Case Brief: UFCW, Local 503 v. Wal-Mart Canada Corporation Case Study

This case brief analyzes the legal dispute between the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 503 (UFCW) and Wal-Mart Canada Corporation, stemming from the closure of a Wal-Mart store in Jonquiere, Quebec, during collective bargaining negotiations. The UFCW argued that the closure violated Section 59 of the Quebec Labour Code, which freezes employment conditions during negotiations. The arbitrator initially sided with the union, finding that the store closure constituted a prohibited change to employment conditions. However, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned this decision, arguing that the employer's right to close a business was not restricted by Section 59. The case involves key issues of labour law, including the interpretation of the 'freeze' provision during collective bargaining, the balance between employer rights and employee protections, and the definition of 'conditions of employment'. The analysis explores the facts, the legal arguments presented by both sides, the rulings of the arbitrator, the Superior Court, and the Court of Appeal, and the final judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles and implications of the case. The case highlights the complexities of labour relations and the importance of statutory interpretation in resolving disputes.

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

1Case Study- Case Brief
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.

2Case Study- Case Brief
 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

3Case Study- Case Brief
the collective agreement with the Union. Moreover, without any notice to the employees,
Wal-Mart closed its store without any information to the employees (canlii.org, 2020). For
that reason, the Union demanded an arbitrator to look after this case. They alleged that the act
of Wal- Mart was strictly prohibited and was against s.59 the Code of conduct of the
employees. So the Union applied for the commencement of the arbitration n process in the
Court of appeal.
Rule
The main rule that was in question was s 59 of the Labor Code. Since the apparatus
for “freezing” circumstances of occupation now categorized in s. 59 of the Code was
approved, the elucidation of that sector has been the question of much debate. In that
codification, the “Forbidden Practices” portion of the 1944 Act vanished and its numerous
units were reallocated due to the relation amongst s. 24(1) and the procedure of collective
bargaining. The constituent of that establishment was certainly combined into the subdivision
that was known to be “Collective Agreements”. By organizing a instrument intended to ease
the implementation of the right of connotation, s. 59 hence establishes a guarantee for the
procedure to be held. This legislation provides that a duty is imposed upon the employer in
regards to not changing the course of business, especially when there is some kind of
negotiation procedure in progress with the Union. It provides the right to the employees to
regulate the course of the business within the legislative period.
Course of Action
Primary resolution regarding the Grievance
The Grievance at the primary stage of the problem in this plea was primarily
discharged on the base that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction regarding the subject of the

4Case Study- Case Brief
issue. After examining the complaint, the Arbitrator was concerned regarding the alleged
violates that were violated. So, as a result, it went in favor of the commission due to the
absence of the Jurisdiction. Nevertheless, that verdict was revised by a Superior Court a few
months later. According to the correct standards the true subject matter was needed to be
determined. Hence in the absence of the evidence proving the inadequacy of the Jurisdiction,
the jurisdiction issue was to be reexamined to look into the issue of Jurisdiction.
Award by the Grievance Arbitrator
Exercising his dominion in this respect, the Arbitrator further upheld the complaint of
the Union and set aside the right to conclude any remedy that will be applicable for this
context. Considering every evidence, it was observed that the issue that arises due to the
dismissal of the employees that whether it was a violation of the s 59 or not (CanLII
Connects, 2020). The Arbitrator stated that the purpose of the freezing period, as mentioned
under the provision, is to safeguard the employees by providing them a specified period a
right in order to build up the negotiation for a collective agreement. According to this
provision, this section restricts any employer to terminate the terms of the contract of the
employees until that period is fulfilled or upon its expiration. So it does give the freedom to
the employer to change the management of the workforce, but it should not be done until that
period id fulfilled.
Additionally it was stated that such change by the employer may amount to cause a
change in the conditions of the employment. As a result, the employer is liable and shall be
obligated to defend its choice to discharge by stating that such changes were only made in the
normal course. So an employer before the closure of the business shall be liable to explain
such decision in accordance with the period as per mentioned under the Code. The lack of
some additional clarification does not, on its own, establish any proof.

5Case Study- Case Brief
Court of Appeal
The appeal by the Wal-Mart set apart the decision of the Superior Court’s and
approved the claim for judicial review and declared the arbitration award void and disallowed
the complaint by the Union. There were two views upon the issue. It was stated that that the
closure does not amount to any kind of change in the employment terms. Moreover, the
conception of the employment conditions was outside the purview of the conditions required.
Based upon the observation of the mainstream of this Court, the remedy needed a clear
description of the earlier and the after scenario in the conduct of the business. Moreover such
remedy cannot not be provided as it will be completely based upon the conditions under
which a person can continue a business and shall be forced upon him (Kraak & Story, 2015).
Hence before the dismissal of such procedure under s. 59, it was stated that nothing was there
to stop the personnel from the alleged complains regarding violations of s. 12 and 14 of the
Code. It was observed that neither the element that the personnel could acquire through the
complaint to the commission shall have effect upon depriving the Arbitrator under s. 59 and
100 of the Code. However it was concluded that the reasoning of the Arbitrator was not
sufficient to make such decision reasonable. As for the reason it was contrary regarding the
powers of the employer for the power to close the business. So the complaint was
incompatible to such powers of the employer.
Judgment
Upon the facts that the award on objections, the Arbitrator was unable to prove the
legal presumption nor was able to reverse the onus. It was just based upon the inferences of
the evidence. These implications, that Wal-Mart did not encounter, led the Arbitrator to hold
contracts of employment that changed in the circumstances of service that was violative of s.
59. The Court of Appeal permitted the appeal by Wal-Mart from a verdict as per the Quebec

6Case Study- Case Brief
Superior Court upon judicial review. As per the judgement the arbitration award for the
dismissal of the employee was unlawful. Moreover s. 59 was not applicable in the context of
the facts for the appeal. Hence the appeal was dismissed with additional costs payable to the
respondent.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is stated that the judgment of the Appeal court was to the full
prudence of the Judges of the Court. It was made evident that the anti-union behavior was not
a vital constituent of a breach stated under s. 59. The primary requirement was the Union to
showcase that the employer was unable to succeed in its Trade-in harmony with its usual
performances in implementing the alteration that had been reasonable for the change for an
employer. Wal-Mart failed to provide the explanation for concluding a well functional
business and terminating the employment of the employees that was to be protected by the
clause “freeze” under the “conditions of employment”. Hence the issue was for the inference
to the Arbitrator determining an appropriate remedy.

7Case Study- Case Brief
Reference
CanLII Connects. (2020). CanLII Connects. Retrieved 29 March 2020, from
https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/33878
canlii.org.(2020).Retrieved29March2020,fromhttps://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/
2014/2014scc45/2014scc45.html
Kraak, V. I., & Story, M. (2015). Guiding principles and a decision-making framework for
stakeholders, 34(11), 1972-1978.
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 503 v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2014 SCC 45,
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 323