In a recent development, a regional director for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) declared that Amazon should be considered a “joint employer” of some of its contracted delivery drivers. This decision came after reviewing two unfair labor practice charges filed in January, specifically addressing the treatment of drivers at the Atlanta warehouse, known as DAT6. Despite Amazon’s history of hiring third-party drivers to manage its increasing volume of deliveries, the NLRB’s regional director concluded that Amazon also had joint employment status with drivers working for a contractor named MJB Logistics.
Although Amazon has been resistant to the idea of being labeled a joint employer of its contracted delivery companies, several entities, including lawmakers and labor groups like the Teamsters union, have challenged this stance. They point out that drivers typically wear Amazon-branded uniforms, drive Amazon-branded vans, and have their schedules and performance guidelines dictated by the company. This situation has fueled arguments against Amazon’s claim of not being a joint employer, as it seems to have substantial control over the drivers and their working conditions.
The NLRB’s decision to designate Amazon as a joint employer could potentially pave the way for employees seeking to unionize to engage in collective bargaining with the company. This ruling is reminiscent of a similar conclusion reached by an NLRB official last month regarding subcontracted drivers at Amazon’s facility in Palmdale, California. As the Teamsters intensify their efforts to organize Amazon’s delivery and warehouse workers, the situation at various Amazon locations across the country has become more contentious.
In light of these developments, concerns have been raised about Amazon’s treatment of drivers, particularly those in Atlanta. The NLRB found that Amazon allegedly threatened drivers in Atlanta with shutting down their site if they chose to unionize, made coercive statements, and created an environment that implied surveillance at the facility. These actions have sparked further debate and scrutiny, prompting the NLRB to take steps to address the alleged unfair labor practices at hand.
It’s worth noting that the NLRB’s determinations in Atlanta and Palmdale do not represent final board decisions but rather serve as initial steps in the agency’s process of litigating allegations of unfair labor practices. If the involved parties fail to reach a settlement, a hearing will be scheduled with an NLRB judge to further examine the claims. Both parties retain the right to challenge the judge’s ruling, leading to potential appeals at the NLRB board level and, ultimately, in federal court. This ongoing legal saga underscores the complex and contentious nature of labor relations within the realm of Amazon’s vast delivery network.
Leave a Reply