NLRB Wins Syndicate Charges Against Amazon and Starbucks

The National Labor Relations Board said on Friday it was right in accusations that Amazon and Starbucks violated labor law, a sign that federal worker officials are closely scrutinizing management behavior during union campaigns.

At Amazon, the labor board justifies accusations that the company needs workers attending anti-union meetings In a large Staten Island warehouse that houses the Amazon Labor Union won a stunning electoral victory last month. According to Seth Goldstein, an attorney who represents the union, the decision was communicated to the union on Friday by an attorney for the workers’ council’s district office in Brooklyn.

Such meetings, commonly known as “captive audience” meetings, are legal according to current working board precedents. But last month, the board’s general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, said: posted a note He said the precedent contradicted the underlying federal statute and would seek to appeal against it.

In the same accusation, Amazon Labor Union accused the company of threatening to cut employee benefits if they voted to unionize, and falsely indicating to employees that they could be fired if the warehouse unionized and they did not pay the union. dues. According to an email from Matt Jackson, attorney at the district office, the study board also upheld these accusations.

Mr Jackson said the agency will soon issue a complaint reflecting these accusations unless Amazon resolves the case. The complaint was to be prosecuted before an administrative law judge, whose decision could be appealed to the working board in Washington.

Mr. Goldstein applauded Ms. Abruzzo and her district office for taking “decisive steps to end necessary audience meetings” and said the right to unionize would be “protected by ending Amazon’s inherently coercive work practices”.

“We look forward to demonstrating these allegations throughout the process,” said Kelly Nantel, spokesperson for Amazon, in a statement.

At Starbucks, where the union received the first votes at more than 50 stores since December, the labor board on Friday filed complaints from the union about a series of charges, most of which in February accused the company of illegal conduct. These charges include firing employees in retaliation for supporting the union; threatening employees to gain new benefits if they choose to unionize; requiring workers available for the minimum number of hours continuing to work in a unionized store without negotiating the change as a means of firing at least one union supporter; and effectively promises benefits to workers if they decide not to unionize.

In addition to these allegations, the labor board justified accusations that the company intimidated workers by closing stores in the Buffalo area and spying on workers while they were at work. All of these actions will be illegal.

Starbucks Workers United, the union’s branch that represents workers there, said the finding “confirms the extent and immorality of Starbucks’ behavior throughout much of a year in western New York.” “Starbucks will be held responsible for the minefield that collapsed the unions they were forced to cross as workers fought for their right to organize,” he added.

Starbucks said in a statement that the complaint did not constitute a decision by the trial board, adding: “We believe the allegations in the complaint are false and we look forward to presenting our evidence when the allegations are resolved.”