Recently, a regional director for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) made a significant announcement stating that Amazon should be considered a “joint employer” of certain contracted delivery drivers. This decision came after reviewing two separate unfair labor practice charges related to Amazon’s treatment of drivers at an Atlanta warehouse called DAT6. While Amazon has traditionally relied on third-party drivers to manage its ever-increasing delivery demands, the NLRB’s regional director concluded that Amazon was a joint employer of drivers at the site employed by a contractor known as MJB Logistics.
Amazon has vigorously opposed the classification of being a joint employer of its extensive network of contracted delivery companies. However, lawmakers and labor organizations, including the Teamsters union, have disputed this assertion. They argue that drivers wear Amazon-branded uniforms, operate Amazon-branded vans, and have their schedules and performance expectations dictated by the company. If Amazon is indeed determined to be a joint employer, it could be compelled to negotiate with employees who wish to unionize. This decision follows a similar ruling made last month that declared Amazon a joint employer of subcontracted drivers at a facility in Palmdale, California.
In response to these developments, the Teamsters union has intensified its efforts to organize Amazon delivery and warehouse workers. The union established an Amazon division in 2021 to provide support and financial backing to workers engaging in organizing activities at the company. Consequently, a series of strikes have been led by the Teamsters at Amazon delivery facilities. Moreover, a labor group based in an Amazon warehouse on Staten Island chose to join forces with the Teamsters union in June. Notably, in April 2023, drivers from Battle Tested Strategies claimed that Amazon terminated their contract after voting to unionize with the Teamsters, an accusation that Amazon refuted by stating that the contract ended before the unionization efforts began.
During its assessment, the NLRB identified additional concerning practices at Amazon’s Atlanta facility. The board found evidence to support claims that Amazon had threatened drivers in Atlanta with closure of the site if they unionized, made coercive statements, and created an atmosphere of surveillance at the location. It is crucial to note that the NLRB’s determinations in both Atlanta and Palmdale do not constitute final board decisions. Instead, they represent the initial phase of the agency’s general counsel litigating the allegations outlined in the unfair labor practice charges. Should the involved parties fail to reach a settlement, a hearing will be scheduled with an NLRB judge. Subsequently, either party has the right to appeal the judge’s decision to the NLRB board, with the possibility of further appeal in federal court.
The NLRB’s recent determination regarding Amazon’s status as a joint employer of certain contracted delivery drivers underscores the ongoing challenges and disputes surrounding labor practices within the company. As the labor landscape continues to evolve, it is essential for regulatory bodies, employers, and unions to navigate these complexities thoughtfully and transparently to ensure fair treatment and protection of workers’ rights. The outcome of this case will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications for labor relations in the gig economy and beyond.
Leave a Reply