Amazon faces second NLRB complaint over 'joint employment' of drivers
By Daniel Wiessner
Sept 4 (Reuters) -A National Labor Relations Board prosecutor has concluded that Amazon should be held jointly liable with a contractor for allegedly using unlawful tactics to discourage delivery drivers in Atlanta from unionizing, an agency spokeswoman said on Wednesday.
The announcement comes a few weeks after a different NLRB regional director in Los Angeles also concluded that Amazon should be considered a so-called "joint employer" of a separate contractor's employees and required to bargain with unions.
In both cases, the regional directors will issue formal complaints against Amazon unless the company settles, according to the spokeswoman, Kayla Blado.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which is working to organize Atlanta-based drivers employed by Amazon contractor MJB Logistics, claims both companies have discouraged unionizing by making unlawful threats and giving the impression that drivers are being surveilled.
The Los Angeles case involves claims that Amazon unlawfully terminated its contract with a company that employs unionized drivers without bargaining with the Teamsters.
A ruling that Amazon is a joint employer under federal labor law could be applied in cases involving other Amazon contractors and force the company to bargain with drivers' unions.
Amazon, which has said in the past that it does not exert enough control over contractors' drivers to be considered their joint employer, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
If complaints are issued against Amazon, they will be heard by NLRB administrative judges whose decisions can be reviewed by the five-member labor board. Board rulings can be appealed to federal appeals courts.
Joint employment has been one of the most contentious U.S. labor issues over the last decade, and the NLRB's standard for determining when companies qualify as joint employers has shifted numerous times since the Obama administration. Business groups favor a test that requires direct and immediate control over workers, while unions and Democrats back a standard that covers indirect forms of control.
The board had adopted a rule last year making it easier to hold companies liable as joint employers. The NLRB in July dropped its appeal of a judge's ruling striking down that rule.
The board, meanwhile, is facing claims by a growing number of companies, including Amazon, that its structure and in-house enforcement proceedings violate the U.S. Constitution. Amazon in February raised those claims as potential defenses in an administrative case alleging retaliation against union supporters at a New York City warehouse.
The NLRB last week rejected Amazon's challenge to a union's 2022 election victory at that facility, the first and still the only successful union campaign in the company's history. That decision did not resolve separate pending claims that Amazon has illegally refused to bargain with the union.
The cases are Amazon Logistics Inc, National Labor Relations Board, Nos. 10-CA-333136 and 10-CA-333913.
For Amazon: Brandon Shelton and Katlyn McGarry of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart
For the Teamsters: Not available
Read more:
Amazon loses challenge to union's election win at NYC warehouse
Amazon joins companies arguing US labor board is unconstitutional
Companies may be employers of contract, franchise workers under US labor rule
Judge blocks US labor board rule on contract and franchise workers
US labor board drops bid to revive rule on contract, franchise workers
Film producer tells US court that NLRB's structure is illegal
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York
Asset collegati
Ultime news
Disclaimer: le entità di XM Group forniscono servizi di sola esecuzione e accesso al nostro servizio di trading online, che permette all'individuo di visualizzare e/o utilizzare i contenuti disponibili sul sito o attraverso di esso; non ha il proposito di modificare o espandere le proprie funzioni, né le modifica o espande. L'accesso e l'utilizzo sono sempre soggetti a: (i) Termini e condizioni; (ii) Avvertenza sui rischi e (iii) Disclaimer completo. Tali contenuti sono perciò forniti a scopo puramente informativo. Nello specifico, ti preghiamo di considerare che i contenuti del nostro servizio di trading online non rappresentano un sollecito né un'offerta ad operare sui mercati finanziari. Il trading su qualsiasi mercato finanziario comporta un notevole livello di rischio per il tuo capitale.
Tutto il materiale pubblicato sul nostro servizio di trading online è unicamente a scopo educativo e informativo, e non contiene (e non dovrebbe essere considerato come contenente) consigli e raccomandazioni di carattere finanziario, di trading o fiscale, né informazioni riguardanti i nostri prezzi di trading, offerte o solleciti riguardanti transazioni che possano coinvolgere strumenti finanziari, oppure promozioni finanziarie da te non richieste.
Tutti i contenuti di terze parti, oltre ai contenuti offerti da XM, siano essi opinioni, news, ricerca, analisi, prezzi, altre informazioni o link a siti di terzi presenti su questo sito, sono forniti "così com'è", e vanno considerati come commenti generali sui mercati; per questo motivo, non possono essere visti come consigli di investimento. Dato che tutti i contenuti sono intesi come ricerche di investimento, devi considerare e accettare che non sono stati preparati né creati seguendo i requisiti normativi pensati per promuovere l'indipendenza delle ricerche di investimento; per questo motivo, questi contenuti devono essere considerati come comunicazioni di marketing in base alle leggi e normative vigenti. Assicurati di avere letto e compreso pienamente la nostra Notifica sulla ricerca di investimento non indipendente e la nostra Informativa sul rischio riguardante le informazioni sopra citate; tali documenti sono consultabili qui.
