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
免責聲明: XM Group提供線上交易平台的登入和執行服務，允許個人查看和/或使用網站所提供的內容，但不進行任何更改或擴展其服務和訪問權限，並受以下條款與條例約束：（i）條款與條例；（ii）風險提示；（iii）完全免責聲明。網站內部所提供的所有資訊，僅限於一般資訊用途。請注意，我們所有的線上交易平台內容並不構成，也不被視為進入金融市場交易的邀約或邀請 。金融市場交易會對您的投資帶來重大風險。
所有缐上交易平台所發佈的資料，僅適用於教育/資訊類用途，不包含也不應被視爲適用於金融、投資稅或交易相關諮詢和建議，或是交易價格紀錄，或是任何金融商品或非應邀途徑的金融相關優惠的交易邀約或邀請。
本網站的所有XM和第三方所提供的内容，包括意見、新聞、研究、分析、價格其他資訊和第三方網站鏈接，皆爲‘按原狀’，並作爲一般市場評論所提供，而非投資建議。請理解和接受，所有被歸類為投資研究範圍的相關内容，並非爲了促進投資研究獨立性，而根據法律要求所編寫，而是被視爲符合營銷傳播相關法律與法規所編寫的内容。請確保您已詳讀並完全理解我們的非獨立投資研究提示和風險提示資訊，相關詳情請點擊 這裡查看。
