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
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
