Wal-Mart's anti-union strategy

Toronto Star, Feb. 16, 2005

ROY ADAMS

Last week, Wal-Mart announced it was shutting down its recently unionized store in Jonquière, Quebec. Its stated reason for doing so was that the store was simply not profitable. But the closing fits in with a larger pattern of behaviour. For several years Wal-Mart has aggressively pursued an anti-union strategy.

Not long ago, a butcher department in Texas certified a bargaining agent under U.S. law. Within weeks the company shut down the department and outsourced meat-cutting. Internal company documents indicate that remaining union free is a priority objective.

Many labour experts believe Wal-Mart's plan in closing the Jonquière store and the unit in Texas is to send a signal to other employees who might contemplate exercising their right to organize that doing so is useless and, indeed, dysfunctional.
Wal-Mart's North American strategy is based on the proposition that unless a majority of relevant employees opt for a government-certified bargaining agent, it has no obligation to deal with any employee representatives. According to international human rights standards, however, all employees have the right to organize.

Employers, in turn, have a responsibility to recognize and deal with those associations with a view toward working out amicably issues in dispute whether or not a majority of employees are members.

States may establish schemes for certifying exclusive agents but where there is no exclusive agent, the employer's duty is to recognize all legitimate employee associations. The proper behaviour for the responsible and ethical employer is to accept and work with employee associations, not to aggressively dissuade employees from exercising their basic human rights.

In 1998, with the approval of all of the provinces, the Canadian government endorsed the International Labour Organization's Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

According to that document, all member states have a responsibility to promote the international principles outlined above and ensure that they are respected by all. In addition, the Supreme Court, in its recent Dunmore v. Ontario decision, found that the rights of all workers to organize and make representations to their employers are constitutionally protected.

The court also strongly suggested that, consistent with ILO principles, employers have a duty to recognize and deal with those representatives regardless of majority status.

I recently sent a letter to ministers of labour across the country. None (except for Ontario) had taken steps to introduce regimes consistent with the vision inherent in global and constitutional standards under which employees might easily exercise their right to representation.

Although Canada promised in 1998 to promote collective bargaining with a view toward making it accessible to the largest number of working people, none of the ministers who responded to my inquiry had set targets to expand bargaining coverage. Since the promise was made, collective bargaining coverage has declined, rather than expanded.

Without conscious design, we have fallen into a set of labour relations practices that are offensive to the notion of good labour relations promoted by the ILO and practised in most developed countries.

Approximately 70 per cent to 80 per cent of European workers have some form of employment representation and aggressive anti-unionism is generally not tolerated.
In Canada, on the other hand, nearly 70 per cent of workers are systemically excluded from decision-making critical to their welfare.

Our employment relations system is already among the least democratic in the developed world and, if we continue to allow companies like Wal-Mart to engage in practices designed to thwart the exercise of fundamental rights, we shall continue to renege on our international obligations.

We will move further away from the democratic ideals we theoretically celebrate.

Roy J. Adams is professor emeritus, DeGroote School of Business, at McMaster University.