But I think his reasons are bogus.
On the other hand, it probably protects him from some frivolous human rights accusation.
61 Replies to “Your right to Unionize, My right to close.”
There is one parable that is very anti union . In it all workers are paid the same amount for increasingly shorter hours The union workers complain and the owner says each of them had an agreeable contract when they started and it was his money and he could do what he wants
The business would close anyway. Unions (modern mafias, actually) are the reason why businesses struggle or go under and why worthless politicians have a voter base.
There are four sins crying out to Heaven for vengeance, two of which are oppression of the poor and depriving workers of just wages. Are mafia-like unions giving jobs to all or only to their lackeys? When unions drive businesses out of Canada to places like Bangladesh, how are the poor treated?
While I’m sure the sludges in the CBC forums think they’re so bloody high and mighty knocking his reasoning (which seems hokey on its face), I do hope the irony is not lost on them when those “God-bothering” businesses thrive and labour unions cling feverishly to their Marxist drivel on rights yet not deliver any.
The union should be forced to buy it. At say 5 to 7 times cash flow before union wages
The entire idea itself that one is required to provide reasons for a decision to go out of business is outrageous. Of course unionizing should be considered a violent crime and owners should have every right to defend against it.
That actually is a great idea. Force unions to reap what they sow.
Now these 25 unemployed people should hold their union responsible for promising them wages that were not achievable in a competitive market. The company was placed in a position of going bankrupt or shutting down. All because some greedy union leaders couldn t do math well enough to understand that the companys existence and therefore its employees jobs depended on that company remaining competitive. So now the Ontario taxpayer will pay them to sit on their a$$ and collect a so called paycheck AKA welfare.
I guess not wanting to bake a cake, photograph a wedding , perform pay for or recommend abortions , or not wanting assisted suicide are all bogus claims to right?
And I totally agree with colonista . No reason required!! None , no news conference , no interview its his business his decision.
It is his business. Should he want to close the doors it is also his business. If the union wants to run it then let the union buy it. Otherwise unifor can shut it’s mouth.
No, you don’t have the right to close your business because your workers decided to unionize. That is, without question, against the law in Canada. Maybe some believe it shouldn’t be against the law, but it is. The religious freedom claim this guy is trying to set up won’t work either, because corporations in Canada do not have the right to freedom of religion. Maybe some believe they should, and they do have a limited right to religious freedom in the U.S., but they don’t in Canada. It is possible that this case could go to the SCoC and the SCoC provides limited religious freedoms rights to corporations, but that is AT BEST a coin flip – and very expensive. And even if they do provide corporations with this right how will the SCoC balance that right in this case with the freedom of association right the employees have. Don’t forget, there was an actual law that didn’t allow the RCMP to unionize and the SCoC in a strong decision struck down that law because the RCMP have a basic right to freedom of association, which the SCoC determined meant they had a right to unionize. I doubt this company’s right to freedom of religion, if it ever could obtain that right, would be held by the courts to trump their employee’s rights to freedom of association. If the union had, in fact, tried to achieve unreasonable wages THAT would be a legitimate reason to close the business, provided that the company bargained in good faith – so they couldn’t, for example, respond to the first offer with, “Nope, too much. We close.” I’m sorry, but this company’s decision has EPIC FAIL written all over it, even if you agree with their decision.
Good for this fellow to not want to turn his business over to Unifor.
Someone remind me not to descend into the depths of hell that are the comments of a CBC story. The HDS is so strong there it hurts my teeth. You can’t argue with them, they know no reason. You can’t provide facts, they ignore them when they don’t fit their paradigm. For the most part they are foaming at the mouth, raving loonies. Moonbat central.
@Richard, please quote me the law that says this. I looked and couldn’t find one. I am not a trained legal professional but I am pretty sure that a business can close whenever it wants to. I had a look at the paperwork they need to file dissolution in Ontario, and didn’t see anything in there that required a reason. There is also a requirement to have a letter from Ministry of Revenue. I did not see anything saying a reason was needed when submitting the request for the letter from the Ministry either. They will have to pay severance since he didn’t provide proper notice, I would say.
This is about all I can find about unions and workplace rights in Ontario
“Under Ontario’s Labour relations Act, you have the right to join a trade union and participate in legal union activities.
It’s against the law for an employer to fire you or discriminate against you for:
joining a union
your past association with a bargaining agent, and
exercising any other rights under the LRA.
It’s also against the law for a union or employer to intimidate or coerce you to join or not join a union.”
As you can see, closing your business isn’t on the list. You can’t fire or discriminate against workers, but you can’t be made to stay open as a business either. If the owner fired the union folks that would be one thing, but he didn’t fire them, he is just closing up shop.
No, you don’t have the right to close your business because your workers decided to unionize. That is, without question, against the law in Canada.
Then you can no doubt point to the relevant statute, or cite the case law precedent that makes this “without question”?
