2 total
Appeal dismissed as the permanent closure of the store rendered the employees' reinstatement claims moot.
The appellants were employees at a Wal-Mart store that closed shortly after a union was certified and an arbitrator was appointed to resolve collective agreement differences.
The employees filed complaints under the Labour Code alleging they were dismissed due to union activities and sought reinstatement.
The Commission des relations du travail initially found the employer failed to prove the closure was definitive, but in a companion case, it was established that the store was permanently closed.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that since the store was permanently closed, reinstatement was impossible and the substratum of the claim no longer existed.
Definitive business closure constitutes good and sufficient reason for dismissal under s. 17 of the Quebec Labour Code.
The appellant's union was certified to represent employees at a Wal-Mart store in Jonquière.
On the day the Minister of Labour referred the dispute over a first collective agreement to arbitration, Wal-Mart announced the store's closure.
The appellant filed a complaint under ss. 15 to 17 of the Quebec Labour Code, claiming he lost his employment due to union activities and seeking reinstatement.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the procedural vehicle and statutory presumption under ss. 15 to 17 are not available where a workplace no longer exists.
A definitive business closure constitutes 'good and sufficient reason' for dismissal under s. 17, and any remedy for a closure motivated by anti-union animus must be sought under the unfair labour practice provisions in ss. 12 to 14.
