Quebec Superior Court rejects challenge by Amazon related to unionization
Posted October 19, 2026 2:02 pm.
The Quebec Superior Court has just rejected a request from Amazon, which was contesting a decision of the Administrative Labour Tribunal, in the broader case of the unionization of employees at its Laval warehouse.
A union from the Federation of Commerce, affiliated with the CSN, had been recognized by the Administrative Labour Tribunal within this establishment in May 2024. Since then, it has been closed, like the other warehouses of the retail giant in Quebec, with Amazon claiming to want to change its business model.
The core of the dispute lies in Amazon’s challenge to the union accreditation process based on membership card signatures—that is, recognizing a union when a majority of employees sign a card, rather than holding a secret ballot. Amazon argued that this violated the freedom of association guaranteed by the charters.
In October 2024, the Administrative Labour Tribunal ruled that Amazon did not have standing to invoke freedom of association on behalf of others, since it is the workers who exercise it, and not the employer.
Amazon challenged the Tribunal’s decision before the Superior Court. It criticized the lack of procedural fairness, arguing that it had not been given the opportunity to fully present its position on its standing to sue in this case.
However, Superior Court Justice Catherine Piché has just rejected this challenge by Amazon, finding that the company was able to present its arguments.
“The standing to act in the public interest falls within the discretionary power of the tribunal, which must cumulatively weigh the following three factors: 1) does the case raise a serious and justifiable issue? 2) does the party bringing the action have a genuine interest in the matter? 3) is the lawsuit a reasonable and effective way to bring the case before the court? The TAT carefully analyzes each of these criteria before concluding that none of them are met,” concluded Justice Piché.
“Therefore, there was no violation of the Plaintiff’s right to be heard. She was summoned and fully heard on the preliminary issue of her standing to bring an action and constitutionally challenge section 28(a) of the (Labour) Code, or to request the revocation of the union’s certification,” added Judge Piché.
–This report by La Presse Canadienne was translated by CityNews
