Skip to main content
Editions

NLRB Scores Pro-Labor Win Against Amazon, Protecting Right to Group Action

by Christopher Hazlehurst | Dec 15, 2022
Stacks of Amazon packages on carts beside a delivery van. Photo Source: Adobe Stock Images

Staten Island’s regional branch of the National Labor Relations Board recently won a major victory for Amazon workers in federal court. The NLRB obtained an injunction preventing Amazon from firing employees for engaging in protected “concerted” activities, which may affect the corporate giant’s union-busting tactics across the country.

The action was brought by NLRB-29, the regional board serving Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Long Island. The NLRB’s petition arose after Amazon fired an employee for advocating for better workplace health and safety conditions in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The employee was terminated after demanding stronger safety precautions and joining his co-workers in protesting Amazon’s safety failures.

The NLRB argued that the employee had the right to join with his co-workers to make his demands and engage in protests without fear of retaliation. The court agreed and enjoined Amazon from retaliating against any more employees for engaging in protected activities, although the court did not force Amazon to reinstate the specific employee.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) guarantees covered employees the right to engage in certain “concerted activity.” The purpose is to allow workers to join together in order to improve their wages and working conditions. Workers can band together and unionize, but even without a union, the NLRA is meant to ensure workers can engage in collective actions aimed at protecting their rights. The NLRA applies to most private sector employees, other than supervisors and employees in certain professions.

Protected concerted activity refers to when a group of workers joins together to take action for their mutual benefit or protection regarding the terms and conditions of employment. An activity is “concerted” when it involves at least two employees, although concerted action often involves many more. An activity may also be protected if taken by a single person so long as they are acting with the authority of other employees.

The NLRA protects a number of concerted activities. These activities are “protected” in that employers cannot retaliate against employees for engaging in these activities together. For example, covered employers cannot retaliate against employees for:

  • Discussing their wages and benefits with one another
  • Discussing working conditions
  • Gathering input or circulating a petition about wages or working conditions
  • Refusing, as a group, to work under unsafe conditions
  • Addressing the employer as a group, or on behalf of a group, about wages or working conditions

Employees even have the right to go to the media to discuss problems in the workplace, as well as to report working conditions to a governmental agency. Employees are not protected, however, when they make knowingly false and malicious accusations about their employer. Reporting known falsehoods to the media, for example, or picketing publicly and shouting malicious lies about the company would likely not be protected. Workers are also not protected when badmouthing a company and its products or services with no tenable connection to conditions of employment.

The injunction against Amazon comes on the heels of close to two years of protests, complaints, strikes, and other actions taken by Amazon employees fed up with unsafe working conditions during the novel coronavirus pandemic. If the corporation violates the cease-and-desist, it can be held in contempt of court. NLRB-29 Director Teresa Poor celebrated the victory, stating: “This relief is critical to ensure that Amazon employees can fully and freely exercise their rights to join together and improve their working conditions, including by forming, assisting, or joining a union.”

Share This Article

If you found this article insightful, consider sharing it with your network.

Christopher Hazlehurst
Christopher Hazlehurst is a graduate of Columbia Law School, where he also served as Editor of the Columbia Law Review. Throughout his legal career, he has navigated a diverse array of intricate commercial litigation and investigations involving white-collar crime and regulatory issues. Simultaneously, he maintains a strong commitment to public interest cases nationwide. Presently, he holds a license to practice law in California.

Related Articles

Group of workers wearing safety vests and uniforms standing together, possibly in a labor or union context.
Supreme Court Could Rule Businesses Can Sue Unions for Damage Caused by Strikes

The Supreme Court recently held oral arguments addressing whether unions can be held responsible for damage to a company caused by a union-backed strike. The Court’s conservative supermajority appeared to favor the business, foreshadowing a continuation of the Court’s pro-business trend. The case titled Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood... Read More »

Sign for UnitedHealthcare building surrounded by landscaping.
Health Care Company Indicted for Labor Market Collusion

The Department of Justice Antitrust Division charged Surgical Care Affiliates LLC with two counts of collusion with the labor market on January 7, 2021. The indictment claims the company “enter[ed] into and engag[ed] in two separate bilateral conspiracies with other health care companies to suppress competition between them for the... Read More »

Contestant from the reality show "Love Is Blind" looking concerned while surrounded by floral decorations.
NLRB Complaint Could Transform Reality TV Industry

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a groundbreaking complaint against the producers of Netflix's hit reality show Love Is Blind, arguing that contestants should be classified as employees rather than participants. The complaint alleges that contestants were misclassified, depriving them of basic labor protections under federal law. If... Read More »

Search Law Commentary

Subscribe to Newsletter