When employees unionize, the workplace changes from multi-party negotiations to a single exclusive negotiation with a collective workforce. The employer has no say in that change leaving him or her only one alternative to a coerced outcome, to shut down. Workers should be free to join a union just as employers should be free to choose whether or not they want to do business with them. The notion of willing buyer and seller doesn’t exist in Canadian Labour law. Private sector unions tend to eventually kill jobs of those they allegedly represent. It’s why their numbers are in decline. In this case it just happened sooner.
Didn’t Wall Market close a store in Qc after it unionized? Pretty sure they got away with that? Isn’t this roughly the same thing? And yes, he definitely has a right to have his religion respected.
So the SCOC is going to tell him in a year he can’t close? That will really help the employees.
You’re wrong Daniel. You can’t close a branch on those grounds and you can’t reopen under a different business id.
You can if the business is incorporated or you don’t reopen as a different business.
The company is also exercising its right to freedom of association, by choosing not to associate with those workers any more.
The SCoC has been botching our Charter rights for a long time.
Well he could always do a “Francisco d’Anconia” with his business.
“…have a basic right to freedom of association,”
Go f*** yourself with a nail studded two-by-four. If we had freedom of association employers would not be forced to deal with unions. Unions are a direct violation of freedom of association you demagogue.
“If the union had, in fact, tried to achieve unreasonable wages”
Any wages ever demanded by any union are by definition unreasonable you newspeak spewing hypocrite. Only market wages are reasonable.
“provided that the company bargained in good faith”
Another example of Orwellian newspeak. An employer (and many employees) has his rights violated and is forced to bargain with those thugs. He is being raped and is expected to bargain in good faith.
“I’m sorry”
No you’re not. I hope he runs the business to the ground and destroys the lives of every goon who signed up to unionize.
News flash, folks – if you own a business you can close the doors for any reason you like. #1 would be sudden, union-induced non-profitability. It’s not an anti-union move, it’s an anti-going personally bankrupt move. If any union knobs drag him into court, all he has to do is show the judge his books, while counter-suing the union for for a frivolous and vexatious complaint. Unions always have money – that’s their cachet.
The statute in question is that you can’t THREATEN to close your doors in order to influence a decision to unionize. Which is laughable all by itself. Unionizing may make a business unprofitable, but you can’t say that during the attempt to organize.
AFTER the union has been voted in, all bets are off.
Don’t be surprised if Unifor tries to force a different interpretation of existing law on this – their coffers are full and this would give them tremendous cachet in negotiations.
Wonderful idea Cal2.
Once they own the factory, the workers can pay themselves as much as they want. They can have as many days off as they desire and they can retire with full pay when they feel the time is right. Yes, this is an idea whose time has come. Go forth unionistas, and claim the riches that await you.
I agree that the reason for closing given by the company’s owner is bogus, but he has every right to close the company.
Richard is correct. And so is Lance, methinks. This is not about God or religion – it’s about union skunks getting what they deserve and it’s music to my ears. It is also about a Christian raising a middle finger to the progressives and liberal left. The reason they are so incensed is because it underlines the fact that union slobs and liberals need right wing capitalists and Christians with work ethics far more than we need them.
Also playing into this, I think, is the man’s position. He looks like retirement is in the near future. Who needs the hassle of unions, their slothful work ethics, their LACK of ethics in general, their phony grievences, etc. ad nauseum? Shut ‘er down, sell the property and equipment and go golfing! If the union can ignore market wages – the owner has the right to walk away from a market he can’t or doesn’t want to compete in.
Scream, you leftist monkeys! Gnash your teeth and wail and sob! It makes my day!
I would like to see a court action that tried to get me from closing my business. the judge would have to show up on Monday and run the damn thing himself. I am not now nor ever obligated to keep a business open because someone says I should. I walked away from an unprofitable business many years ago. one of my employees decided he would give a try at keeping it going. I said ok and made it possible. he went broke, I did not.
This is a great story. Does a union have the right to keep a business open after it unionizes, regardless of the reason the company gives for wanting to close down. I would think “no”, but there are laws to prevent plant closings “once a union is formed”. I don’t think the union had yet formed so the company would not be bound to those regulations.
Unifor could sue the Company but that would give the Company the opportunity to run out of money defending itself and thereby blame the union for its closing. The big question is whether the Company has any assets worth protecting and whether the owner can keep them after the company closes down.
Years ago a Company in St. Thomas, Ontario (which made just-in-time delivery-racks for the auto sector) declared bankruptcy shortly after the union formed. Workers took over the building and vowed to keep it occupied until the owner either reopened or turned over the business to them. The owner of the business waited until the owner of the building evicted the Company. This involved removing very large pieces of valuable equipment (with help from the police) and selling them off at auction. Guess who bought most of the equipment? The owner of the original company who then set up a new business in a different city.
