The Amazon DXT4 warehouse in Laval, Que., on April 22.Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press
Barry Eidlin is an associate professor of sociology at McGill University.
On April 19, 2024, around 200 workers at the DXT4 Amazon warehouse in Laval, Que., announced their desire to form a union. On May 10, the Quebec Administrative Labour Tribunal certified the DXT4 workers’ union, which is affiliated with the Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN). This made DXT4 the first Amazon warehouse in Canada to unionize, and only the second in North America, after the JFK8 warehouse in Staten Island, New York.
In keeping with its reputation as a staunchly anti-union company, Amazon challenged the tribunal’s decision. The court has yet to rule on the matter. Amazon’s move was not surprising. More surprising was the company’s rationale for challenging the decision.
They did not contest the usual technicalities such as who is eligible to join or improper paperwork. Rather, they challenged the constitutionality of the entire Quebec union certification system.
Amazon’s lawyers argued that, because the certification process did not include a secret ballot election, it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by infringing on workers’ freedom of association.
Quebec, along with four other provinces and the federal jurisdiction, uses what is called a “card-check” method of union certification. Workers who want to join a union sign a membership card, and once a majority have signed, they can file for certification with the tribunal, as happened in Laval.
Amazon is used to the election system of certification that prevails in the U.S. There, workers who want to join a union sign an authorization card. Once they reach a certain threshold, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) organizes a secret ballot election, where workers vote either for or against joining a union. If a majority votes in favour, then the union is certified.
Certification elections might seem fair, but in the U.S. they are anything but. They create opportunities for employers to drag out the certification process, while so-called “employer free speech” rights give them free rein to engage in campaigns of threats and intimidation aimed at convincing workers to vote against unionizing.
As part of these campaigns, union supporters are routinely surveilled, interrogated, singled out for discipline and fired. An entire “union avoidance” industry has cropped up around the U.S. election certification system with high-priced consultants and lawyers advising companies on how best to manipulate the election system to their advantage. This is a major reason why only one in 10 U.S. workers is a union member, even though data suggest that roughly half of U.S. workers would join a union if given the opportunity.
Quebec’s card-check process is based on the notion that workers’ decision to unionize is theirs alone, and that employers have no right to interfere. Workers who want a union shouldn’t have to run into a gauntlet of employer intimidation to get one. This is in keeping with the Canadian Supreme Court’s 2015 decision that the right to join a union is a fundamental part of Canadians’ Charter-protected freedom of association.
In arguing that Quebec’s card-check system of union certification violates workers’ Charter-protected freedom of association, Amazon is basically claiming that they understand Canadian labour law and the Charter better than the Canadian Supreme Court. It would be laughable if Amazon weren’t a $2-trillion global behemoth.
Instead, we are faced with a situation where multinational corporations like Amazon feel entitled to rewrite laws they don’t like. We have moved from the old Silicon Valley adage of “ask for forgiveness, not permission” to something closer to “rewrite the laws to give yourself permission.”
Amazon, along with other companies such as Uber, Airbnb and Walmart, have grown accustomed to this way of operating in the U.S., spending millions on lawyers and lobbyists to rewrite laws to their liking. Other companies faced with union-organizing campaigns including SpaceX, Starbucks and Trader Joe’s are also challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. labour relations framework.
Now, with its challenge to the DXT4 union certification, Amazon is trying to export this business model to Canada. The effort is unlikely to succeed this time around, and is primarily aimed at delaying the unionization process. But the fact that they feel confident enough to try this approach is shocking. It matters, of course, for the future of workers’ rights, but also has troubling implications more broadly. After all, if Amazon can rewrite Canadian labour law to its liking, then what other laws are next?
