Supreme Court decides Wal-Mart case on narrow grounds, Quebec law different from rest of Canada
Posted December 2, 2009
[A second version of this report, with excerpts from the majority and minority judgments, is also provided below. Each version is accompanied by a link to the full text of the decision.]
By a 6-3 vote, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada has held that, where a business in Quebec is closed, employees who are dismissed cannot seek reinstatement, a remedy that is normally available under section 15 of the Quebec Labour Code, even though the business is closed to avoid a union. Moreover, the majority held, where a closing occurs, the "reverse onus" provision in section 17 of the Code – which presumes that dismissal of an employee engaged in union activity is the result of anti-union reprisal, unless the employer provides good and sufficient reason – does not apply, because closing of a business in itself constitutes good and sufficient reason for the dismissal.
(more)
Supreme Court decides Wal-Mart case on narrow grounds, Quebec law different from rest of Canada
Posted December 2, 2009
[This version of the report on the Wal-Mart case includes excerpts from the majority and minority judgements.]
By a 6-3 vote, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada has held that, where a business in Quebec is closed, employees who are dismissed cannot seek reinstatement, a remedy that is normally available under section 15 of the Quebec Labour Code, even though the business is closed to avoid a union. Moreover, the majority held, where a closing occurs, the "reverse onus" provision in section 17 of the Code – which presumes that dismissal of an employee engaged in union activity is the result of anti-union reprisal, unless the employer provides good and sufficient reason – does not apply, because closing of a business in itself constitutes good and sufficient reason for the dismissal. (more) |