Allsco Building Products Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1288P, (1999) 216 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (SCC)

• Judge: Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Major and Binnie, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 09, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 216 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (SCC);245 NR 67;[1999] SCJ No 45 (QL);176 DLR (4th) 647;216 NBR (2d) 1;[1999] 2 SCR 1136;66 CRR (2d) 1;1999 CanLII 651 (SCC)

Allsco Building Products v. UFCW (1999), 216 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (SCC);

    216 R.N.-B.(2e) 1; 552 A.P.R. 1

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [1999] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. SE.001

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1288P (appellant) v. Allsco Building Products Ltd., Blacksmith Holdings Ltd. carrying on business as Wayside Four Seasons, Lumply Ltd., Maple Leaf Homes Inc. and Atlantic Home Improvements Ltd. (respondents) and the Attorney General for New Brunswick, the Attorney General of British Columbia, the Retail Council of Canada, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Cana­dian Civil Liberties Association and Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd. (interveners)

(26203)

Indexed As: Allsco Building Products Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1288P

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Major and Binnie, JJ.

September 9, 1999.

Summary:

Allsco was a manufacturer of vinyl win­dows, doors, etc. and a distributor of vinyl siding. In 1996, Allsco commenced a legal lock out of its employees, members of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1288P. Allsco employees peacefully distributed leaflets outside the premises of other companies which distrib­uted Allsco products or used them to manu­facture other products. Allsco and the other companies applied for a dec­laration that the union engaged in secondary picketing con­trary to s. 104 of the Industrial Relations Act and for an order making per­manent an earlier interlocutory injunction prohibiting picketing at the other companies' premises. The union alleged that the activity was not picketing and, alternatively, that it was protected by the Charter.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, in a decision reported 187 N.B.R.(2d) 241; 478 A.P.R. 241, granted the relief sought by Allsco et al. The "leafleting" was illegal secondary picketing prohibited by s. 104 of the Industrial Rela­tions Act. Section 104 was justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The union appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 190 N.B.R.(2d) 96; 484 A.P.R. 96, dismissed the appeal. The union appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal. The court held that s. 104(2) did not prohibit peaceful distribution of leaflets. The court held that it was not necessary to answer the constitutional questions raised in the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1850

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Picketing - Section 104(2) of the Industrial Relations Act provided that all forms of persuasion or attempts to persuade by a union or its members that were aimed at preventing members of the public from purchasing an employer's products were proscribed, subject to s. 104(1), which permitted picketing a pri­mary employer's premises - Section 5(4) authorized unions and members to express their views freely, provided the manner chosen to express those views was not coercive, intimidating, threatening or in­tended to have an undue influence upon any person - The Supreme Court of Can­ada held that the word "per­suade" in s. 104(2) should be interpreted narrowly to mean "persuasion that is coer­cive, intimi­dating, threatening or in­tended to cause undue influence" - There­fore, s. 104(2) did not prohibit peaceful distribu­tion of leaflets by union­ized employees at second­ary sites - This interpre­tation did not infringe upon the freedom of express­ion in s. 2(b) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 1852.1

Freedom of speech or expression - Limi­tations on - Labour legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1850 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8318

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Application - Statutory inter­pretation - Preference to Charter values - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1850 ].

Labour Law - Topic 8103

Industrial relations - Picketing - General principles - What constitutes illegal pick­eting - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1850 ].

Labour Law - Topic 8164

Industrial relations - Picketing - Right to picket - Secondary picketing - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1850 ].

Statutes - Topic 1411

Interpretation - Construction where mean­ing is not plain - Avoidance of conflict with Charter - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1850 ].

Words and Phrases

Persuade - The Supreme Court of Canada narrowly interpreted the word "per­suade" in s. 104(2) of the Indus­trial Rela­tions Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-4, to mean "persuasion that is coer­cive, intimi­dating, threatening or in­tended to cause undue influence" - See paragraph 27.

Cases Noticed:

United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518 v. KMart Canada Ltd. et al. (1999), 245 N.R. 1; 128 B.C.A.C. 1; 208 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 1].

O.K. Economy Stores v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 454 et al. (1994), 123 Sask.R. 245; 74 W.A.C. 245; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 345 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83, refd to. [para. 13].

K Mart Canada Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1518 (1996), 14 B.C.L.R.(3d) 162 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 14].

Da­vidson v. Slaight Communi­cations Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183, refd to. [para. 26].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 554; 149 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 2(b) [para. 9].

Industrial Relations Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-4, sect. 5(4), sect. 104 [para. 9].

Counsel:

David M. Brown, Q.C., and James E. Stanley, for the appellant;

David W. Clark and Lynn M. Walsworth, for the respondents;

Gabriel Bourgeois, for the intervener, the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

George H. Copley, Q.C., for the inter­ven­er, the Attorney General of Brit­ish Columbia;

John R. Sproat, for the intervener, the Retail Council of Canada;

Frank Addario, Steven M. Barrett and Vanessa Payne, for the intervener, the Canadian Labour Congress;

William B. Goss, Q.C., for the intervener, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association;

John B. Laskin and Trevor C. W. Farrow, for the intervener the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

R.G. Richards, Q.C., for the intervener, Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd. (written submissions only).

Solicitors of Record:

Brown MacGillivray Stanley, Saint John, New Brunswick, for the appellant;

Clark & Company, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the respondents;

Gabriel Bourgeois and J. Danie Roy, Fred­ericton, New Brunswick, for the inter­vener, the Attorney General for New Brunswick;

George H. Copley and Jennifer Button, for the intervener, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Miller Thomson, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Retail Council of Canada;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Labour Congress;

Petrie Richmond Goss, Fredericton, New Brunswick, for the intervener, the Cana­dian Manufacturers' Association;

Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association;

MacPherson Leslie & Tyerman, Regina, Saskatchewan, for the intervener Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd.

This appeal was heard on February 15, 1999, by Lamer, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Major and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On September 9, 1999, Iacobucci, J., delivered the following judgment for the court in both official languages.