|
Labour - Secondary Picketing. Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers
In Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers (Ont CA, 2026) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a union's appeal, this brought against "injunctions obtained by Purolator Inc. ... restraining picketing at Purolator’s Ontario premises by members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (“CUPW”), who were at the time on strike against their employer, Canada Post Corporation (“Canada Post”)."
Here the court considers 'secondary picketing' as a labour law concept:[41] The Supreme Court abandoned the previous common law rule which treated secondary picketing as per se illegal conduct. Instead, the Supreme Court held that all picketing is permitted, whether “primary” or “secondary”, unless it “crosses the line and becomes tortious or criminal in nature”, as was the case in respect of the picketing of the homes of Pepsi-Cola’s management which amounted to disorderly conduct and intimidation: Pepsi-Cola, at paras. 66, 73, 117. In contrast, the picketing of retail outlets and the hotel where the replacement workers were staying was peaceful picketing which did not engage any tort or crime: Pepsi-Cola, at para. 116. This was expressive activity intended “first, to convey information about a labour dispute in order to gain support for its cause from other workers, clients of the struck employer, or the general public, and second, to put social and economic pressure on the employer and, often by extension, on its suppliers and clients”: Pepsi-Cola, at para. 27. Not only did such expressive activity engage freedom of expression, one of the highest constitutional values enshrined in s. 2(b) of the Charter, it also played a significant role in redressing “the imbalance between the employer’s economic power and the relative vulnerability of the individual worker”: Pepsi-Cola, at para. 34. . Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers
In Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers (Ont CA, 2025) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismisses an employer's motion to quash an appeal, this appeal from "an ex parte interim injunction ... which enjoined CUPW members from picketing at the Facility or any other of Purolator’s premises in the province of Ontario ...".
Here the court considers 'secondary picketing':[1] Secondary picketing is typically defined as picketing in support of a union that occurs at a location other than the premises of the union’s employer.[2] The motion now before this court depends on whether an injunction restraining secondary picketing is governed by s. 101 or s. 102 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (the “CJA”).
|
