Amazon Accused Of Illegally Refusing To Bargain With Union Drivers, US Labour Board Claims
Amazon has denied the NLRB's allegations, claiming that it lacks the control required to be classed as a joint employer of the drivers
The National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) has accused Amazon of illegally refusing to bargain with a union that represents drivers employed by Battle Tested Strategies (BTS), a contractor. The drivers, who work out of a plant in Palmdale, California, voted to unionise with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters last year, but Amazon allegedly terminated its contract with BTS without engaging in mandated talks.
In a complaint filed on Monday, the NLRB alleged that Amazon violated federal labour law by ending operations with BTS, which used unionised drivers, without first bargaining with the Teamsters. The NLRB previously concluded that Amazon has enough control over BTS drivers to be considered a joint employer, a classification that may force the ecommerce giant to engage in collective bargaining with drivers' unions.
Amazon has denied the NLRB's allegations, claiming that it lacks the control required to be classed as a joint employer of the drivers. Amazon spokesperson Eileen Hards stated that several of the union's accusations were excluded from the NLRB's complaint, underscoring Amazon's conclusion that the allegations are without merit. Amazon intends to contest the case through the legal process, with the remaining charges expected to be dismissed.
However, Teamsters President Sean O'Brien sees the NLRB lawsuit as a constructive start towards improving Amazon workers' wages, working conditions and contracts. O'Brien accused Amazon of profiting from drivers' labour while avoiding responsibility for their well-being.
The Palmdale case mirrors a broader discussion about joint employment norms, which have shifted in recent years. Unions and Democrats want a broader definition of joint employment that includes indirect influence over employees, whereas commercial groups, such as Amazon, prefer a tighter threshold that requires direct control.
The case will be tried by an administrative judge in Los Angeles, with the first hearing set for March 2024. The judge's judgement may set a precedent for how other Amazon contractors and employees are treated under labour laws. A decision against Amazon might broaden its duty to bargain with unions representing contracted workers across the country.
This action is part of a larger legal struggle for Amazon, which is contesting the NLRB's jurisdiction. Amazon has filed lawsuits, including one seeking to prevent the NLRB from requiring the business to deal with unionised workers at a New York City warehouse. A federal appeals court has temporarily halted the NLRB's verdict on the subject while it investigates Amazon's claims.
