I'm not sure about you, but this story seems very strange to us. Essentially a court in Canada has ruled that because labor laws have changed since Walmart workers legally won union representation, those workers are no longer allowed to be represented by a union.

Here's the longer version. Back in April 2004, workers at a Walmart store in Weyburn, Canada voted to allow a union to represent them. Walmart, of course, stalled and threw up every road block they could. Then this year, when it looked like Walmart couldn't stall anymore, they made a desperate last minute attempt to block the union, arguing to the Labor Relations Board that because labor laws had changed the way workers vote on union representation, the certification years earlier should be illegitimate. Let me say that again so it sinks in: Walmart argued that because it had stalled for years and the laws happened to change while it was stalling, the workers should pay the penalty for Walmart dragging its feet. The Labor Relations Board rejected Walmart's absurd argument and granted the workers union representation.

And now, a court ruling has overturned the Labor Relations Board decision. Why, you might ask? Well we're not totally sure. Here's what the article says,

""The board erred in law," in not ordering a vote, Foley said, in his written judgment.

While declaring the certification of the Weyburn union to be void, Foley left the door open to having a union certified at the Weyburn Wal-Mart if a majority of workers support it in a secret ballot.

"The application for certification shall be remitted back to the Board for determination in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Union Act," Foley said."

We're pretty unconvinced by that argument. Why should a perfectly legal unionization drive become void because labor laws changed? It's like saying "well, the laws changed, so Franklin Roosevelt wasn't really the President for four terms...just two like the law says now."

What do you think of the ruling?