The real problem (with stories like these) is that once a union forms, the owner of the business is forced to work with the union regardless of the circumstances of the business and the union’s interest is not with improving the business. Before a union can form, it is easier to out-source manufacturing overseas and run the business as a warehouse with a few key (and loyal) employees and the rest employed as contractors. If you can keep the number of employees below 50 you avoid a lot of government regulations that add cost to your business without much benefit.
Actually, the Qubec Walmart closing was exactly the case that established this principle. Until this SCoC ruling businesses could close after being unionized. Technically this decision was based on the Quebec Labor Code, but the similar wording to the wording I question can be found in all Labor Codes in Canada. It was United Food vs Walmart. This SCoC reversed years of precedent on this matter, which may be why so many think he actually has the right to close his business in this situation. He doesn’t and will now suffer the consequences of this action. Also, the SCoC has already established you don’t have the right NOT to associate, which is why people can be forced to join a union. So no, this company does not have a right not to associate with a union. There’s can be a difference between what you want the law to be and what it actually is, as interpreted by the courts. Again, if this guy fights this to the Supreme Court maybe he wins. But he is in for a long and expensive fight. He had ways he might have been able to do what he wanted, but the way he actually did go about it is not allowed.
The economics of furniture manufacturing is such that it simply cannot be done without low cost labour. That’s why most of the business has moved to Mexico and elsewhere. I was familiar with furniture manufacturing over 30 years ago and factory workers were the displaced people du jour, Vietnamese and Cambodians.
Ok, for a moment I’ll assume that the court can force him to stay open. How? I’m seriously asking. Like, will they go into his house and pick him up out of bed? Make him make phone calls and write cheques to suppliers and delivery people and utilities and the landlord and who knows whom else? How, exactly, can they force him to stay open (in a physical, realistic sense) if he wants to shut down?
If the answer is that they fine him, then doesn’t that achieve the same end, by bankrupting him and puitting him out of business anyhow?
The Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that the store had every right to close, but in 2014, ruled that under Quebec labour law, Walmart had violated the employees rights because it changed the conditions of their employment after they started collectively bargaining.
In this case, the business is closing before the collective bargaining process is beginning, and I’m pretty sure that the owner is going to be allowed to close without penalty other than regular severance.
Only the Biblically illiterate could say his reasons are bogus…
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
A union’s only purpose is the extortion of unearned money through the threat of refusal to work.
Laws don’t seem to mean much anymore.
If he own the biz, he decides what to do with it. I do not believe there is a ‘force to run your unionized business’ law in this country. He should not have to make up all this religion horse shit just find a way out of an unacceptable business arrangement.
Richard. You’re not exactly right here. A Company does have the right to close down, even during a union drive. But they are subject to certain conditions under section 59 of the Code. It is these conditions that were more clearly defined in the United Food versus Walmart Supreme Court Decision.
The ruling did not recognize the right to work as a fundamental right. Rather it limited the right of the employer to close their business “FOR ANY REASON”.
Henceforth if an employer wishes to close a business while its employees are on a union drive, or during a strike or lock-out they must provide a clear business decision as to why. The decision must be in the ordinary course of business and the decision must be reasonable (e.g. such a decision to close has been made by other companies for the same reason). If the Company cannot provide a reasonable explanation for wanting to close the business, then the employees are entitled to damages as they have a reasonable expectation to be employed as long as the business can operate under normal conditions.
Walmart closed down its Quebec operation citing the reason as a “business decision”. This is not enough.
This furniture company is citing religious belief as the reason for closing down. This suggests to me that he is indeed preparing for a court battle. Fort Francis is a very small town. I suspect the business owner is quietly saying F-U to his former employees for attempting to form a union. http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14247/index.do http://www.lavery.ca/en/publications/our-publications/1820-the-wal-mart-decision-the-supreme-court-of-canada-confirms-that-the-collective-dismissal-of-the-employees-of-the-jonquiere-establishment-constituted-an-illegal-change-in-their-conditions-of-employment-under-section-59-of-the-labour-code1.html
I think the difference here is Walmart is an international company and for it to close one store because of a union threat is much different than a small one location business. In this case, the owner can quickly and clearly show how a union would make his business go broke, no different that a simply increase in electrical costs because of forced green energy policies could put him out of business as well.
If the business owner had closed his business citing “a difficult environment had developed with his employees as a result of the union drive”, he would quickly be pushed to selling them the business. But the religious angle will slow things down.
The long lead to the courts will mean his former employees will either be long gone from Fort Francis or will have been unemployed for several months (possibly years) without any hope of a settlement.
I don’t think the owner is religious. I think his lawyer is brilliant. And perhaps the owner is a little vindictive in a “this is going to hurt you a lot more than it will hurt me” kind of way.
and to followup, would I be wrong in saying Conservatives tend to run and work in private businesses, and Liberals tend to run and work in institutions. The mindset is totally different. Liberals just don’t get how close to the edge businesses are to going broke. Look at Alberta right now, the NDP are taxing the hell out of oil companies thinking that they have tons of money and they can easily take it. Will they be taking them to court when they close the door and move somewhere else.
