsoever. It certainly does't apply between companies. Imagine the argument that Magna reneged on thier contract to GM for auto parts...but its ok for them to do that because Magna management forgo a weeks holiday as punishment. LOL. Certainly possible...thus negotiations. On the other hand they have that very same problem even if the staff aren't unionized. Staff want raises and either Walmart gives them raises or they don't. There is no difference between a unionized staff or a non-unionized staff in this regard. It certainly would be, but is illegal in this country. Employee's have a right to unionize without being punished for it. You are claiming that company's should be allowed to punish unionizing. Should company's punish employee's for political affiliation too?

It certainly is good business sense. So what? The Union is the bargaining agent. If the union demands will make the location unprofitable then, yes, no contract is signed and the store ceases operation. Fair dinkum. Apparently Walmart has successfully made that case to lower courts. The UFCW is not saying that Walmart can't close stores and must enter into contracts with unions. The UFCW is saying that Walmart closed the door's, not because of unreasonable demands, but because the employee's certified a union. That is illegal.

Certainly. But how do you know that this was how Walmart saw it? What were the outrageous UFCW demands that made Jonquire unprofitable? So far we know nothing about why Walmart did what it did. I find it difficult to believe that Walmart - without market study's etc - determined that a store in Jonquiere was a really good idea; puchased property; built the thing; staffed and stocked it; then determined that oops they were wrong and Jonquire is unprofitable after all. Walmart doe'snt have a history of senior management being dopes. On the other hand, maybe they were dopes. Afterall lower courts upheld Walmarts position.

It is illegal in this country to sack employee's for union activities. If Walmart closed the store solely because the employee's accepted the union, then Walmart is behaving illegally and should be fined or whatever the powers that be find appropriate. I understand you find that rediculous. Please understand that I don't. The store in Jonquire is closed and has been closed for a couple of years now. Why you say that this will force Walmart to open the store is beyond me. Ford and GM have been bargaining with unions for years. They have been shutting factories to cut costs - not because those factories have been unionized. So relax, the issue here is not being forced to keep a store open, the issue at hand is did Walmart punish employee's for unionizing?

I disagree here. Companie's in Canada do not have "the right not to do business with them". Employer's can certainly dispute the bargaining agents authority to bargain for the employee's (thus certification and all the rest of it); Employers can dispute the demands the bargaining agent makes; But they cannot dispute the right of employee's to union representation.

Lets get this straight. Walmart closed thier store in Jonquiere claiming the decision had nothing to do with union certification. It was simply a sound/unsound business decision. Thats fair and I can support that position. Thats what businesses get to do. What businesses don't get to do in this country is sack employee's for thier perfectly legal union activities. The question is, then, did Walmart in effect do that very thing? Are employer's allowed to terminate employee's because they are unionized? If so then what are all the laws and rules and regulations regarding union certification about?

Ah, the meaningless Right. I have the right of joining a union and the employer has the right to cease employing me for doing so.

So if workers unionize they can lose thier jobs - not because the store becomes unprofitable - but because they unionized. Is that how you see this?

Thats right, they do. As you say "regardless of whether an operation's workers have unionized or not". But perhaps Walmart have not behaved "regardless" of unionization of thier store - but closed it because of unionization. "Pour encourager les autres" so to speak. Is the right of association a meaningful right or an empty one?