01/23/2025: Two Illegal Work Rules at Amazon
Rules requiring investigative confidentiality and forbidding removing company documents are overbroad.
Amazon.com Services LLC, JD(SF)-03-25, 28-CA-281240 (ALJ Decision)
This case revolves around allegations that Amazon.com Services, LLC violated federal labor laws by maintaining overly broad workplace rules and retaliating against an employee, Amber Lacey, for engaging in protected activities. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Eleanor Laws, issued a decision on January 22, 2025, finding that Amazon violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by maintaining certain overly broad rules but dismissed other allegations, including those related to Lacey’s discipline and termination.
1. Overly Broad Workplace Rules
The ALJ found that Amazon violated the NLRA by maintaining two overly broad workplace rules. The first rule prohibited employees from removing company documents without authorization. The ALJ determined that this rule could reasonably be interpreted to restrict employees’ rights to share their personnel files and other employment-related documents with third parties or government agencies. The second rule required employees to keep workplace investigations confidential. The ALJ found this rule unlawful because it was overly broad and failed to meet the legal standard that requires such rules to be narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate business interest.
As a result, the ALJ ordered Amazon to rescind these rules and post a notice informing employees of their rights under the NLRA.
2. Alleged Unlawful Discipline and Termination of Amber Lacey
The ALJ dismissed the allegations that Amazon unlawfully disciplined and terminated Lacey in retaliation for protected concerted activity. The analysis focused on whether Lacey’s actions constituted protected concerted activity under the NLRA and whether Amazon’s actions were motivated by anti-union animus.
The ALJ found that most of Lacey’s complaints were individual grievances, not concerted activity. Her primary complaints involved conflicts with a coworker, Kyle Robertson, and dissatisfaction with her job duties. The ALJ concluded that these complaints were not concerted because there was no evidence that other employees shared her concerns or that she was acting on their behalf. However, the ALJ found that Lacey’s October 2020 complaint about the grace period for clocking out was protected concerted activity because it was made on behalf of a group of employees who were told they could not leave early.
Regarding Lacey’s discipline and termination, the ALJ found no evidence of anti-union animus or retaliation. Lacey’s documented coaching for her June 2, 2021, altercation with a coworker was based on her unprofessional behavior, not her protected activity. Similarly, her termination for allegedly choking her supervisor, Amber Ponce, was based on Amazon’s honest belief that Lacey had engaged in serious misconduct, even if the choking gesture was not intended to be threatening.
3. Other Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
The ALJ dismissed several other allegations, including claims that Amazon removed Lacey’s job duties in retaliation for protected activity. The ALJ found no evidence to support these claims. Additionally, the ALJ found that the documented coaching issued to Lacey did not contain unlawful threats. The coaching warned Lacey that future violations could result in discipline, but the ALJ found this language was not coercive.
Conclusion and Order
The ALJ found that Amazon violated the NLRA by maintaining overly broad rules regarding the removal of company documents and the confidentiality of workplace investigations. Amazon was ordered to rescind the unlawful rules and provide employees with revised versions. The company was also required to post a notice informing employees of their rights under the NLRA.
The ALJ dismissed all other allegations, including those related to Lacey’s discipline and termination, finding no evidence of unlawful retaliation or anti-union animus.
Significant Cases Cited
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980) - Established framework for analyzing discrimination cases with mixed motives
Meyers Industries, 281 NLRB 882 (1986) - Defined protected concerted activity as requiring group action or authorization
Banner Health System, 362 NLRB 1108 (2015) - Held blanket confidentiality rules for workplace investigations are unlawful without specific justification
Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023) - Established new framework for analyzing workplace rules that may restrict Section 7 rights
Hallets Cove Management, 29-RD-358361 (Regional Election Decision)
This case involves a decertification petition filed by Dalibor Djeljevic seeking to remove the Stationary Engineers, Firemen Maintenance and Building Service Employees Union, Local 670, RWDSU, UFCW, AFL-CIO (the Union) as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of employees at Hallets Cove Management. The Regional Director, Teresa Poor, issued an order on January 22, 2025, dismissing the petition and revoking the Union’s certification due to the Union’s disclaimer of interest in representing the employees.
1. Background and Procedural History
On April 11, 2020, the Union was certified as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative for a unit of building service and maintenance employees at 30-85 Vernon Boulevard, Astoria, New York. The unit included full-time and regular part-time employees such as porters, doorpersons, weekend porters, weekend doorpersons, and concierges. Superintendents were initially excluded but were later included in the unit following a unit clarification petition filed by the Union on December 8, 2020.
On January 14, 2025, Dalibor Djeljevic filed a decertification petition (Case 29-RD-358361) seeking to remove the Union as the employees’ representative.
On January 21, 2025, the Union filed a disclaimer of interest, stating that it no longer wished to represent the employees in the bargaining unit, including the superintendent classification. The Union’s disclaimer was clear and unambiguous, and there was no evidence that the Union acted inconsistently with its disclaimer.
2. Legal Standard for Disclaimer of Interest
The Regional Director applied the well-established principle that when a union disclaims interest in representing a bargaining unit, the NLRB will honor the disclaimer and dismiss any pending representation petitions, including decertification petitions. This is because a disclaimer effectively removes the union as the employees’ representative, rendering the question of representation moot.
The Regional Director cited NLRB Rules and Regulations Section 102.64(a) and the NLRB Casehandling Manual (Part Two) Representation Proceedings, Section 11338.1, which govern the handling of disclaimers and unit clarification petitions. These provisions allow for the dismissal of representation petitions when a union disclaims interest, provided there is no evidence of inconsistent action by the union.
3. Decision and Order
The Regional Director found that the Union’s disclaimer of interest was valid and that there was no evidence of inconsistent action by the Union. As a result, the question of representation was no longer at issue, and further proceedings were unwarranted. The Regional Director issued the following orders:
The decertification petition in Case 29-RD-358361 was dismissed.
The Certification of Representative issued in Case 29-RC-260849 was revoked, effectively ending the Union’s status as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees.