NLRB Finds Merit in Union Accusations Against Amazon and Starbucks

In an indication that federal labor officers are carefully scrutinizing administration conduct throughout union campaigns, the Nationwide Labor Relations Board mentioned Friday that it had discovered benefit in accusations that Amazon and Starbucks had violated labor legislation.

At Amazon, the labor board discovered benefit to costs that the corporate had required staff to attend anti-union conferences at an enormous Staten Island warehouse the place the Amazon Labor Union gained a surprising election victory final month. The willpower was communicated to the union Friday by an legal professional for the labor board’s regional workplace in Brooklyn, based on Seth Goldstein, a lawyer representing the union.

Such conferences, usually generally known as “captive viewers” conferences, are authorized below present labor board precedent. However final month, the board’s common counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, issued a memo saying that the precedent was at odds with the underlying federal statute, and she or he indicated that she would search to problem it.

In the identical submitting of costs, the Amazon Labor Union accused the corporate of threatening to withhold advantages from workers in the event that they voted to unionize, and of inaccurately indicating to workers that they may very well be fired if the warehouse have been to unionize they usually did not pay union dues. The labor board additionally discovered benefit to those accusations, based on an e mail from the legal professional on the regional workplace, Matt Jackson.

Mr. Jackson mentioned the company would quickly challenge a grievance reflecting these accusations until Amazon settled the case. The grievance can be litigated earlier than an administrative legislation decide, whose resolution may very well be appealed to the labor board in Washington.

Mr. Goldstein applauded Ms. Abruzzo and the regional workplace for taking “decisive steps ending required captive viewers conferences” and mentioned the proper to unionize “can be protected by ending Amazon’s inherently coercive work practices.”

Kelly Nantel, an Amazon spokeswoman, mentioned in a press release that “these allegations are false and we look ahead to displaying that by the method.”

At Starbucks, the place the union has gained preliminary votes at greater than 50 shops since December, the labor board issued a grievance Friday over a sequence of costs the union filed, most of them in February, accusing the corporate of unlawful conduct. These accusations embody firing workers in retaliation for supporting the union; threatening workers’ capability to obtain new advantages in the event that they select to unionize; requiring staff to be obtainable for a minimal variety of hours to stay employed at a unionized retailer with out bargaining over the change, as a option to drive out not less than one union supporter; and successfully promising advantages to staff in the event that they resolve to not unionize.

Along with these allegations, the labor board discovered benefit to accusations that the corporate intimidated staff by closing Buffalo-area shops and fascinating in surveillance of staff whereas they have been on the job. All of these actions can be unlawful.

In a press release, Starbucks Employees United, the department of the union representing staff there, mentioned that the discovering “confirms the extent and depravity of Starbucks’s conduct in Western New York for the higher a part of a yr.” It added: “Starbucks can be held accountable for the union-busting minefield they compelled staff to stroll by in combating for his or her proper to arrange.”

Starbucks mentioned in a press release that the grievance doesn’t represent a judgment by the labor board, including, “We imagine the allegations contained within the grievance are false, and we look ahead to presenting our proof when the allegations are adjudicated.”