Absolutely clueless.
I agree with you Steve. There is no right to close you have to have defendable grounds. I wrote that this guy may have been able to find a way to close his business. However, the reason he chose is on the list of worst options, though it seems genuine, because corporations do not have a right to freedom of religion. The only way he can win with this argument is if he takes it to the SCoC and establishes that corporations can have a right to freedom of religion. But then he’ll also have to demonstrate that this right trumps the employee’s right to freedom of association. If you’re a betting man your best bet is against this guy. Indeed, I think once this guy gets a lawyer and realizes he’s going to bankrupt himself trying to fight the laws that he will agree to re-open the business.
Richard, I’m quite interested: What law, exactly, says a business can’t decide to close because a union has won a first contract? Is this a provincial law, or a federal law?
People keep claiming that this is “against the law” but they never cite EXACTLY what law. Will you do us the honour?
Wtf, how many links do people have to provide you KevinB? There’s now been numerous links to the relevant case law. Perhaps you’ll honour us with clicking one, lol.
Again, I believe it’s all in the TIMING. He could let them
unionize, negotiate with them, and THEN close up shop due to
financial reasons, and probably be “legally” fine.
thank you, Steve, for providing the link.
From the DISSENTING Supremes:
” If s. 59 were to apply to a situation of store closure, the result would be that businesses could never prove a store closure was business as usual. It would also mean that the employer would be prevented from exercising its right to close its business during the s. 59 freeze period and yet could, immediately upon the conclusion of a collective agreement, the exercise of the right of lock out or strike, or the issuance of an arbitration award, close its business for any reason. Legislation cannot be interpreted to give rise to such absurd results.” (My emphasis added)
Which is clearly the case. If the owner just waits until the day after the first contract is signed, he can close the business without any recourse. So, I’d welcome the union, ask them what they want, write up the new contract, let them have a victory party, and announce the business is closing the next day. All the guy in Fort Frances is guilty of is bad timing. And the useless Supremes Maclaughlin, Abella, et al are guilty of interpreting legislation in a way that gives rise to absurdity.
Sorry, my system is slow. When I first clicked, there were no links.
However, the link that Steve from Rockwood provided shows you are COMPLETELY WRONG. The Supremes didn’t dis-allow the closing for any reason other than it happened during the “hands-off” period from the start of organizing to the first collective agreement. You CAN close your business at any time, for any reason, if it isn’t during one of these periods.
“No, you don’t have the right to close your business because your workers decided to unionize. That is, without question, against the law in Canada”
I’ll take your word for it.
And if so, the law is an ass. An insidious ass.
But of course lawful doen’t mean just.
For it simply cannot be just to force someone to keep operating a business.
Mere common sense says this.
I cannot think of a better case for jury nullification.
Not sure if jury nullification was ever permitted in Canada. Was it?
I know it’s pretty well nullified in the FSA (fascist states of America) as persons handing out informational brochures on jury nullification have been charged with jury tampering.
I can think of no more powerful democratic reform than the institution of jury nullification.
Uhm, KevinB, THAT IS the period in which this guy closed his business.
Jury nullification? Not on your life.
The defence cannot tell a jury that it is their right to ignore the law if they think a conviction is unjust. Anyone who is on a jury just has to remember it.
Now this is fascinating, a true window into the progressive thieving mindset.
How can the courts, the government or the union force a person to stay in business?
Any wisdom here Richard?
Funnily enough when I was teenager a Local trucking company owner begged his union drivers to meet their contractual obligations or he would have to close his business
Instead they joined the national one day protest strike, his company was penalized for not delivering and he said enough already and shut the business down.
The union sued, they lost.
Does not matter how you cut it, you cannot enforce slavery on people willing to retire.
Only government can steal that which is not yet made.
Not going to get into the middle of this food fight, except for a couple of points – the opinion of the dissenting Supremes means bupkis. A question that always comes to my mind when a small company like this moves to unionize with a large union, is why? What has happened to the work environment that would cause, what should be a fairly happy shop (being small), to seek the assistance of a mega-union? The first place I look is to the management culture. Not infrequently, I see a management that has been “careless” in its treatment of the staff. Loose hiring practices, favoritism, nepotism, lack of integrity in fair and balanced treatment, etc. Employers that treat employees with respect and equanimity should have little trouble keeping a union out. If they can’t, they’re likely not being especially up-front with their employees.
There is one parable that is very anti union . In it all workers are paid the same amount for increasingly shorter hours The union workers complain and the owner says each of them had an agreeable contract when they started and it was his money and he could do what he wants
The business would close anyway. Unions (modern mafias, actually) are the reason why businesses struggle or go under and why worthless politicians have a voter base.
