Unifor asks higher court to overturn injunction

REGINA The union representing locked-out Co-op Refinery workers argued its members’ Charter rights to freedom of expression and association were violated by an injunction restricting pickets’ impeding of traffic.

On Monday, counsel for Unifor Local 594 and Consumers’ Co-operative Refineries Limited (CCRL) argued the matter before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, each side stating its case pertaining to a December ruling by Regina Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Janet Mcmurtry. Mcmurtry had heard the application in Chambers, the CCRL taking issue with the manner in which Unifor was carrying out its picketing and each side claiming the other had used improper tactics.

Among CCRL’S claims was that Unifor was improperly holding up traffic — such as truck drivers and replacement workers — coming into and leaving Co-op property.

Mcmurtry found issues on both sides, but said Unifor could continue to hold up traffic as a means of disseminating its message — within limits. In an interim order, she placed a five-minute restriction on that time. Following further argument on the matter, she amended the maximum time allowed to 10 minutes, but added a condition that Unifor members would have to allow a person to carry on prior to the 10 minutes if the person “indicates a desire to proceed.”

During Monday’s hearing, Unifor lawyers Crystal Norbeck and Rick Engel argued Mcmurtry erred by stepping on union members’ rights to freedom of expression and association. The union argued Mcmurtry’s balancing of those rights against CCRL’S property rights created a situation in which members were too heavily restricted in their rights to make their points heard.

Union lawyers argued the judge’s addition of the clause allowing people to carry on without listening prevents Unifor members from passing along their message and attempting to garner support. The union further argued any delay must be enough to allow members to communicate their message, exert “economic pressure” and attempt to dissuade people from crossing picket lines.

“This doesn’t override the interests of private property or access to private property altogether,” Engel argued, “it just simply means that that right has to give way to more ground when you’re trying to reach the balance.”

Unifor argued the wording of the injunction makes it difficult for members to exercise their rights as those attempting to enter the complex are paid by Co-op and therefore aren’t likely to stay and listen if given the choice.

“That undermines the balance the court was trying to achieve in the 10-minute delay in the first place,” Engel argued.

Counsel for CCRL — Eileen Libbey and Jodi Wildeman — argued there is no error in Mcmurtry’s decision that calls for interference by the upper court.

While Unifor didn’t agree its members used wrongful tactics like intimidation, CCRL claims the union did — thereby moving beyond what are permissible boundaries to picketing activity.

“It must not amount to unlawful, tortious or criminal activity,” Wildeman argued.

The CCRL argued Mcmurtry’s decision adequately took union members’ Charter rights into account and that Unifor is now asking the appeal court to adjust the line too far in the union’s favour.

And while union members have a right to state their message, the CCRL argued members cannot force people to listen or engage.

The matter was heard via video. Justices Georgina Jackson, Ralph Ottenbreit and Jeff Kalmakoff reserved decision.