Amazon, the e-commerce giant, is facing scrutiny over its relationship with contracted delivery drivers. According to a regional director for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Amazon should be considered a “joint employer” of some of its contracted delivery drivers. This determination came after the NLRB reviewed two unfair labor practice charges filed in January, specifically concerning the treatment of drivers at an Atlanta warehouse known as DAT6. Despite Amazon’s reliance on third-party drivers for its deliveries, the NLRB found that Amazon had joint employment status with drivers working for a contractor called MJB Logistics.
The NLRB’s decision has significant implications for Amazon. Being classified as a joint employer could compel the company to engage in collective bargaining with employees seeking to unionize. This ruling has faced opposition from lawmakers and labor groups, including the Teamsters union, who argue that Amazon exerts control over the drivers by providing them with Amazon-branded uniforms, vans, and setting their schedules and performance expectations. The company has long contested the joint employer designation, but these recent determinations by the NLRB could potentially change the landscape of labor relations within Amazon.
Union Efforts and Employee Support
In response to Amazon’s treatment of contracted drivers, the Teamsters union has ramped up its efforts to organize Amazon delivery and warehouse workers. The union established an Amazon division in 2021 to offer support and resources to workers involved in organizing activities. Over the past year, there have been several strikes at Amazon delivery facilities, with some labor groups choosing to affiliate with the Teamsters, such as the warehouse workers in New York’s Staten Island. Additionally, drivers working for Battle Tested Strategies claimed that their contract was terminated by Amazon after they voted to unionize with the Teamsters, an accusation that Amazon has denied.
Allegations of Coercion and Surveillance
Further complicating the situation are allegations of coercion and surveillance leveled against Amazon. The NLRB’s determination in Atlanta found merit to claims that Amazon threatened drivers with site closure if they unionized, made coercive statements, and created a culture of surveillance at the facility. These allegations raise concerns about the company’s treatment of its workforce and could have legal repercussions if not addressed.
It’s important to note that the NLRB’s determinations in Atlanta and Palmdale are not final board decisions but rather the initial step in the agency’s legal process regarding unfair labor practices. If the parties involved do not reach a settlement, a hearing will be scheduled with an NLRB judge. Both parties have the right to appeal the judge’s decision to the NLRB board and potentially further to federal court, prolonging the legal battle over Amazon’s relationship with its contracted delivery drivers.
Overall, Amazon’s complicated relationship with contracted delivery drivers highlights the ongoing challenges and disputes in the realm of labor relations within the company. As the legal proceedings unfold, it remains to be seen how Amazon will address these allegations and potentially reshape its approach to working with contracted drivers in the future.