Wal-Mart Must Pay For Closing Unionized Store

[Star]

.
2014/06/27/walmart-canada-supreme-court


Supreme Court Of Canada: Wal-Mart Must Pay For Closing Unionized Store
CP | By Stephanie Marin, The Canadian Press


OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in favour of Quebec workers who lost their jobs at a Wal-Mart store in Jonquiere, Que., after it shut its doors suddenly months after its employees unionized.


The court ordered that the workers be compensated.


The country's highest court ruled in a five-to-two decision that the retail giant modified working conditions for the employees without a valid reason when it shut down the store in February 2005.


The ruling ends nearly a decade of legal battles between the corporate giant and the 190 employees who lost their jobs at the Jonquiere location in the province's Saguenay region.


The store never re-opened so it is impossible for the workers to be re-hired. Instead, the court said an arbitrator will determine appropriate reparations, possibly with damages and interest.


Friday's judgment stems from a complaint filed by the union against Wal-Mart that alleged the enterprise had modified working conditions by eliminating their jobs.


The complaint said that contravened Section 59 of the Quebec Labour Code, which states working conditions must not be altered in any way, shape, or form during a unionization process.


An arbitrator had ruled in favour of the union, but that decision was overturned by the Quebec Court of Appeal, leading to a showdown at the high court in December 2013. The Supreme Court agreed with the original arbitrator's ruling.


"It was in fact reasonable to find that a reasonable employer would not close an establishment that 'was performing very well' and whose 'objectives were being met' to such an extent that bonuses were being promised," the ruling reads.


A spokesman for Wal-Mart Canada said Friday the company will consider its options.


<snip>

.

 

[Katzndogz]

Canada is not a free country. It is Canada. Not the USA. However, if we keep on our current socialized path we will end up as bad off as Canada is.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Friday's judgment stems from a complaint filed by the union against Wal-Mart that alleged the enterprise had modified working conditions by eliminating their jobs.

Closing down the store, is definitely modifying working conditions.

"Hey Frank, I think they've "modified" our working conditions ! The doors are locked and the store is empty !"

 

[Katzndogz]

Wal Mart should never have gone to Canada. They know it's socialist.

 

[Avorysuds]

If I were wall-mart I'd pack it up and say "your welcome" to Canada.

 

[R.C. Christian]

LOL, I'm so happy. Dealing with French speaking Quebec can be a challenge. One less store in that shit hole is one less pain in the ass for me.

 

[Kosh]

Yep! Canada where they do not even have freedom of speech.

 

[Star]

Canada is not a free country. It is Canada. Not the USA. However, if we keep on our current socialized path we will end up as bad off as Canada is.

Most Canadians have a better lifestyle than most Americans.
american-middle-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest



Why Unions are Good for the Canadian Economy

<snip>

Many historians credit unions with the rise of Canada's middle class and the general prosperity of the country. By helping more workers make decent wages with more job security, unions were largely responsible for stabilizing the economy and stimulating its growth. Because of unions, more working people could afford houses, better food, clothing, cars and other consumer goods. Increasing demand for these things created more jobs and even more economic growth.

Better-paid and more secure workers could also pay more in taxes to support the growth of public services like schools, roads, clean water, police services, electricity and health care. Even those who have never belonged to a union have benefited from their existence all their lives.

Even though some people like to say that unions are bad for the economy, the Canadian reality proves them wrong. Canada is among the top five most prosperous countries in the world and has a relatively high rate of unionization. Union workers make more money, spend more money and create more jobs with that spending. The health care benefits enjoyed by union members (dental, prescription drugs, optical, physiotherapy, etc) means healthier families and less of a burden on the health care system. And their higher pensions mean they are much less of a burden on their children and communities when they retire. Unions are good, not bad, for Canada's economy.

<snip>
.

 

[HenryBHough]

Since then I've noticed fewer Canadian made goods in the local Walmart. The union may have cost Walmart some money but it sure looks like the same union has cost Canada's economy far, far more.

 

[S.J.]

Canada is not a free country. It is Canada. Not the USA. However, if we keep on our current socialized path we will end up as bad off as Canada is.

