Written by David Doorey, Professor of Work Law, York University
Unifor was certified as the representative of employees at an Amazon warehouse in Delta, BC in July 2025. That certification was a result of a remedial order by the BCLRB following a finding that Amazon committed multiple illegal acts in an effort to defeat employees’ attempts to unionize, including deliberately flooding the employee list with artificial employees. The Board ruled that “Amazon’s lengthly and pervasive anti-union campaign” meant a certification vote would not ascertain the true wishes of the employees.
Amazon then broke the law again when deviated from its normal practice and granted raises to all worksites in the region EXCEPT the one unionized warehouse.
Then, in a decision released in early August, the BCRLB ruled that collective bargaining towards a first collective agreement was stalled by Amazon’s persistent pattern of illegal behaviour since the period of the organizing campaign, justifying the Board ordering First Contract Arbitration. Long time BC arbitrator Jim Dorsey has been appointed to hear arguments and then decide the first collective agreement.
For fans of the absurd, I’d like to point out a fun passage in the latest Board ruling in which Amazon argues that the importance of the “fundamental right to strike” weighs against binding arbitration in all but the most egregious cases of unfair labour practices (see attached). The spectacle of one of the world’s most anti-union corporations arguing for the fundamental importance of the right to strike is surely something to behold.
So where do we stand now?
The Labour Board has ordered first contract arbitration. There is also an application for decertification before the Board. That application was filed by some employees who claim they do not want Unifor to represent them. the application was filed in a “timely” manner, meaning that it was filed more than 12 months after the union was certified (see Section 33(3) of the BC Labour Relations Code). A vote was taken by the Board but the ballot box was sealed pending arguments before the Board about whether the decertification application should be permitted to move forward in light of the many illegal acts of Amazon which would clearly demonstrate to any reasonable employee that their employer is strongly opposed to operating under a collective agreement.
Amazon is arguing that the decertification application should be dealt with before first contract arbitration begins. Unifor is arguing that the employer’s pattern of illegal behaviour should cause the Board to dismiss the decertification application. That matter will need to be decided by the Board at some point.
In the meantime, it appears that the arbitration will proceed. Therefore, it’s possible that the arbitrator could issue his award and then afterwards the Board could find that the decertification application should proceed. If the workers voted to decertify the union, then Unifor’s certification would be terminated and the collective agreement would be voided.
Or, the Board could rule that the decertification application is tainted by the employer’s unlawful acts and dismiss it. In that case, Amazon would find itself bound by a first collective agreement. The question then is how Amazon would react to that state of affairs. Would it behave responsibly and just work with Unifor in administering the new collective agreement? Maybe. Or, would it close the warehouse like Walmart did in Quebec to avoid a collective agreement?
Closing the store to avoid a collective agreement and firing workers would be a clear and obvious violation of the BC Labour Relations Code, which prohibits employers from punishing workers who unionize. However, we have seen these big rogue American corporations flaunt labour laws in Canada and all over the world many times, so we can’t assume that the company will show any respect for Canadian law. Amazon certainly hasn’t respected BC laws so far. We’ll keep a close eye on this case.
DD