Union and Wal-Mart met numerous

Running head- CASE BRIEF
Case Brief
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

Case Study- Case Brief1
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 503
v.
Wal-Mart Canada Corporation
2014 SCC 45, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 323
Summary:
In the year 2004, the “United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 503” (the Union)
were specialized as the trading agent for the employees of Wal-Mart who are employed at the
location of Jonquiere. Though Union and Wal-Mart met numerous intervals over the
succeeding months, the process of negotiation remained incomplete. In 2005, the members of
the Union filed an application to the Minister of Labour for the selection of an authority to
resolve the covenant. However, despite such requests, Wal-Mart closed the store located in
Jonquiere. The Union took upon numerous proceedings against Wal-Mart, contending that
the closing was an anti-union attitude that was against the Union. One such ensuing was a
complaint based on the accusation that Wal-Mart has exceeded the freeze period that is a
necessity, as mentioned under section 59 of the Code. In 2009, the appointed Arbitrator
defended the Union’s protest discovering that Wal-Mart’s discharge of the workforces
instituted a free modification to the circumstances of occupation and consequently in
infringement of the Code. This judgment was upheld by the Superior Court but then
repressed by the “Quebec Court of Appeal” on the base that it destitute Wal-Mart of its
administration privileges, specifically upon the right of closing the business.
Facts
 In the year 2001 Wal- Mart opened its establishment in Jonquiere.

Case Study- Case Brief2
 In the year 2004, in August, The commission of Trade qualified The United Food and
Commercial Workers, Local 503, as the agent fixed for the bargaining in favor of the
employees working in the establishment.
 On February 2, the Union wanted to appoint an arbitrator and made an application to
the Minister of Labor to settle the disputes between the parties.
 Wal-Mart stated that they wanted to make certain changes in the contract and resolute
the employment contract of nearly 200 employees for business reasons who worked in
the Jonquiere. Soon after this, the business got closed in April 2005.
 In the year 2005, on March 23, the Union appealed for the objection issue. It was
suspected that the removal of the employees was a violation under s. 59 of the Labour
Code (“Code”), which arrange the filing of an application for authorization, it was
alleged that a company should not change the conditions according to the terms of
employment, where there was a collective agreement that was under progress
especially without serving any written notice.
 Wal-Mart failed to prove that its choice to dismiss was formulated during the regular
course of the business. The Arbitrator established that the termination of the contracts
of the employees or any kind of change in the business pattern was strictly a
prohibition of the s.59 of the Code.
 His award was confirmed by the Superior Court, but it was upturned by the Court of
Appeal. The judges of the Court of Appeal separated on how largely s. Fifty-
nine should be interpreted.
Issue
The primary issue that was noted in the case was the termination of the employee that
was working for the Jonquiere store. There was already a negotiation procedure going on for