Most Canadians have a better lifestyle than most Americans.
american-middle-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest



Why Unions are Good for the Canadian Economy

<snip>

Many historians credit unions with the rise of Canada's middle class and the general prosperity of the country. By helping more workers make decent wages with more job security, unions were largely responsible for stabilizing the economy and stimulating its growth. Because of unions, more working people could afford houses, better food, clothing, cars and other consumer goods. Increasing demand for these things created more jobs and even more economic growth.

Better-paid and more secure workers could also pay more in taxes to support the growth of public services like schools, roads, clean water, police services, electricity and health care. Even those who have never belonged to a union have benefited from their existence all their lives.

Even though some people like to say that unions are bad for the economy, the Canadian reality proves them wrong. Canada is among the top five most prosperous countries in the world and has a relatively high rate of unionization. Union workers make more money, spend more money and create more jobs with that spending. The health care benefits enjoyed by union members (dental, prescription drugs, optical, physiotherapy, etc) means healthier families and less of a burden on the health care system. And their higher pensions mean they are much less of a burden on their children and communities when they retire. Unions are good, not bad, for Canada's economy.

<snip>
.

How about if we send them a few million Mexicans and make them pay for their own defense? Then you can tell us how great they're doing.

 

[Noomi]

Canada is not a free country. It is Canada. Not the USA. However, if we keep on our current socialized path we will end up as bad off as Canada is.

There is nothing wrong the courts ruling.

 

[CaféAuLait]

.
2014/06/27/walmart-canada-supreme-court


Supreme Court Of Canada: Wal-Mart Must Pay For Closing Unionized Store
CP | By Stephanie Marin, The Canadian Press


OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in favour of Quebec workers who lost their jobs at a Wal-Mart store in Jonquiere, Que., after it shut its doors suddenly months after its employees unionized.


The court ordered that the workers be compensated.


The country's highest court ruled in a five-to-two decision that the retail giant modified working conditions for the employees without a valid reason when it shut down the store in February 2005.


The ruling ends nearly a decade of legal battles between the corporate giant and the 190 employees who lost their jobs at the Jonquiere location in the province's Saguenay region.


The store never re-opened so it is impossible for the workers to be re-hired. Instead, the court said an arbitrator will determine appropriate reparations, possibly with damages and interest.


Friday's judgment stems from a complaint filed by the union against Wal-Mart that alleged the enterprise had modified working conditions by eliminating their jobs.


The complaint said that contravened Section 59 of the Quebec Labour Code, which states working conditions must not be altered in any way, shape, or form during a unionization process.


An arbitrator had ruled in favour of the union, but that decision was overturned by the Quebec Court of Appeal, leading to a showdown at the high court in December 2013. The Supreme Court agreed with the original arbitrator's ruling.


"It was in fact reasonable to find that a reasonable employer would not close an establishment that 'was performing very well' and whose 'objectives were being met' to such an extent that bonuses were being promised," the ruling reads.


A spokesman for Wal-Mart Canada said Friday the company will consider its options.


<snip>

.

I couldn't care less one way or the other, I was just surprised the Supreme Court reversed its initial decision. I wonder if there was a new member since the last ruling in 2009 or does Canada allow an appeal for their decisions?

 

[The Professor]

Canada is not a free country. It is Canada. Not the USA. However, if we keep on our current socialized path we will end up as bad off as Canada is.

There is nothing wrong the courts ruling.

You are correct. The relevant portions of the article provided by the OP are:

“The complaint said that contravened Section 59 of the Quebec Labour Code, which states working conditions must not be altered in any way, shape, or form during a unionization process.

"It was in fact reasonable to find that a reasonable employer would not close an establishment that 'was performing very well' and whose 'objectives were being met' to such an extent that bonuses were being promised, the ruling reads.”

Since the store appeared to be successful the company could not articulate a legitimate reason for closing its doors. It is thus clear that the company's response was due to anti-union animus which is illegal in Canada and also in the United States. I doubt that there is a single employer in the United States who would dare try to pull that off.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Wal-Marts are all unionized in EU countries. They of course dread it happening here in North America. So I often fantasize about wearing pro-union t-shirts when I go to local Wal-Marts, smile up at the security cmas at checkout displaying it with a big ol' smile. Ask the checkout people, "So have you got gotten unionized yet?" loudly so managers hear.

Union YES!

