Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

CANADA

CANADA Picketing and leafleting ― distibuting leaflets at secondary sites during labour dispute ― labour relations code prohibiting picketing at secondary sites ― whether definition of picketing-leafleting infringes freedom of expression ― if so, whether infringement justifiable HEADNOTES Facts During a labour dispute with two KMart stores, members of the appellant union distributed leaflets at other KMart stores (the "secondary sites"). They handed out two types of leaflet, describing KMart's alleged unfair practices and urging customers to shop elsewhere. The distribution of leaflets did not interfere with employees at the secondary sites nor was there any indication that it interfered with the delivery of supplies. The activity was carried out peacefully and it did not impede public access to the stores. Neither was there any evidence of verbal or physical intimidation. The evidence did indicate that as a result of the distribution of leaflets some customers appeared con- fused and a small number appeared to turn away. The Industrial Relations Council (which became the Labour Relations Board) ordered the union to refrain from picketing at the secondary sites. In written reasons for the order the Board rejected the union's argument that the statutory definition of "pick- eting" was unconstitutional http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Labour Law Reports Online Brill

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/canada-0dQ7i1Ayyi

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
Copyright © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
eISSN
2211-6028
DOI
10.1163/221160299X00477
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Picketing and leafleting ― distibuting leaflets at secondary sites during labour dispute ― labour relations code prohibiting picketing at secondary sites ― whether definition of picketing-leafleting infringes freedom of expression ― if so, whether infringement justifiable HEADNOTES Facts During a labour dispute with two KMart stores, members of the appellant union distributed leaflets at other KMart stores (the "secondary sites"). They handed out two types of leaflet, describing KMart's alleged unfair practices and urging customers to shop elsewhere. The distribution of leaflets did not interfere with employees at the secondary sites nor was there any indication that it interfered with the delivery of supplies. The activity was carried out peacefully and it did not impede public access to the stores. Neither was there any evidence of verbal or physical intimidation. The evidence did indicate that as a result of the distribution of leaflets some customers appeared con- fused and a small number appeared to turn away. The Industrial Relations Council (which became the Labour Relations Board) ordered the union to refrain from picketing at the secondary sites. In written reasons for the order the Board rejected the union's argument that the statutory definition of "pick- eting" was unconstitutional

Journal

International Labour Law Reports OnlineBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1998

There are no references for this article.