Amazon’s Anti-Union Conduct Makes Free Elections ‘Impossible,’ NLRB Official Says

Amazon intervened in a union certification vote and a second election is set to take place, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) official wrote in a report released yesterday. Amazon’s anti-union misconduct made “a free and fair election … impossible,” according to the report.

A majority of Amazon workers at a distribution center in Bessemer, Alabama, voted against union certification in April. The Union of Retailers, Wholesalers and Department Stores subsequently filed a complaint with the NLRB and succeeded in convincing the hearing officer that Amazon had interfered with the election.

“[T]The evidence shows that the employer’s conduct interfered with the laboratory conditions necessary for a fair election, ”wrote Kerstin Meyers, lawyer and hearing officer for the NLRB. The report continues:

Specifically, the conduct that hampered the outcome of the election relates to the employer’s poll of employees through the distribution of “vote no” paraphernalia in the presence of supervisors and managers, as well as the unilateral decision of the employer. employer to have the United States Postal Service install an unlabeled generic mail collection box within 50 feet of the main entrance to their facility, in a location suggested by the employer and immediately below visible surveillance cameras mounted on the employer’s main entrance. Although this was a case of first impression, the employer’s conduct in installing this generic mail receptacle usurped the exclusive role of the National Labor Relations Board in the administration of union elections. Despite the union’s significant margin of defeat, the employer’s unilateral decision to create, for all intents and purposes, an on-site collection box for NLRB ballots destroyed lab conditions and warrants a second election.

Amazon is appealing

The decision is not final, so a second election is not yet final. The NLRB process clears calls and will give Amazon several “possibilities for delay” even if its mailbox-related conduct was “quite egregious,” wrote Jeff Hirsch, professor of labor and employment law at the University. from North Carolina. Twitter feed yesterday. “The next step is to have the hearing officer’s recommendation reviewed by the Atlanta area chief,” he wrote. The regional director could order a new election, and Amazon has already announced it will appeal.

“Our employees had the chance to be heard in a noisy period when all kinds of voices weighed in the national debate, and in the end, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of a direct link with their managers and the company. Their voices must be heard first and foremost, and we plan to appeal for that to happen, ”Amazon said in a statement released yesterday.

Before the Regional Director intervenes, the parties have until August 16 to file objections to the NLRB hearing officer’s report. Although this was a good result for the union, the NLRB official rejected some of the union’s demands. For example, the union objected to the hiring of additional police officers by Amazon, but there was “no evidence that any of the officers engaged in election-related or union campaigning activities or engaged in behavior designed to intimidate voters, ”Meyers wrote.

The results were 1,798 votes against union certification and 738 for the union. There were also “505 disputed ballots, a number that was not enough to affect the election results,” Meyers noted. More than 2,000 employees did not vote, and Meyers wrote that it was possible that they were “influenced” by Amazon’s misconduct.

“Free and fair elections were impossible”

Meyers discovered that Amazon’s installation of a mailbox “in a location that reasonably appeared to be in line of sight of the employer’s multiple security surveillance cameras … so marred the election that a second election is necessary “. It was “clear that Amazon, not USPS,” chose the mailbox site, according to the report.

The NLRB “secures the administration of the elections and does not delegate any functions to the parties”, and “the mere appearance that a party has control of the election … destroys the laboratory conditions necessary for the conduct of an election”, Meyers wrote.

Meyers’ recommendation to renew the election “is based on the way the mailbox was set up, which gave the impression that the employer could unilaterally establish procedures for the election and cast doubt on the issue. [NLRB’s] authority and control over electoral procedures, ”she wrote, continuing:

The CBU website [USPS cluster box unit] gave the impression that the employer was monitoring article 7 of employees [organizing] activities and inclusion of employer campaign propaganda on the tent leading up to the [mailbox] gave the impression that the employer had set up its own polling station without any authorization from the council. By creating a situation that gave the impression that the board had, voluntarily or unintentionally, ceded its authority to collect the ballots and establish procedures for the conduct of the election, the employer interfered in the process. conduct of the election. In the circumstances, when the authority of the board of directors was compromised by the conduct of a party and that same conduct had an impact on the employees and was associated with other transgressions which impeded the free choice of the employees, a free and fair election was impossible. In the circumstances, I recommend that a second election be ordered.

Anti-union materials

Meyers also wrote that Amazon “has committed reprehensible behavior” by distributing “anti-union materials in the presence of executives.”

“[T]The misconduct in this case has occurred on numerous occasions at an untold number of meetings, “Meyers wrote.” Virtually all of the employees in the bargaining unit were victims of the misconduct because it these were mandatory employee meetings. “

“[T]The documents were placed in full view of the managers, so that the employees were forced to make a discernible choice to retrieve the documents, or not, under the observation of the heads of employee relations and human resources, ”also wrote Meyers. Whether Amazon tracked which employees took the documents is irrelevant to the question “whether his conduct could reasonably cause an employee to perceive that the employer was trying to discern his support for or against the union – because that is the question. The act of attempting to discern employee support that “tends to raise fear of retaliation in the minds of employees … and therefore tends to infringe on his or her section 7 rights,” Meyers wrote.

The large voting margin is no reason to stick to the results of the first election, Meyers wrote. The report said:

More than 2,000 employees did not vote in the election, enough to affect the election results. While it is not known why these employees abstained from voting, it is at the very least possible that the employer’s misconduct influenced some of those 2,000 eligible voters.