• authored by globalize_this
  • published Thu, Nov 1, 2001

A&P/Barn Fruit Market Closings


HAMILTON - A &P Canada is closing its Barn Fruit Market store in Burlington and other area closings may follow.

As many as 100 full- and part-time jobs are affected by the Burlington shutdown, which will come in December.


The reports come seven months after an official in The Barn Markets division of A&P Canada said the Barn operation would grow in this area. A&P Canada acquired the seven-store chain in September 1999 in a deal with George Love and other members of the Barn team.

Merry Christmas, folks - you're out of a job!

The Toronto Star story (11/01/01) is linked here: At least one Barn store closing in Burlington

Particularly perplexing to me seems to be this quote:



Employees at the Burlington store are members of the United Food and Commercial Workers union. But other Barn stores that were formerly A&P properties are not unionized. That means Burlington employees with seniority cannot ``bump'' workers in the non-union Barn stores.

I was under the impression that UFCW did a voluntary recognition deal for all the Barn stores when A&P bought the chain two years ago. Anyone know what's going on here?

EDIT: Fixed the link

[ 11-01-2001: Message edited by: globalize_this ]

  • posted by siggy
  • Thu, Nov 1, 2001 6:00pm

They are only closing the UNION store? Isn't that a bit (alot) odd?
Refresh me! The benefit of being union is?

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Nov 2, 2001 7:02am

What surprises me is that there were any non-union stores in Burlington. How could all those workers resist the benefits of belonging to the UFCW? If the UFCW was "all that" why the hell couldn't they organize the non-union stores?

Hey, maybe for the same reason Local 1518 couldn't organize some Westfair Extra Foods stores, so they gave them to Local 777. Maybe it's the same reason Local 777 gets a so many other bargaining units that fall within Local 1518's jurisdiction.

Y'all have to understand, in a voluntary "wreck" agreement, the union takes what the employer offers, and the employer ain't goin' ta offer anthing that's not in its best interest.

[ 11-02-2001: Message edited by: weiser ]

  • posted by globalize_this
  • Fri, Nov 2, 2001 11:49am


But other Barn stores that were formerly A&P properties are not unionized.

Even setting aside supposed "voluntary wreck", shouldn't the UFCW at least have had successor rights on former A&P properties? If so, why would the new Barn stores not be union?

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Fri, Nov 2, 2001 12:20pm

The union would have had to apply for successor rights when the new stores opened. If they didn't - at least within a reasonable period of time - they'd miss the boat. Among some of the retail employers what would sometimes happen is that the new owners would let the store sit closed for a period of a few months and then open under their new banner in the hope that the passage of time would, in itself, be enough to defeat an application for successor rights. Off the top of my head I think there have been cases where employers were successful with this strategy. There are also cases where it hasn't. Then again, the union may have decided to forego making an application for various reasons. There are no good reasons, in my opinion, for doing this but it does go on.

  • posted by globalize_this
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 5:58pm

More Barn store closings: The Barn closes three stores, cuts 480 jobs



About 480 grocery store workers were told yesterday their jobs were disappearing as A&P announced it was closing three of its Barn grocery stores in Hamilton and its Burlington warehouse. The stores at Hess Street and York Boulevard and Barton Street and Kenora Avenue will shut their doors within the next three months and The Barn on Rymal Road will be converted to a Food Basics. The company will also close G. A. Love Foods, its Burlington wholesale distribution centre, shifting all distribution to an upgraded central warehouse in Toronto.

Hmm. Sound similar to what we were talking about over here on this thread?

Note that:


In all, the changes will affect 480 employees. Brummer said there might be work for some within the company, but barring any special union protection, they would have to reapply for a position.

So what sort of "special union protection" is there?



A representative from the United Food and Commercial Workers union could not be reached for comment.

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: globalize_this ]

  • posted by weiser
  • Fri, Jan 11, 2002 6:25pm

I wonder if they tried contacting Bill Reno? Oh, I know, they probably e-mailed the Canadian Director, but as we all know the Canadian Director does not answer e-mails. Too dangerous, y'know.

  • posted by globalize_this
  • Tue, Jan 22, 2002 4:00pm

Found this little tidbit of information on (my emphasis added):



A&P Closes Three Barn Stores - Jan 18th, 2002

On Thursday January 10, A&P announced to approximately 340 Local 175 members that they would be closing 3 of the original Barn Market grocery stores in Hamilton.

