Key Points
- NLRB filed a complaint accusing Amazon of illegally refusing to bargain with unionized drivers employed by a contractor.
- The complaint alleges Amazon is a joint employer of the drivers and violated labor laws by ending its contract without negotiations.
- Amazon denies the claims, while the Teamsters see the move as progress toward better pay and working conditions.
- The issue of joint employment remains contentious, with varying legal interpretations over the years; the case could set a precedent.
The U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has filed a complaint against Amazon, accusing the company of unlawfully refusing to negotiate with unionized delivery drivers employed by Battle Tested Strategies (BTS), a contractor. The complaint, announced on Wednesday, alleges that Amazon should be considered a “joint employer” of the drivers and used illegal tactics to discourage unionization efforts at a facility in Palmdale, California.
BTS drivers voted last year to join the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, becoming the first Amazon delivery contractors to unionize. The NLRB claims Amazon violated federal labor laws by ending its contract with BTS after the drivers unionized without first bargaining with the Teamsters union.
The labor board had previously found merit in the union’s claims, determining that Amazon exerted significant control over BTS drivers, enough to be considered their employer under labor law. Amazon did not settle the case despite the findings, prompting the NLRB to issue a formal complaint.
Amazon spokesperson Eileen Hards rejected the allegations, stating that the NLRB had dismissed many of the Teamsters’ claims, demonstrating that the union was “misrepresenting the facts.” Hards maintained that Amazon has consistently held there is “no merit” to the claims and expected the remaining allegations to be dismissed during the legal process.
The Teamsters, however, believe the NLRB complaint marks a significant step toward ensuring better working conditions for Amazon drivers. Teamsters President Sean O’Brien stated that Amazon is attempting to benefit from drivers’ labor without accepting responsibility for their well-being. He called the NLRB’s decision a move toward securing fair pay and contracts for Amazon workers.
The issue of “joint employment” has been a contentious topic in U.S. labor law over the past decade, with different standards applied under various administrations. Business groups advocate for a narrow definition, requiring direct control over workers, while unions support a broader standard, including indirect control forms.
An administrative judge in Los Angeles will hear the case in March 2025. If the judge rules that Amazon is a joint employer, it could set a precedent forcing the company to negotiate with unions representing drivers in other locations. However, Amazon has also filed a lawsuit challenging the NLRB’s structure, claiming its enforcement proceedings violate the U.S. Constitution.
