The conflict started when BTS drivers decided last year to join the International Brotherhood of Teamsters union, therefore becoming the first Amazon delivery contractors to unionize. After then, Amazon allegedly broke their agreement with BTS, an action the NLRB contends was illegal. The NLRB says Amazon did this without first consulting the Teamsters, which would have been necessary should Amazon have acknowledged it as a joint employer of the drivers.

The NLRB said in August that it agreed with the union's allegations and that Amazon should be regarded as their employer under federal labor laws as it clearly has major influence on the BTS drivers. Should Amazon fail to resolve the issue, the NLRB issued a warning that a formal complaint would be issued. After Amazon failed to come to an understanding with the union, the complaint was formally lodged on Monday.

Amazon has earlier contended that it did not have enough influence over the working conditions of the drivers qualified to be regarded as joint employers. But in U.S. labor law, dual employment has been a hotly contested matter. Particularly under changing political governments, the standards for deciding whether a corporation qualifies as a joint employer have changed within the past ten years. Business groups like Amazon support a more stringent definition that calls for direct, instantaneous employee control. Conversely, unions and many Democrats want a more expansive view including indirect forms of control, which would cover circumstances like Amazon's relationship with BTS drivers.

Should the NLRB find Amazon to be a joint employer, there could be significant ramifications requiring the business to negotiate with unions representing other contractors' employees. Such a ruling might also set a standard for like circumstances involving Amazon and its affiliates all throughout the nation. Given labor policies across its extensive network of contractors, this would probably make Amazon reassess how it handles ties with outside companies offering delivery services.

Complicating matters further, Amazon has also sued the NLRB contesting its jurisdiction. The corporation contends that internal enforcement policies and board structure compromise the U.S. Constitution. In one well-known instance, Amazon has fought to stop the NLRB from ordering it to engage with a union representing workers at one of its New York City facilities. Recently supporting Amazon, a federal appeals court stopped the NLRB's activities temporarily while it examined the company's arguments.

This continuous judicial struggle emphasizes how controversial joint employer status in U.S. labor law is. Depending on the political environment, the NLRB's definition of joint employment has changed multiple times recently. The Obama government defined things more broadly, then later tightened under the Trump government. The Biden government has aimed to revert to the more inclusive definition, which include direct and indirect worker control.

An administrative court in Los Angeles is slated to consider the matter involving Amazon and BTS drivers; an initial hearing is due for next March. The five-member NLRB will review the judge's ruling; any later decision might be appealed to federal court. Should the NLRB support the union, Amazon may have to deal with unions representing drivers not only at BTS but maybe throughout other subcontracted delivery businesses.

As Amazon negotiates growing pressure from unions and labor rights campaigners, this legal fight is among several others the business deals with. Labor concerns inside Amazon's supply chain will probably remain a hot-button issue as demand for services like artificial intelligence and e-commerce rises, particularly in sectors like delivery where subcontracting is popular. The result of this case might change the way businesses like Amazon handle their contacts with contractors and employees, therefore affecting labor policies all throughout the sector.

Amazon faces US labor board complaint over "joint employment" of drivers

Comments