Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 558 v Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd

Last updated
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 558 v Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd
Supreme court of Canada in summer.jpg
Hearing: October 31, 2000
Judgment: January 24, 2002
Citations [2002] 1 SCR 156, 208 DLR (4th) 385, 4 WWR 205, 90 CRR (2d) 189, 217 Sask R 22
Docket No. 27060
Rulingdismissed
Court membership
Reasons given
Unanimous reasons byMcLachlin CJ and LeBel J

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 558 v Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd, 2002 SCC 8, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on secondary picketing. The Court held that at common law, secondary picketing is legal so long as there is no criminal or tortious conduct.

Contents

Background

Employees of PepsiCo ("Pepsi"), organized by the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, in Saskatchewan went on strike. Unlike many other provinces, Saskatchewan did not have any secondary picketing legislation. So as part of their strike, the employees picketed at retail stores that sold Pepsi products and the homes of Pepsi's management. Pepsi successfully applied for an interlocutory injunction to prevent employees from picketing at the secondary locations. The employees appealed the injunction.

Ruling

The Court recognized picketing as freedom of expression, consistent with section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . Since the Court found picketing to be ingrained in the Charter, they declined to limit picketing based on location. The Court felt that the limited financial and human resources of labour unions would prevent the unchecked spread of picketing beyond the primary parties, with limited resources they felt it was unlikely the union would picket a location which has no possible impact on their labour dispute.

Pepsi had relied primarily on the Court of Appeal for Ontario decision Hersees of Woodstock Ltd v Goldstein (1963), 2 OR 81 (CA), which held that all secondary picketing was illegal. However, the Supreme Court overturned the decision but expressly forbade the picketing of the management's homes.

The Court's overall conclusion was that secondary picketing is legal so long as it is not tortious or criminal in nature and does not inflict "undue" hardship on the struck parties.

See also

Related Research Articles

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, sometimes referred to as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to temporarily override sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Strike action</span> Work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees to work

Strike action, also called labor strike, labour strike, or simply strike, is a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances. Strikes became common during the Industrial Revolution, when mass labor became important in factories and mines. As striking became a more common practice, governments were often pushed to act. When government intervention occurred, it was rarely neutral or amicable. Early strikes were often deemed unlawful conspiracies or anti-competitive cartel action and many were subject to massive legal repression by state police, federal military power, and federal courts. Many Western nations legalized striking under certain conditions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

<i>Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 v Dolphin Delivery Ltd</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580 v Dolphin Delivery Ltd, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573, is the seminal Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms decision that states that the Charter applies to governmental action, and to the common law except where matters are solely between private parties. Nevertheless, judges should interpret the common law in the light of the Charter.

<i>R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd</i> Landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision striking down a mandatory Sunday closing law

R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd(Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada v Big M Drug Mart Ltd) is a landmark decision by Supreme Court of Canada where the Court struck down the federal Lord's Day Act for violating section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This case had many firsts in constitutional law including being the first to interpret section 2.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Picketing</span> Form of protest, usually labor action

Picketing is a form of protest in which people congregate outside a place of work or location where an event is taking place. Often, this is done in an attempt to dissuade others from going in, but it can also be done to draw public attention to a cause. Picketers normally endeavor to be non-violent. It can have a number of aims, but is generally to put pressure on the party targeted to meet particular demands or cease operations. This pressure is achieved by harming the business through loss of customers and negative publicity, or by discouraging or preventing workers or customers from entering the site and thereby preventing the business from operating normally.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

<i>Borowski v Canada (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Borowski v Canada (AG), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342 is the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on mootness of an appealed legal issue. The Court declined to decide whether the fetus had a right to life under sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Had they found in favour of Borowski, laws against abortion in Canada would have to have been again enacted. Thus, along with the later Supreme Court case Tremblay v Daigle (1989), Borowski "closed off litigation opportunities" by anti-abortion activists.

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518 v KMart Canada Ltd, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1083 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court struck down a provision in the Labour Relations Code of British Columbia, which prohibited strikers from distributing fliers outside of their primary picketing area.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian labour law</span>

Canadian labour law is that body of law which regulates the rights, restrictions, and obligations of trade unions, workers, and employers in Canada.

<i>Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario</i> (Labour Relations Board) Supreme Court of Canada case

Cuddy Chicks Ltd v Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 SCR 5 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the jurisdiction of tribunals to hear constitutional challenges of the tribunal's enabling statute.

<i>British Columbia Government Employees Union v British Columbia (AG)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

British Columbia Government Employees' Union v British Columbia (AG), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 214 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to picket as a freedom of expression under section 2(b) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union</span> American trade union

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU) is a labor union in the United States. Founded in 1937, the RWDSU represents about 60,000 workers in a wide range of industries, including but not limited to retail, grocery stores, poultry processing, dairy processing, cereal processing, soda bottlers, bakeries, health care, hotels, manufacturing, public sector workers like crossing guards, sanitation, and highway workers, warehouses, building services, and distribution.

<i>Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v New Brunswick Liquor Corp</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v New Brunswick Liquor Corp, [1979] 2 SCR 227 is a leading case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. This case first developed the patent unreasonableness standard of review in Canadian administrative law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hate speech laws in Canada</span> Canadian laws relating to hate speech

Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the federal Criminal Code, as well as statutory provisions relating to hate publications in three provinces and one territory.

Collective action in the United Kingdom including the right to strike in UK labour law is the main support for collective bargaining. Although the right to strike has attained the status, since 1906, of a fundamental human right, protected in domestic case law, statute, the European Convention on Human Rights and international law, the rules in statute have generated significant litigation. The "right of workers to engage in a strike or other industrial action" is expressly recognised in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 section 180, and has been recognised repeatedly by the Court of Appeal as "a fundamental human right"., and the House of Lords.

Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court ruling that the passing out of anti-war leaflets at the Lloyd Center in Portland, Oregon, was an infringement on property rights. This differed from Marsh v. Alabama (1946) and Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza (1968) in that Marsh had the attributes of a municipality and Logan Valley related to picketing a particular store, while the current case, the distribution of leaflets, is unrelated to any activity in the property.

National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers v United Kingdom [2014] ECHR 366 is a UK labour law case, concerning collective action and the right to take secondary action under ECHR article 11. It held that UK restrictions cannot be questioned on human rights grounds.

Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v Saskatchewan [2015] 1 SCR 245 is a Canadian labour law case on the right to strike.

Goldfinger v. Feintuch was a 1936/1937 New York court case that set a legal precedent in the area of labor law, namely that union members were free to peacefully protest, at the retail location, the retail sale of wholesale products that were manufactured by non-union employees.

Emporium Capwell v. Western Addition, 420 U.S. 50 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case. The court reversed and remanded the Court of Appeals ruling. The Supreme Court ruled on the basis of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA).