Amazon tells NLRB its union banner ban must pass – Law360 Employment Authority

The National Labor Relations Board should find that Amazon lawfully banned a pro-union banner in the break room at a Staten Island, New York, facility, the e-commerce giant argued, challenging an agency judge’s findings that federal labor law violations and union-busting reliability findings

On a short Friday of exceptions, Amazon defended her decision ban the Amazon Labor Union “Vote Yes” flag in the break room at its LDJ5 facility in Staten Island. Amazon argued that workers were allowed to display the flag in other ways, such as by holding it instead of having a stand-alone display.

“Contrary to the ALJ’s findings, the undisputed evidence shows that Amazon merely prohibited ALU’s preferred way of displaying the flag, but never required ALU to remove the flag from the rest area,” Amazon said.

The company claimed that workers were allowed to “openly, freely and relentlessly campaign for ALU for months without restriction or interference” in LDJ5.

Amazon is challenging the findings of Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposito The decision of May, putting the company on the hook for National Labor Relations Act violations at LDJ5 and the nearby JFK8 facility. employee of LDJ5 voted against ALU representation while JFK8 workers supported unionization in 2022. ALU, which started as an independent trade union, recently joined with the teams.

The judge found that the company violated the NLRA by not allowing the banner to be displayed in the break room. Amazon engaged in other unfair labor practices, the judge determined, including illegally interrogating and illegally disciplining workers for their union activities.

Judge Esposito also concluded that Amazon unlawfully implemented a solicitation policy in JFK8 when the company removed an employee’s pro-union post on its Voice of the Associates board while anti-union messages stood.

Amazon said Friday it took legal action in LDJ5 and JFK8, striking the judge’s credibility determinations and recommended remedies.

Judge Esposito previously dismissed claims by Amazon that the testimony of LDJ5 employees Madeline Wesley and Julian Mitchell-Israel should not be considered credible because they are union salt.

Amazon reasserted those arguments, saying that Wesley and Mitchell-Israel had biases that made them not credible witnesses in the case.

“Given their own biases, vested interests and priorities, these witnesses have no vested interest in the outcome of this case,” the company said. “Rather, the testimony against Amazon in this hearing actually pushes back their stated goals and priorities for organizing the LDJ5 facility.”

Amazon also fought against Judge Esposito’s recommended remedies, which included an in-person reading of the notice requiring supervisors and managers to attend. The judge said that the notice should be distributed to the workers on reading the notice.

Judge Esposito found that broad remedies were warranted given Amazon’s “recidivist history” of violating the NLRA.

The company argued that the agency judge’s recommendation for extraordinary remedies is inconsistent with the unfair labor practice claims.

“There is absolutely no record evidence that the alleged unfair labor practices were significant in amount or scale, nor did they have a severe or widespread impact on LDJ5’s associates,” Amazon said.

Amazon pushed back against the judge’s recidivism comment, saying the conclusion was “both wrong and premature.”

An NLRB spokesman declined to comment.

Representatives for Amazon and ALU did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Amazon is represented by Juan Enjamio and Kurt Larkin of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP.

The NLRB’s Office of General Counsel is represented by Emily Cabrera and Evamaria Cox.

Counsel information for the Amazon Labor Union could not be immediately confirmed.

The case is Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon Labor Union, case numbers 29-CA-292844, 29-CA-293838, 29-CA-294857 and 29-CA-299139, before the National Labor Relations Board.

–Modification by Nick Petruncio.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.