 

[Star]

.
2014/06/27/walmart-canada-supreme-court


Supreme Court Of Canada: Wal-Mart Must Pay For Closing Unionized Store
CP | By Stephanie Marin, The Canadian Press


OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in favour of Quebec workers who lost their jobs at a Wal-Mart store in Jonquiere, Que., after it shut its doors suddenly months after its employees unionized.


The court ordered that the workers be compensated.


The country's highest court ruled in a five-to-two decision that the retail giant modified working conditions for the employees without a valid reason when it shut down the store in February 2005.


The ruling ends nearly a decade of legal battles between the corporate giant and the 190 employees who lost their jobs at the Jonquiere location in the province's Saguenay region.


The store never re-opened so it is impossible for the workers to be re-hired. Instead, the court said an arbitrator will determine appropriate reparations, possibly with damages and interest.


Friday's judgment stems from a complaint filed by the union against Wal-Mart that alleged the enterprise had modified working conditions by eliminating their jobs.


The complaint said that contravened Section 59 of the Quebec Labour Code, which states working conditions must not be altered in any way, shape, or form during a unionization process.


An arbitrator had ruled in favour of the union, but that decision was overturned by the Quebec Court of Appeal, leading to a showdown at the high court in December 2013. The Supreme Court agreed with the original arbitrator's ruling.


"It was in fact reasonable to find that a reasonable employer would not close an establishment that 'was performing very well' and whose 'objectives were being met' to such an extent that bonuses were being promised," the ruling reads.


A spokesman for Wal-Mart Canada said Friday the company will consider its options.


<snip>

.

I couldn't care less one way or the other, I was just surprised the Supreme Court reversed its initial decision. I wonder if there was a new member since the last ruling in 2009 or does Canada allow an appeal for their decisions?

In case anyone was wondering where the board monitors are politically, the thread "canadians-are-stupid-says-former-csec" started by right wing nutz was left in "Current Events" while this thread was moved to the less read "Canada" section. Reminds me of the Sunday TV talk shows i.e., "if it's Sunday it must be Republican TV day" except-----except on the USMB it's, rightwing threads stay in popular sections, lefty stuff gets shoved into less popular areas -pewsh!- stifling speech is un-American.


The Canadian Supreme Court didn't reverse itself - this &#9758; "An arbitrator had ruled in favour of the union, but that decision was overturned by the Quebec Court of Appeal, leading to a showdown at the high court in December 2013. The Supreme Court agreed with the original arbitrator's ruling" &#9756; from the OP article.
.

 

[Andylusion]

Canada is not a free country. It is Canada. Not the USA. However, if we keep on our current socialized path we will end up as bad off as Canada is.

There is nothing wrong the courts ruling.

Depends on perspective.

IF you mean from the legal stand point, possibly not.

But it does give Walmart reason to avoid investing in Canada, and avoid hiring people.

That is not the most wise move on their part.

 

[HenryBHough]

More, it gives Walmart good reason to avoid importing and selling products made in Socialist Canada.

 

[Star]

Canada is not a free country. It is Canada. Not the USA. However, if we keep on our current socialized path we will end up as bad off as Canada is.

There is nothing wrong the courts ruling.

Depends on perspective.

IF you mean from the legal stand point, possibly not.

But it does give Walmart reason to avoid investing in Canada, and avoid hiring people.

That is not the most wise move on their part.

Don't know about Canada but here in the USA, Walmart doesn't invest in the USA, the USA invests in/subsidizes Walmart and-----and Walmart's using your money/debt to subsidize many (up to 80%) of the people they hire.

If Walmart does business in Canada the way they do business in the USA, most Canadians probably don't give a rat's patooty whether they have access to Walmart's cheap plastic shit.


Walmart-fuels-inequality-epidemic-taking-advantage-of-our-safety-net

Walmart's employees receive $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store. They are also the top recipients of Medicaid in numerous states. Why does this occur? Walmart fails to provide a livable wage and decent healthcare benefits, costing U.S. taxpayers an annual average of $1.02 billion in healthcare costs. This direct public subsidy is being given to offset the failures of an international corporate giant who shouldn’t be shifting part of its labor costs onto the American taxpayers.

 

[Andylusion]

Wal-Marts are all unionized in EU countries. They of course dread it happening here in North America. So I often fantasize about wearing pro-union t-shirts when I go to local Wal-Marts, smile up at the security cmas at checkout displaying it with a big ol' smile. Ask the checkout people, "So have you got gotten unionized yet?" loudly so managers hear.

