Company says it complied with federal, provincial law — despite closure after unionization
A Quebec labour tribunal is currently examining whether Amazon violated workers' rights when it closed seven warehouses and laid off thousands of employees just hours after a unionization campaign reached certification.
The case carries significant implications for how employers manage union organizing efforts.
The tribunal began hearing witnesses in the case against Amazon in September, with proceedings expected to continue through 2026. There will be another series of hearings in April, May and June 2026, where the parties will present evidence, question witnesses and argue the case, according to the CBC.
So far, Jasmin Begagic, president of Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, has been the only person to testify, and he has maintained that the company's return to a third-party delivery model is less expensive than having its own fulfillment centres, said the article.
Amazon insists the closure decision was based purely on operational efficiency and cost reduction, not in response to unionization.
What employers need to know about burden of proof
From an HR and legal perspective, this case establishes important precedent about how companies must document business decisions made around union activity. Legal experts note that the burden of proof falls squarely on the employer.
Andrea Talarico, assistant professor at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law, told the CBC that during the labour tribunal hearings, it will be up to Amazon to prove it did not violate Section 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects "freedom of association" and has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to cover unionization and certain forms of collective bargaining.
The complaint against Amazon was filed under Section 12 of the Quebec labour code, claiming that the company shut down its Quebec operation in response to the formation of the union.
Timeline of events triggering legal action
On May 10, 2024, the Administrative Labour Tribunal determined that the union represented the majority of workers at Amazon's Laval warehouse, certifying "the first — and only — Amazon union in Canada,” according to the CSN.
Following certification, the parties began negotiating, but soon the union requested the assistance of the Quebec Ministry of Labour's conciliation service at the bargaining table. By December 2024, the Quebec government mediator advised that "if neither party moves from its position, he will have no choice but to report the impasse" and that arbitration could be imposed, said the union.
On Jan. 22, 2025, a final bargaining session was scheduled between Amazon and the union. But then Amazon's lawyers informed the union negotiators that all 300 DXT4 employees had been laid off and Amazon was closing its seven warehouses and outsourcing all of its Quebec operations, said CSN.
Spokesperson Steve Kelly told the CBC that the decision wasn’t made lightly, and the company provided the departing employees up to 14 weeks’ pay after facilities closed, as well as transitional benefits, such as job placement resources.
"Throughout this process, we’ve complied and will continue to comply with all applicable federal and provincial law.”
Implications for Amazon in Quebec
Before the closure, there had already been legal findings against Amazon regarding its labour practices at Quebec facilities. In July 2024, an Administrative Labour Tribunal judge ordered the company to remove and destroy the anti-union posters at another facility, ruling that the messages "constitute warnings to employees about sensitive issues and are clearly likely to alarm them about the possible consequences of joining a union,” said the CSN.
The tribunal ordered Amazon to pay the union $30,000 in moral and punitive damages.
Talarico explained to the CBC that even if the tribunal rules against Amazon, "forcing it to reopen isn't really an option,” but other sanctions are possible, such as fines or sanctions.
The CSN has framed the case as an important enforcement mechanism for labour law. CSN president Caroline Senneville stated that "a strong victory in this case will cost Amazon financially, and send out a warning to employers that it is easier to work with unions than fight them.”
This case echoes an earlier high-profile situation involving a major retailer: Wal-Mart Canada's 2005 decision to close a store in Jonquière, Que., six months after the workers won union certification.
The Wal-Mart workers' union won its second attempt at legal action in 2014 when the Supreme Court ruled that the employees who were terminated when the store was closed were entitled to compensation.