There are four sins crying out to Heaven for vengeance, two of which are oppression of the poor and depriving workers of just wages. Are mafia-like unions giving jobs to all or only to their lackeys? When unions drive businesses out of Canada to places like Bangladesh, how are the poor treated?
While I’m sure the sludges in the CBC forums think they’re so bloody high and mighty knocking his reasoning (which seems hokey on its face), I do hope the irony is not lost on them when those “God-bothering” businesses thrive and labour unions cling feverishly to their Marxist drivel on rights yet not deliver any.
The union should be forced to buy it. At say 5 to 7 times cash flow before union wages
The entire idea itself that one is required to provide reasons for a decision to go out of business is outrageous. Of course unionizing should be considered a violent crime and owners should have every right to defend against it.
That actually is a great idea. Force unions to reap what they sow.
Now these 25 unemployed people should hold their union responsible for promising them wages that were not achievable in a competitive market. The company was placed in a position of going bankrupt or shutting down. All because some greedy union leaders couldn t do math well enough to understand that the companys existence and therefore its employees jobs depended on that company remaining competitive. So now the Ontario taxpayer will pay them to sit on their a$$ and collect a so called paycheck AKA welfare.
I guess not wanting to bake a cake, photograph a wedding , perform pay for or recommend abortions , or not wanting assisted suicide are all bogus claims to right?
And I totally agree with colonista . No reason required!! None , no news conference , no interview its his business his decision.
It is his business. Should he want to close the doors it is also his business. If the union wants to run it then let the union buy it. Otherwise unifor can shut it’s mouth.
No, you don’t have the right to close your business because your workers decided to unionize. That is, without question, against the law in Canada. Maybe some believe it shouldn’t be against the law, but it is. The religious freedom claim this guy is trying to set up won’t work either, because corporations in Canada do not have the right to freedom of religion. Maybe some believe they should, and they do have a limited right to religious freedom in the U.S., but they don’t in Canada. It is possible that this case could go to the SCoC and the SCoC provides limited religious freedoms rights to corporations, but that is AT BEST a coin flip – and very expensive. And even if they do provide corporations with this right how will the SCoC balance that right in this case with the freedom of association right the employees have. Don’t forget, there was an actual law that didn’t allow the RCMP to unionize and the SCoC in a strong decision struck down that law because the RCMP have a basic right to freedom of association, which the SCoC determined meant they had a right to unionize. I doubt this company’s right to freedom of religion, if it ever could obtain that right, would be held by the courts to trump their employee’s rights to freedom of association. If the union had, in fact, tried to achieve unreasonable wages THAT would be a legitimate reason to close the business, provided that the company bargained in good faith – so they couldn’t, for example, respond to the first offer with, “Nope, too much. We close.” I’m sorry, but this company’s decision has EPIC FAIL written all over it, even if you agree with their decision.
Good for this fellow to not want to turn his business over to Unifor.
Someone remind me not to descend into the depths of hell that are the comments of a CBC story. The HDS is so strong there it hurts my teeth. You can’t argue with them, they know no reason. You can’t provide facts, they ignore them when they don’t fit their paradigm. For the most part they are foaming at the mouth, raving loonies. Moonbat central.
@Richard, please quote me the law that says this. I looked and couldn’t find one. I am not a trained legal professional but I am pretty sure that a business can close whenever it wants to. I had a look at the paperwork they need to file dissolution in Ontario, and didn’t see anything in there that required a reason. There is also a requirement to have a letter from Ministry of Revenue. I did not see anything saying a reason was needed when submitting the request for the letter from the Ministry either. They will have to pay severance since he didn’t provide proper notice, I would say.
This is about all I can find about unions and workplace rights in Ontario
“Under Ontario’s Labour relations Act, you have the right to join a trade union and participate in legal union activities.
It’s against the law for an employer to fire you or discriminate against you for:
joining a union
your past association with a bargaining agent, and
exercising any other rights under the LRA.
It’s also against the law for a union or employer to intimidate or coerce you to join or not join a union.”
As you can see, closing your business isn’t on the list. You can’t fire or discriminate against workers, but you can’t be made to stay open as a business either. If the owner fired the union folks that would be one thing, but he didn’t fire them, he is just closing up shop.
No, you don’t have the right to close your business because your workers decided to unionize. That is, without question, against the law in Canada.
Then you can no doubt point to the relevant statute, or cite the case law precedent that makes this “without question”?
When employees unionize, the workplace changes from multi-party negotiations to a single exclusive negotiation with a collective workforce. The employer has no say in that change leaving him or her only one alternative to a coerced outcome, to shut down. Workers should be free to join a union just as employers should be free to choose whether or not they want to do business with them. The notion of willing buyer and seller doesn’t exist in Canadian Labour law. Private sector unions tend to eventually kill jobs of those they allegedly represent. It’s why their numbers are in decline. In this case it just happened sooner.
