Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Administrative law - Judicial review - Labour relations - Human rights - Freedom of association - Closure of business - Complaints alleging dismissal because of union activities - Scope of presumption in s. 17 of Labour Code, R.S.Q., c. C-27, and of employer’s burden of proving “good and sufficient reason” for termination of employment - Whether employer may close its business for clearly anti-union reasons without suffering any consequences despite infringement of freedom of association of employees concerned - Whether employer shut business down, either entirely or in part, in violation of freedom of association - Whether Commission des relations du travail has power to grant necessary remedies in event of violation of freedom of association - Whether decision of Commission des relations du travail unreasonable.

In September 2004, the union to which the Appellants belonged was certified to represent Wal-Mart employees in Jonquière. After several unsuccessful bargaining sessions, the union filed an application under the Labour Code to have the provisions of a first collective agreement established. On February 9, 2005, the Minister of Labour referred the dispute to arbitration and notified the parties of the referral. That same day, Wal-Mart informed the employees that it had decided to close the store. On April 29, 2005, the employment of some 190 employees, including the Appellants, was thus terminated.

After the closure was announced, the employees and the union brought various proceedings to obtain redress. This case concerns four of the 79 employee complaints under ss. 15 et seq. of the Labour Code, which the parties initially agreed to select for hearing by the Commission des relations du travail without prejudice to the others. Plourde v. Wal-Mart Canada Corporation is another of those complaints; it was heard separately and has also been appealed to this Court (No. 32342). The complainants contended that they had lost their employment because of their union activities. Section 15 prohibits an employer from dismissing an employee because the employee exercised a right arising from the Code. Section 17 establishes the following presumption:

17. If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commission that the employee exercised a right arising from this Code, there is a simple presumption in his favour that the sanction was imposed on him or the action was taken against him because he exercised such right, and the burden of proof is upon the employer that he resorted to the sanction or action against the employee for good and sufficient reason.

Wal-Mart maintained that it had rebutted the presumption in s. 17 and had proved that it had terminated the complainants’ employment for “good and sufficient reason”, namely the real and permanent closure of the store.