07/24/2025: Amazon Committed Many Unfair Labor Practices

A case with a succinct summary of why representation cases can proceed without a quorum.

Amazon.com Services LLC, JD-63-25, 13-CA-301810 (ALJ Decision)

This July 2025 NLRB decision addresses multiple allegations that Amazon violated federal labor law at facilities across New York, Illinois, and Missouri in response to union organizing efforts, particularly by the Amazon Labor Union (ALU).

Administrative Law Judge Charles J. Muhl examined Amazon's nationwide off-duty access policy implemented in summer 2022, which prohibited employees from being inside facilities during off-duty periods. The Judge determined that Amazon had legitimate business justifications for the timing of this policy's implementation, including safety concerns following a deadly tornado at a facility in December 2021, and rejected claims that it was unlawfully motivated by union activity.

However, the Judge found Amazon's solicitation policy violated the National Labor Relations Act because it was overly broad and ambiguous, failing to clearly specify that solicitation was permitted in work areas during non-working time.

The decision details numerous instances where Amazon supervisors and security personnel unlawfully prohibited off-duty employees from engaging in protected activities in parking lots at facilities in Albany, Chicago, and St. Louis. In several cases, Amazon called police when employees refused to leave these non-work areas while distributing union literature or collecting petition signatures.

Regarding the key issue of Connor Spence's discipline and ultimate termination, the Judge ruled that Amazon lawfully discharged him after multiple violations of the off-duty access policy. The Judge found that Amazon consistently enforced this policy against employees regardless of whether they were engaged in protected activity.

The Judge also examined ALU's objections to an election in Albany, concluding that while Amazon did commit unfair labor practices during the critical period, these violations were too minimal to have affected the election outcome given the significant margin of the union's defeat.

The decision orders Amazon to cease and desist from various unfair labor practices, post notices at affected facilities, and rescind its unlawful solicitation policy.

Significant Cases Cited

• Tri-County Medical Center, 222 NLRB 1089 (1976): Established three conditions for lawful off-duty access rules, including limiting restrictions to interior work areas and applying rules equally to all off-duty employees.

• Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945): Established that employers cannot prohibit employees from distributing union literature in non-working areas during non-working time.

• Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Set forth the framework for analyzing alleged discriminatory discipline, requiring the General Counsel to prove protected activity was a motivating factor.

• Care One at Madison Avenue, 361 NLRB 1462 (2014): Held that promulgating workplace rules in response to union activity violates Section 8(a)(1).

• Methodist Hospital of Kentucky, 318 NLRB 1107 (1995): Found that security guards violated the Act by telling employees they could not distribute literature in employer parking lots.

Imperial Bag & Paper Co. LLC, D/B/a Imperial Dade, 12-RD-368839 (Regional Election Decision)

On July 7, 2025, Lionel Powell filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) seeking to decertify Teamsters Local Union No. 385 as the collective bargaining representative for approximately 42 drivers and shuttle drivers at Imperial Dade's Orlando, Florida facility. This case addresses whether a Regional Director has authority to process representation petitions when the NLRB lacks a quorum and determines when an election should be scheduled.

Background

The petition involves employees at Imperial Dade, a company engaged in storing and distributing goods from its Orlando facility. The appropriate bargaining unit consists of all full-time and regular part-time drivers and shuttle drivers at the facility.

The key procedural issue arose because President Donald Trump removed Board Member Gwynne A. Wilcox on January 27, 2025, leaving only two members (Chairman Marvin E. Kaplan and Member David A. Prouty) on the Board. This removal sparked litigation that went to the Supreme Court, which granted the Government's stay on May 22, 2025. As a result, the NLRB lacked a quorum when the petition was filed.

Authority to Process Petitions Without Board Quorum

The Employer contended that without a Board quorum, the Regional Director lacked authority to process petitions, hold hearings, certify election results, or engage in representation case procedures. Both the Petitioner and Union opposed this position.

Regional Director David Cohen determined he had authority to process the petition based on:

1. Section 3(b) of the Act, which authorizes the Board to delegate representation case powers to regional directors

2. The Board's May 15, 1961 delegation of authority to regional directors, which has never been withdrawn

3. NLRB Rules and Regulations at Subpart X, specifically Section 102.178, stating normal operations should continue to the greatest extent permitted by law when the Board lacks a quorum

4. Section 102.182, providing that representation cases may continue to be processed when the Board lacks a quorum

The Regional Director noted that the Board has previously rejected arguments similar to the Employer's. He cited several court decisions upholding regional directors' authority to process representation cases despite the lack of a Board quorum.

Significantly, the Regional Director addressed the Supreme Court's decision in New Process Steel, which stated that the Board's conclusion "does not cast doubt on the prior delegations of authority to nongroup members, such as the regional directors or the general counsel." This directly contradicted the Employer's reliance on the Laurel Baye case.

The Director also rejected the Employer's argument that the Supreme Court's recent Loper Bright Enterprises decision (overruling the Chevron doctrine) invalidated regional directors' authority when the Board lacks a quorum.

Election Date Determination

The parties disputed when the election should be held. The Petitioner initially requested August 7, the Union preferred July 31 or August 1, and the Employer sought August 21 (after the August 11 school reopening date, which it claimed was its busiest period).

The Regional Director scheduled the election for August 7, 2025, citing Section 102.67(b) of the Board's Rules requiring elections "for the earliest date practicable." He found the Employer's arguments about traffic and overtime concerns unpersuasive, noting that:

1. Traffic actually increases after schools open

2. The unit's staggered shifts and the 5-hour voting window (4:00-9:00 a.m.) would minimize voting disruptions

3. The August 7 date would provide sufficient time for the Employer to submit the voter list and for parties to have the full 10-day access period before the election

Significant Cases Cited

• New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB, 560 U.S. 674 (2010): Supreme Court held the Board couldn't delegate authority to a future Board with fewer than three members but expressly stated this did not invalidate prior delegations to regional directors.

• Brentwood Assisted Living Community, 355 NLRB No. 149 (2010): Board found Regional Director properly processed a representation case despite the lack of Board quorum.

• UC Health v. NLRB, 803 F.3d 669 (DC Cir. 2015): Court upheld Regional Directors' authority to process cases when Board lacks quorum.

• Trump v. Wilcox, 145 S.Ct. 1415 (2025): Supreme Court granted stay of lower court's order, holding the President likely had authority to terminate Board Member Wilcox.

• Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 US 369 (2024): Supreme Court overruled Chevron deference to administrative agencies' statutory interpretations.