Didn’t Wall Market close a store in Qc after it unionized? Pretty sure they got away with that? Isn’t this roughly the same thing? And yes, he definitely has a right to have his religion respected.
So the SCOC is going to tell him in a year he can’t close? That will really help the employees.
You’re wrong Daniel. You can’t close a branch on those grounds and you can’t reopen under a different business id.
You can if the business is incorporated or you don’t reopen as a different business.
The company is also exercising its right to freedom of association, by choosing not to associate with those workers any more.
The SCoC has been botching our Charter rights for a long time.
Well he could always do a “Francisco d’Anconia” with his business.
“…have a basic right to freedom of association,”
Go f*** yourself with a nail studded two-by-four. If we had freedom of association employers would not be forced to deal with unions. Unions are a direct violation of freedom of association you demagogue.
“If the union had, in fact, tried to achieve unreasonable wages”
Any wages ever demanded by any union are by definition unreasonable you newspeak spewing hypocrite. Only market wages are reasonable.
“provided that the company bargained in good faith”
Another example of Orwellian newspeak. An employer (and many employees) has his rights violated and is forced to bargain with those thugs. He is being raped and is expected to bargain in good faith.
“I’m sorry”
No you’re not. I hope he runs the business to the ground and destroys the lives of every goon who signed up to unionize.
News flash, folks – if you own a business you can close the doors for any reason you like. #1 would be sudden, union-induced non-profitability. It’s not an anti-union move, it’s an anti-going personally bankrupt move. If any union knobs drag him into court, all he has to do is show the judge his books, while counter-suing the union for for a frivolous and vexatious complaint. Unions always have money – that’s their cachet.
The statute in question is that you can’t THREATEN to close your doors in order to influence a decision to unionize. Which is laughable all by itself. Unionizing may make a business unprofitable, but you can’t say that during the attempt to organize.
AFTER the union has been voted in, all bets are off.
Don’t be surprised if Unifor tries to force a different interpretation of existing law on this – their coffers are full and this would give them tremendous cachet in negotiations.
Wonderful idea Cal2.
Once they own the factory, the workers can pay themselves as much as they want. They can have as many days off as they desire and they can retire with full pay when they feel the time is right. Yes, this is an idea whose time has come. Go forth unionistas, and claim the riches that await you.
I agree that the reason for closing given by the company’s owner is bogus, but he has every right to close the company.
Richard is correct. And so is Lance, methinks. This is not about God or religion – it’s about union skunks getting what they deserve and it’s music to my ears. It is also about a Christian raising a middle finger to the progressives and liberal left. The reason they are so incensed is because it underlines the fact that union slobs and liberals need right wing capitalists and Christians with work ethics far more than we need them.
Also playing into this, I think, is the man’s position. He looks like retirement is in the near future. Who needs the hassle of unions, their slothful work ethics, their LACK of ethics in general, their phony grievences, etc. ad nauseum? Shut ‘er down, sell the property and equipment and go golfing! If the union can ignore market wages – the owner has the right to walk away from a market he can’t or doesn’t want to compete in.
Scream, you leftist monkeys! Gnash your teeth and wail and sob! It makes my day!
I would like to see a court action that tried to get me from closing my business. the judge would have to show up on Monday and run the damn thing himself. I am not now nor ever obligated to keep a business open because someone says I should. I walked away from an unprofitable business many years ago. one of my employees decided he would give a try at keeping it going. I said ok and made it possible. he went broke, I did not.
This is a great story. Does a union have the right to keep a business open after it unionizes, regardless of the reason the company gives for wanting to close down. I would think “no”, but there are laws to prevent plant closings “once a union is formed”. I don’t think the union had yet formed so the company would not be bound to those regulations.
Unifor could sue the Company but that would give the Company the opportunity to run out of money defending itself and thereby blame the union for its closing. The big question is whether the Company has any assets worth protecting and whether the owner can keep them after the company closes down.
Years ago a Company in St. Thomas, Ontario (which made just-in-time delivery-racks for the auto sector) declared bankruptcy shortly after the union formed. Workers took over the building and vowed to keep it occupied until the owner either reopened or turned over the business to them. The owner of the business waited until the owner of the building evicted the Company. This involved removing very large pieces of valuable equipment (with help from the police) and selling them off at auction. Guess who bought most of the equipment? The owner of the original company who then set up a new business in a different city.
The real problem (with stories like these) is that once a union forms, the owner of the business is forced to work with the union regardless of the circumstances of the business and the union’s interest is not with improving the business. Before a union can form, it is easier to out-source manufacturing overseas and run the business as a warehouse with a few key (and loyal) employees and the rest employed as contractors. If you can keep the number of employees below 50 you avoid a lot of government regulations that add cost to your business without much benefit.
