By Isaac Phan Nay | The Tyee
Amazon’s efforts to block an organizing drive at its Delta warehouse were so unfair that the union should be automatically certified, Unifor Local 114 told the BC Labour Relations Board last week.
The union has been trying to organize the 700-worker distribution centre since June 2023 and faced a concerted effort by the corporation to thwart its efforts.
Last spring, Unifor believed it was close to having enough support to succeed.
But the union says the company hired a flood of seasonal workers to dilute pro-union sentiment.
It also alleges Amazon led an anti-union campaign that included intimidation by managers and the bombardment of employees with anti-union messaging, including phone calls to their homes.
Amazon’s lawyers told the labour board the hiring of seasonal workers was justified by the volume of orders.
Its lawyers said the company did communicate with employees about organizing, but it only shared facts about unionizing and did not mislead, intimidate or coerce employees not to join.
During closing arguments in the five-week labour board hearing, lawyers for both sides argued over whether Amazon’s actions violated the B.C. labour code, which sets ground rules for unions and companies during organizing drives.
The code gives the labour board the power to order automatic certification if the employer illegally interferes with an organizing drive.
The board will now consider and rule on the union’s application.
If the union succeeds, the centre will become Canada’s only unionized Amazon warehouse. Workers at a Quebec distribution centre organized and the company subsequently shut down its seven centres in the province and laid off thousands of workers.
According to the union’s complaint, Unifor Local 114 started its organizing drive at the Delta warehouse in June 2023. Employees started signing membership cards at the warehouse that October. The union estimated the warehouse had about 575 employees.
If at least 45 per cent of a potential bargaining unit signs union cards, the board will order the workplace to vote on unionizing. If at least 55 per cent of a possible bargaining unit signs union cards, the board will certify the union without a vote.
In April 2024, the union applied to the labour board asking for a certification vote. It withdrew the application when Amazon told the board it had about 640 employees.
The union continued its drive and more employees signed membership cards. By May, it believed it was nearing the threshold of worker support it needed to organize the workplace.
The union applied for certification on May 21, 2024, and the board scheduled a hearing for May 27. Unifor alleges that over the next weeks, Amazon started a hiring spree of new employees.
In closing arguments, Unifor’s lawyers told the board that over the next three months Amazon planned to hire about 132 new employees — which would increase the number of employees the union needs to sign cards.
The union says the hiring spree did not come at a normal time and alleges Amazon usually sees lower employment between January and May. Instead, the union says, it was a deliberate move to dilute union support before the certification vote.
Unifor counsel Colin Gusikoski submitted Slack messages showing management of the warehouse calling for rapid hiring.
The messages also included a CBC article about a facility in Quebec becoming the only unionized Amazon warehouse in Canada.
Andrew Dixon, a lawyer for Amazon, acknowledged the Slack messages but said that the company strongly disputes the hiring was fraudulent and that it did not intend to undermine the union effort.
Dixon said hiring volumes are determined on a weekly basis and Amazon brought in new employees to meet a high volume of work in May.
He added the number of workers in Amazon distribution centres frequently fluctuates quickly and it’s not abnormal for the company to hire hundreds of employees in a short period.
‘Rapid response’ team of managers
Kayla Bergsson, also a lawyer for Unifor Local 114, told the board Amazon accompanied the hiring spree with an anti-union campaign.
She said the company deployed a “rapid response” team of managers from cities across North America to speak to workers.
The union alleges this was an effort to intimidate employees.
Unifor Local 114 also says Amazon provided employees messaging that unions cause instability in the workplace and warned workers about the cost of union dues.
According to Bergsson, workers were encouraged to ask management about labour issues instead of third parties.
She said management sent employees messages on an internal company app and made phone calls to off-the-clock workers. These messages were allegedly emphasized in meetings held in company break rooms.
Gusikoski argued giving employees this information just ahead of a union vote would deter potential members and does not respect employees’ free choice to join a union.
He also told the board many workers are new to Canada or in the country on student or work visas and their residence is often dependent on their employment. He asked the board to consider how that context would affect how employees interpreted these communications.
But Dixon told the board Amazon’s management team was brought in to keep employees informed during the union drive.
He said that during each shift there were up to two management representatives available to speak to employees should they have any questions about unionizing.
He added that management meant to create relationships with employees, not intimidate them.
Dixon argued the messages and meetings were intended to keep employees informed on organizing.
He said Amazon did inform employees about the cost of union dues and told employees that union bargaining may or may not raise their wages. According to Amazon, the messages also included information on how employees who have signed union cards can revoke them.
He said meetings were held to answer employee questions about Unifor’s drive and said managers made it clear Amazon respected employees’ choice to vote either for or against the union.
Dixon said these conversations and messages were factual and not misleading, and cannot be interpreted as intimidation or coercion because they do not interfere with the formation of the union.
He added any phone calls to employees at home were followups on conversations they had with management at work.
