Saskatchewan employer couldn’t prove serious harm from picketing, leaflets on outside of property
The Saskatchewan Court of King’s Bench has denied an employer’s application for an injunction against a union’ picketing and distribution of leaflets on the edges of its property during a lockout.
Sasco Developments is a company that operates hotels in Saskatoon and Moose Jaw, Sask, named Heritage Inn. Its employees at both locations are unionized and were without a valid collective agreement since 2019, as collective bargaining was interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Sasco and the union resumed negotiating in early 2023, but talks broke down and Sasco notified the union that it would lock out bargaining unit members on Sept. 7. At this point, the collective agreement no longer applied, but Sasco offered employees contracts to keep working through the lockout.
The lockout began on the morning of Sept. 7 and the union immediately started picketing the two hotels. It also distributed leaflets at both locations that set out its position in the labour dispute. Many of the leaflets were distributed on hotel property and were aimed at employees who opted to accept the contracts to work directly for Sasco.
No trespassing to union members
Sasco’s legal counsel sent an email to the union stating that union members were not to trespass on hotel property. However, it claimed that picketers went onto its property and blocked entrances to the hotel parking lots. It also claimed that it received customer complaints about the picketing, including a note about picketers blocking cars and intimidating anyone staying at the hotel.
According to the company, some deliveries were not made to the hotels as picketers blocked access to the properties.
Sasco sought an injunction against the union relating to both the picketing and the leafletting on hotel property, including blocking the entrance to the parking lots with vehicles or other means and refusing access to the property to anyone. It provided the court with photographs of picketers on hotel property and at the parking lot entrances.
The union acknowledged that its picketers appeared in some of the photos, but it maintained that none of them showed anyone blocking traffic. In addition, picketing signs in the photo were beside the road but there was no indication of them being on hotel property, it said.
‘Rough and tumble’ picketing
The court noted that labour disputes, including picket lines, can “have rough and tumble characteristics” due to the emotions and stakes involved. However, not all picketing that inconveniences the employer and its customers should be barred – there just should be no intimidation or threats involved, the court said.
Pointing to jurisprudence that found a balance between union members’ rights and the employer’s rights, the court found that the employer should have access to its property while at the same time there can be some inconvenience and economic harm while picketers convey their message.
“Complete blockades will not be permitted,” said the court. “Short of that, there exists a continuum that must be evaluated case by case as to whether the union’s conduct should be enjoined.”
The court found that Sasco’s evidence of customer complaints was vague and non-specific, the photos weren’t clear in depicting picketers trespassing without clear property lines, and the company address whether deliveries could be or were made later or any negative impact of failed deliveries on the business. Other than one Moose Jaw picketer who walked into the parking lot while on the phone, there was no clear evidence of picketers on hotel property, the court said.
No evidence of harm from picketing
The weakness of the evidence regarding union trespassing was suspect, given that the lockout had been going for a couple of months and Sasco had access to security footage from multiple cameras, said the court. As a result, there was no serious issue to be tried connected to picketing, the court ruled, adding that there was also no evidence of irreparable harm that would require an injunction.
As for the leaflets, Sasco claimed that they both induced workers into breach of contract and trespassed on its property. However, there was no evidence of any signed contracts or that any workers who signed direct contracts missed any work – and therefore no evidence of any impact on Sasco, the court said.
The court also found that there was “little doubt” that the leaflets were distributed on company property and Sasco established a serious issue to be tried related to trespassing. However, the court also found that there was no evidence of a serious impact to Sasco or that the leafletting would spread from the exterior of the property to inside the hotels. In addition, the potential harm to the union of an injunction preventing it from communicating its message could be serious and affect their negotiating position, said the court, adding that the balance of interests applied here as well.
The court noted that if the union activity escalated, then Sasco could apply again for an injunction. However, at this point an injunction against the union’s picketing and distributing of leaflets outside the hotels was not appropriate, said the court.