Actually, the Qubec Walmart closing was exactly the case that established this principle. Until this SCoC ruling businesses could close after being unionized. Technically this decision was based on the Quebec Labor Code, but the similar wording to the wording I question can be found in all Labor Codes in Canada. It was United Food vs Walmart. This SCoC reversed years of precedent on this matter, which may be why so many think he actually has the right to close his business in this situation. He doesn’t and will now suffer the consequences of this action. Also, the SCoC has already established you don’t have the right NOT to associate, which is why people can be forced to join a union. So no, this company does not have a right not to associate with a union. There’s can be a difference between what you want the law to be and what it actually is, as interpreted by the courts. Again, if this guy fights this to the Supreme Court maybe he wins. But he is in for a long and expensive fight. He had ways he might have been able to do what he wanted, but the way he actually did go about it is not allowed.
The economics of furniture manufacturing is such that it simply cannot be done without low cost labour. That’s why most of the business has moved to Mexico and elsewhere. I was familiar with furniture manufacturing over 30 years ago and factory workers were the displaced people du jour, Vietnamese and Cambodians.
Ok, for a moment I’ll assume that the court can force him to stay open. How? I’m seriously asking. Like, will they go into his house and pick him up out of bed? Make him make phone calls and write cheques to suppliers and delivery people and utilities and the landlord and who knows whom else? How, exactly, can they force him to stay open (in a physical, realistic sense) if he wants to shut down?
If the answer is that they fine him, then doesn’t that achieve the same end, by bankrupting him and puitting him out of business anyhow?
So it was the “timing” of the closure, not the fact that they closed up:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/28/business/international/walmart-illegally-closed-union-store-court-says.html
The Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that the store had every right to close, but in 2014, ruled that under Quebec labour law, Walmart had violated the employees rights because it changed the conditions of their employment after they started collectively bargaining.
In this case, the business is closing before the collective bargaining process is beginning, and I’m pretty sure that the owner is going to be allowed to close without penalty other than regular severance.
Only the Biblically illiterate could say his reasons are bogus…
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
A union’s only purpose is the extortion of unearned money through the threat of refusal to work.
Laws don’t seem to mean much anymore.
If he own the biz, he decides what to do with it. I do not believe there is a ‘force to run your unionized business’ law in this country. He should not have to make up all this religion horse shit just find a way out of an unacceptable business arrangement.
Richard. You’re not exactly right here. A Company does have the right to close down, even during a union drive. But they are subject to certain conditions under section 59 of the Code. It is these conditions that were more clearly defined in the United Food versus Walmart Supreme Court Decision.
The ruling did not recognize the right to work as a fundamental right. Rather it limited the right of the employer to close their business “FOR ANY REASON”.
Henceforth if an employer wishes to close a business while its employees are on a union drive, or during a strike or lock-out they must provide a clear business decision as to why. The decision must be in the ordinary course of business and the decision must be reasonable (e.g. such a decision to close has been made by other companies for the same reason). If the Company cannot provide a reasonable explanation for wanting to close the business, then the employees are entitled to damages as they have a reasonable expectation to be employed as long as the business can operate under normal conditions.
Walmart closed down its Quebec operation citing the reason as a “business decision”. This is not enough.
This furniture company is citing religious belief as the reason for closing down. This suggests to me that he is indeed preparing for a court battle. Fort Francis is a very small town. I suspect the business owner is quietly saying F-U to his former employees for attempting to form a union.
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14247/index.do
http://www.lavery.ca/en/publications/our-publications/1820-the-wal-mart-decision-the-supreme-court-of-canada-confirms-that-the-collective-dismissal-of-the-employees-of-the-jonquiere-establishment-constituted-an-illegal-change-in-their-conditions-of-employment-under-section-59-of-the-labour-code1.html
I think the difference here is Walmart is an international company and for it to close one store because of a union threat is much different than a small one location business. In this case, the owner can quickly and clearly show how a union would make his business go broke, no different that a simply increase in electrical costs because of forced green energy policies could put him out of business as well.
If the business owner had closed his business citing “a difficult environment had developed with his employees as a result of the union drive”, he would quickly be pushed to selling them the business. But the religious angle will slow things down.
The long lead to the courts will mean his former employees will either be long gone from Fort Francis or will have been unemployed for several months (possibly years) without any hope of a settlement.
I don’t think the owner is religious. I think his lawyer is brilliant. And perhaps the owner is a little vindictive in a “this is going to hurt you a lot more than it will hurt me” kind of way.
and to followup, would I be wrong in saying Conservatives tend to run and work in private businesses, and Liberals tend to run and work in institutions. The mindset is totally different. Liberals just don’t get how close to the edge businesses are to going broke. Look at Alberta right now, the NDP are taxing the hell out of oil companies thinking that they have tons of money and they can easily take it. Will they be taking them to court when they close the door and move somewhere else.
Absolutely clueless.