Union YES!

You people just don't seem to understand this....

Not all unions are the same. Unions are not a monolithic group.

I just posted a story on this forum not a month or two ago, about the differences between the German auto workers union, and the American united auto workers union.

Not all Unions are inherently anti-corporation. The German auto workers union is extremely pro-corporation. I posted an article somewhere on this forum (I should have saved it to my hard drive. I'll post it again if I can find it), where it was actually the German auto Unions themselves, pushing for temp workers and part time workers with much much lower benefits, in order to keep the German auto companies competitive.

Things that here in the US, Unions are screaming about, and having strikes, and ultimately forcing GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy.... in Germany the Unions support, for the good of the company. The company is what pays the wages. The company is what provides the jobs. In German auto Unions, the company is 'good'. They support the company.

I posted another article, about how the American Auto Workers Unions, wanted to Unionize foriegn auto makers, because the number show conclusively, that American Unions are killing their companies, and thus their numbers are falling. Unions in America are dying... and they are dying from their own actions.

So the US Union met with the German Union, to see if they could get support from the German Union, to Unionize German US manufacturing plants. When the German Unions realized what the US Unions stood for... attacking the company, jacking up massive labor costs, and destroying growth.... the German Unions ditched them, and withdrew support.

That's one of the main reasons the recent worker votes to Unionize in all the German plants, failed.

So not all Unions are the same. And I don't mean all German Unions good, and all American Unions bad. It's not a nationality thing either. There was a story of two Tire Plants in France, and each Tire Plant was under a different Union. One Union killed the plant, and it's closed now. The other Union promoted the plant, and it's growing. Both plants were owned by the same company.

Secondly, the claim is not even all that true.

Walmart did not open stores in Chile and South Africa, and then openly allow them to Unionize.

Not true. Walmart PURCHASED locally owned store chains that were ALREADY Unionized. They were Unionized before they bought the store chains.

The counter example is Germany, where Walmart built Supercenters there, and then after the stores opened, the employees formed workers' councils. Workers councils are not exactly 'unions', but it is a form of organizing workers. It's a half-breed of sorts, that are very easy to form under German law.

The workers councils clashed with Walmart, and Walmart closed all the stores in Germany. In 2006, Walmart began the process of selling off all their German assets, and they have completely left the country.

So the only decent example of Walmart allowing Unionization in another country, they left, and all those people are unemployed.

That's not a great basis to go on if you ask me.

 

[Andylusion]

There is nothing wrong the courts ruling.

Depends on perspective.

IF you mean from the legal stand point, possibly not.

But it does give Walmart reason to avoid investing in Canada, and avoid hiring people.

That is not the most wise move on their part.

Don't know about Canada but here in the USA, Walmart doesn't invest in the USA, the USA invests in/subsidizes Walmart and-----and Walmart's using your money/debt to subsidize many (up to 80%) of the people they hire.

If Walmart does business in Canada the way they do business in the USA, most Canadians probably don't give a rat's patooty whether they have access to Walmart's cheap plastic shit.


Walmart-fuels-inequality-epidemic-taking-advantage-of-our-safety-net

Walmart's employees receive $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store. They are also the top recipients of Medicaid in numerous states. Why does this occur? Walmart fails to provide a livable wage and decent healthcare benefits, costing U.S. taxpayers an annual average of $1.02 billion in healthcare costs. This direct public subsidy is being given to offset the failures of an international corporate giant who shouldn’t be shifting part of its labor costs onto the American taxpayers.

We can fix that.... cut welfare, medicaid, food stamps, and section 8 housing.

Here's the problem with you people...

First you are not counting the billions in taxes paid by the employees, including the executives.

Second, you are not including the billions paid by the company itself.

Third, you not including all of the support for those stores. How many electricians have jobs, doing work at walmart? Landscapers? Pipefitters? How many truck drivers? How many IT people have work, because Walmart needs them to fix their self checkout lines?

Thousands of people have jobs, and get paid good wages, because of walmart, and all of them pay tax too.

And lastly, every single time you increase wages arbitrarily, people lose their jobs.

All those people getting welfare now, how much will they get when they are laid off? A bunch more, not less, thanks to you idiots.