Amazon and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are sparring yet again.
On Thursday, the e-commerce giant filed suit against the labor board, alleging that its structure is unconstitutional and that it improperly influenced the union election at the Staten Island, N.Y. warehouse that won unionization in 2022.
The suit follows the board’s decision to uphold the certification of the union that won that election, the Amazon Labor Union. The NLRB rejected Amazon‘s claims that the unionization was tainted by worker and organizer demonstrations, and other allegations that board officials who oversaw the voting were biased toward the union.
That election remains the first and thus far only successful union campaign in the U.S. with attempts at other warehouses in Alabama and New York voting against organizing.
Amazon’s lawsuit says the board’s in-house enforcement proceedings deny the company due process, as well as violate the constitutional separation of powers and the company’s right to a jury trial.
Amazon’s lawsuit also alleges that the NLRB’s five members, who are appointed by the president, are improperly shielded from presidential removal except “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” The Big Tech firm argues that the board’s structure where it serves as a prosecutor, judge, and jury in certain cases violates the U.S. Constitution.
The company already has argued in a separate February court filing that the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional on similar grounds.
The NLRB has been busy with Amazon over the past month, hitting the tech titan with separate determinations that it is a “joint employer” of two of its delivery service partners.
In August, the board deemed Amazon a joint employer of former delivery partner Battle-Tested Strategies out of Palmdale, Calif. The employees of that firm unionized with the Teamsters in April after Amazon severed their partnership last year, and have since picketed Amazon warehouses nationwide in protest of the alleged unfair labor practices it filed with the NLRB.
“The regional director determined that the joint employers unlawfully failed and refused to bargain with the union over effects of the decision to terminate the BTS contract, eliminate or transfer unit work and terminate all unionized employees; delayed start times by grounding vans and not preparing packages for loading; and solicited grievances,” said spokesperson Kayla Blado in a statement.
According to Blado, the regional director further determined that Amazon made unlawful threats, held captive audience meetings and failed and refused to furnish relevant information to the union.
Amazon’s delivery service partner program has also taken heat from lawmakers alongside contracted employees. Despite wearing Amazon-branded vests, driving Amazon-branded vans and exclusively delivering Amazon packages, they are not directly employed by Amazon—thus helping the company avoid regulatory scrutiny, officials argue.
On Thursday, the NLRB made its second determination for contractor MJB Logistics, a last-mile delivery company based out of Atlanta.
That determination came after an individual filed two unfair labor practice charges against both Amazon and MJB Logistics, including allegations of interrogation, coercive statements and coercive actions like surveillance.
“The regional director found merit to the allegations that the joint-employers unlawfully made coercive statements and gave the impression of surveillance,” said Blado. “She also determined that the joint-employers made threats of unspecified reprisal, threats of plant closure, and threats of utility, if workers at the location formed a union.”
Blado said the regional director did not find merit to allegations of interrogation. She said the director will issue a complaint on the allegations with merit unless a settlement is reached.
The NLRB’s determinations in Atlanta and Palmdale aren’t board decision or rulings, according to spokesperson Kayla Blado. Rather, they’re the first step in the agency’s general counsel litigating the allegations laid out in an unfair labor practice charge. If the parties don’t settle and a complaint is issued, a hearing will be scheduled with an NLRB judge.
Either party can appeal that judge’s decision to the NLRB board, and it can be further appealed in federal court.
The agency lacks the authority to hold impose penalties for unfair labor practices or make companies pay punitive damages.
But with the findings now applied to two separate companies, the Teamsters are hoping the decision will set the stage for more Amazon delivery partners in the U.S. to unionize in the future.
“Amazon drivers have taken their future into their own hands and won a monumental determination that makes clear Amazon has a legal obligation to bargain with its drivers over their working conditions,” said Teamsters general president Sean O’Brien, in a statement. “This strike has paved the way for every other Amazon worker in the country to demand what they deserve and to get Amazon to the bargaining table.”
Add Comment