XM tillhandahåller inte tjänster till personer bosatta i USA.

Amazon faces second NLRB complaint over 'joint employment' of drivers



<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><title>Amazon faces second NLRB complaint over 'joint employment' of drivers</title></head><body>

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

</body></html>

Ansvarsfriskrivning: XM Group-enheter tillhandahåller sin tjänst enbart för exekvering och tillgången till vår onlinehandelsplattform, som innebär att en person kan se och/eller använda tillgängligt innehåll på eller via webbplatsen, påverkar eller utökar inte detta, vilket inte heller varit avsikten. Denna tillgång och användning omfattas alltid av i) villkor, ii) riskvarningar och iii) fullständig ansvarsfriskrivning. Detta innehåll tillhandahålls därför uteslutande som allmän information. Var framför allt medveten om att innehållet på vår onlinehandelsplattform varken utgör en uppmaning eller ett erbjudande om att ingå några transaktioner på de finansiella marknaderna. Handel på alla finansiella marknader involverar en betydande risk för ditt kapital.

Allt material som publiceras på denna sida är enbart avsett för utbildnings- eller informationssyften och innehåller inte – och ska inte heller anses innehålla – rådgivning och rekommendationer om finansiella frågor, investeringsskatt eller handel, dokumentation av våra handelskurser eller ett erbjudande om, eller en uppmaning till, en transaktion i finansiella instrument eller oönskade finansiella erbjudanden som är riktade till dig.

Tredjepartsinnehåll, liksom innehåll framtaget av XM såsom synpunkter, nyheter, forskningsrön, analyser, kurser, andra uppgifter eller länkar till tredjepartssajter som återfinns på denna webbplats, tillhandahålls i befintligt skick, som allmän marknadskommentar, och utgör ingen investeringsrådgivning. I den mån som något innehåll tolkas som investeringsforskning måste det noteras och accepteras att innehållet varken har varit avsett som oberoende investeringsforskning eller har utarbetats i enlighet med de rättsliga kraven för att främja ett sådant syfte, och därför är att betrakta som marknadskommunikation enligt tillämpliga lagar och föreskrifter. Se till så att du har läst och förstått vårt meddelande om icke-oberoende investeringsforskning och riskvarning om ovannämnda information, som finns här.

Riskvarning: Ditt kapital riskeras. Hävstångsprodukter passar kanske inte alla. Se vår riskinformation.