In light of single store seniority Local 175 negotiated an enhanced severance package for both full and part-time members who will be affected by the closings. The severance package will be three times greater than what is required under the Employment Standards Act (ESA), with no minimum requirements. For example under the provisions of the ESA, persons who lose their jobs must have a minimum of 5 years service in order to be paid one-week severance for every year worked up to a maximum of 26 weeks. Barn store workers severance will also not be capped at 26 weeks. Through our negotiations A&P has also committed to providing preferential hiring upon need at other A&P banners (i.e., A&P, Food Basics, Dominion)

At The Rymal Road location, which is scheduled for a conversion to a Food Basics store, the Local Union has negotiated 5 full-time opportunities by seniority to be carried into the new Food Basics location. All remaining employees would be entitled to opportunities at the new Food Basics store and still be entitled to a severance package of 1.5 times their years of service.

"In addition to negotiating a severance package for the members, Local 175 will be setting up an Employment Adjustment Committee ensuring those members are aware of all the resources and programs are available to them. We will continue to work for them ensuring that other employment opportunities will be available for them." said Local 175 President Wayne Hanley.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought a grocery store was a grocery store.

Here we have the same company (A&P), at the same location, bargaining with the same union, "closing" a grocery store and then reopening it with a different name and layout. How come all of a sudden the collective agreement is void and the workers lose their jobs (well, except for 5 of them)?

Anyone know what the UFCW would be entitled to if it tried to use even its minimum Ontario successor rights?

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: globalize_this ]

  • posted by weiser
  • Tue, Jan 22, 2002 4:54pm

It's really sick that a union brags about how good a severance negotiator it is rather than what a good job security negotiator it is.

I guess job security for senior employees is for chumps, the real prize is a swell severance cheque. The longer you work the bigger your severance cheque--capped of course.

  • posted by globalize_this
  • Tue, Jan 22, 2002 5:26pm

Well, actually weiser, they're bragging that their severance package isn't capped. Although you still make a good point.

Seriously, though, I would really appreciate if someone who knows the law could explain this to me. Can an employer get out of a collective agreement just by changing the name of their business? Or did they buy their way out of the deal with the severance package?

It is a pretty good package, but even if you're one of the folks who gets a big payout, you're still stuck looking for a new job at the end. I really don't understand how this is such a great deal for the workers. Maybe "i have an opinion," our friend from this thread could enlighten me?

He did mention how much he liked this settlement over here. I'd really like to talk about this.

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: globalize_this ]

  • posted by siggy
  • Tue, Jan 22, 2002 5:29pm


Barn store workers severance will also not be capped at 26 weeks.

For all who reads this they might believe there is no cap and no limit. But because it does not specify it takes the lie off 'em when the cap is applied at 27 or 28?

  • posted by weiser
  • Tue, Jan 22, 2002 5:52pm

globalize_this, you may find the following link somewhat helpful. Yet again, it might create more questions: Successorship in Ontario

  • posted by Scott Mcpherson
  • Tue, Jan 22, 2002 6:12pm

Two questions....

1: I tried the link. What is up with that rap crap you hear when you log on? Unions getting stronger? ya... ok.

2: how do you guys make these links? Can somebody link the 175 "reasons to join the UFCW" page for me?

  • posted by siggy
  • Tue, Jan 22, 2002 7:50pm

Keeping with the 175 'flash rap crap' theme, here you go Scott .. !!member advantages

Why Join

  • posted by remote viewer
  • Wed, Jan 23, 2002 2:39pm

The only thing you need to do now siggy is make it spew rhetoric. Hey, we could do a machine head rap tune. Anybody wanna give it a try?

But seriously, on the subject of successor's rights, way back in the 80's there were a number of landmark rulings where the OLRB heard the employers' arguments and said "no sale". The unions were beginning to generate case law that could have really helped them but unfortunately, the companies found a carrot to dangle in front of them and they got distracted (by offers of voluntary recognition and thousands of new members), and some of them took the bait.

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: remote viewer ]

  • posted by siggy
  • Wed, Jan 23, 2002 7:01pm


The only thing you need to do now siggy is make it spew rhetoric

When you click on it, it does spew rhetoric!

[ 01-23-2002: Message edited by: siggy ]

© 2023 Members for Democracy