I agree with you Steve. There is no right to close you have to have defendable grounds. I wrote that this guy may have been able to find a way to close his business. However, the reason he chose is on the list of worst options, though it seems genuine, because corporations do not have a right to freedom of religion. The only way he can win with this argument is if he takes it to the SCoC and establishes that corporations can have a right to freedom of religion. But then he’ll also have to demonstrate that this right trumps the employee’s right to freedom of association. If you’re a betting man your best bet is against this guy. Indeed, I think once this guy gets a lawyer and realizes he’s going to bankrupt himself trying to fight the laws that he will agree to re-open the business.
The Supreme Court of Canada sucks and blows over this it appears. Thankfully the unions have unlimited funds because when you lose once, you can go back and do it again, with a different result!
2014
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/27/walmart-wrong-to-close-quebec-store-after-successful-union-drive-supreme-court-rules
2009
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2009/11/27/top_court_backs_walmart_over_union_store_closing.html
Tell me how this works again?
Richard, I’m quite interested: What law, exactly, says a business can’t decide to close because a union has won a first contract? Is this a provincial law, or a federal law?
People keep claiming that this is “against the law” but they never cite EXACTLY what law. Will you do us the honour?
Wtf, how many links do people have to provide you KevinB? There’s now been numerous links to the relevant case law. Perhaps you’ll honour us with clicking one, lol.
Again, I believe it’s all in the TIMING. He could let them
unionize, negotiate with them, and THEN close up shop due to
financial reasons, and probably be “legally” fine.
thank you, Steve, for providing the link.
From the DISSENTING Supremes:
” If s. 59 were to apply to a situation of store closure, the result would be that businesses could never prove a store closure was business as usual. It would also mean that the employer would be prevented from exercising its right to close its business during the s. 59 freeze period and yet could, immediately upon the conclusion of a collective agreement, the exercise of the right of lock out or strike, or the issuance of an arbitration award, close its business for any reason. Legislation cannot be interpreted to give rise to such absurd results.” (My emphasis added)
Which is clearly the case. If the owner just waits until the day after the first contract is signed, he can close the business without any recourse. So, I’d welcome the union, ask them what they want, write up the new contract, let them have a victory party, and announce the business is closing the next day. All the guy in Fort Frances is guilty of is bad timing. And the useless Supremes Maclaughlin, Abella, et al are guilty of interpreting legislation in a way that gives rise to absurdity.
Sorry, my system is slow. When I first clicked, there were no links.
However, the link that Steve from Rockwood provided shows you are COMPLETELY WRONG. The Supremes didn’t dis-allow the closing for any reason other than it happened during the “hands-off” period from the start of organizing to the first collective agreement. You CAN close your business at any time, for any reason, if it isn’t during one of these periods.
More:
http://www.nelligan.ca/e/thinktwicebeforeclosingsupremecourtofcanadaaddressesemployerrightsduringthecertificationprocess.cfm
“No, you don’t have the right to close your business because your workers decided to unionize. That is, without question, against the law in Canada”
I’ll take your word for it.
And if so, the law is an ass. An insidious ass.
But of course lawful doen’t mean just.
For it simply cannot be just to force someone to keep operating a business.
Mere common sense says this.
I cannot think of a better case for jury nullification.
Not sure if jury nullification was ever permitted in Canada. Was it?
I know it’s pretty well nullified in the FSA (fascist states of America) as persons handing out informational brochures on jury nullification have been charged with jury tampering.
I can think of no more powerful democratic reform than the institution of jury nullification.
Uhm, KevinB, THAT IS the period in which this guy closed his business.
Jury nullification? Not on your life.
The defence cannot tell a jury that it is their right to ignore the law if they think a conviction is unjust. Anyone who is on a jury just has to remember it.
Now this is fascinating, a true window into the progressive thieving mindset.
How can the courts, the government or the union force a person to stay in business?
Any wisdom here Richard?
Funnily enough when I was teenager a Local trucking company owner begged his union drivers to meet their contractual obligations or he would have to close his business
Instead they joined the national one day protest strike, his company was penalized for not delivering and he said enough already and shut the business down.
The union sued, they lost.
Does not matter how you cut it, you cannot enforce slavery on people willing to retire.
Only government can steal that which is not yet made.
Not going to get into the middle of this food fight, except for a couple of points – the opinion of the dissenting Supremes means bupkis. A question that always comes to my mind when a small company like this moves to unionize with a large union, is why? What has happened to the work environment that would cause, what should be a fairly happy shop (being small), to seek the assistance of a mega-union? The first place I look is to the management culture. Not infrequently, I see a management that has been “careless” in its treatment of the staff. Loose hiring practices, favoritism, nepotism, lack of integrity in fair and balanced treatment, etc. Employers that treat employees with respect and equanimity should have little trouble keeping a union out. If they can’t, they’re likely not being especially up-front with their employees.