08/19/2025: Many Unfair Labor Practices in Kentucky Amazon Facility
Two Amazon cases in one day!
AMAZON.COM Services LLC and Its Subsidiary, Amazon Air, JD-66-25, 09-CA-311529 (ALJ Decision)
In this NLRB decision (JD-66-25), Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan found that Amazon.com Services violated multiple provisions of the National Labor Relations Act at its Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati Airport (KCVG) facility during 2023-2024.
The case stems from Amazon's response to union organizing activities at KCVG, where employees began organizing with the Amazon Labor Union-KCVG in November 2022, focusing on pay issues. The facility employs approximately 3,500 people who work primarily in the ramp area (where planes are loaded/unloaded) and the sortation area.
Union Tables and Rallies
A significant portion of the case concerns Amazon's restrictions on union tables. In March 2023, pro-union employees set up tables outside the ramp building during a rally that featured Chris Smalls, president of the Amazon Labor Union at Staten Island. Amazon implemented badge checks for entry to the parking lot (something never previously required) and repeatedly asked employees to move their tables, claiming safety concerns.
The ALJ found these safety concerns were pretextual, as video evidence showed the tables did not impede movement or create hazards. Amazon's security personnel maintained surveillance of the rally both on and off company property.
Similar issues arose in November 2023 when pro-union employees set up tables, banners, and an easel in the parking garage. Amazon's General Manager threatened discipline if employees didn't remove the larger table and easel, while subjecting them to repeated badge checks. The ALJ determined these badge checks were harassment since Amazon knew these individuals were employees and badges weren't required in the parking garage.
"Marches on the Boss"
In November 2023, employees conducted two "Marches on the Boss" where groups of approximately 30 off-duty employees entered management offices to discuss concerns about badge checks and disciplinary actions. After these marches, Amazon issued "documented coachings" to participants for violating its Off-Duty Access Policy.
The ALJ found this policy violated the law as applied at KCVG because it prohibited off-duty employees from non-working areas (like the breezeway), wasn't clearly disseminated, and was enforced disparately in response to union activity.
Disciplinary Actions
The judge determined that Amazon violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by issuing final written warnings to numerous employees for "insubordination" when they refused to remove the union table and easel in November. These disciplinary actions were unlawful because they were issued for protected conduct.
Regarding union supporter Griffin Ritze's termination, the ALJ found that while Ritze was a prominent union organizer who received discipline for protected activities, Amazon met its burden under Wright Line by proving it terminated him for non-discriminatory reasons - specifically, for attending "Protect Your Privacy" meetings to which he wasn't invited and for "self-assigning" work tasks.
The ALJ dismissed allegations regarding Edward Clarke's discharge (finding insufficient evidence Amazon knew of his union activity) and Marcio Rodriguez's Weingarten request (as current Board law does not confer Weingarten rights on non-union employees).
Solicitation Policy
Amazon's solicitation policy was found unlawful because it required management's approval in advance - an unlawful restriction on Section 7 rights. Evidence showed Amazon permitted distribution and solicitation for company-sanctioned events in the same areas where it restricted union activity.
Remedies
The ALJ ordered Amazon to cease and desist from the unlawful conduct, rescind all discipline issued for the November 2023 union solicitation activities, and post notices at the KCVG facility.
Significant Cases Cited
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Established the framework for analyzing alleged discriminatory discipline or discharge under Section 8(a)(3).
Tri-County Medical Center, 222 NLRB 1089 (1976): Set forth criteria for valid off-duty employee access rules, requiring they limit access solely to working areas, be clearly disseminated, and apply uniformly.
Double Eagle Hotel and Casino, 341 NLRB 112 (2004): Held that discipline imposed pursuant to an overbroad rule is unlawful regardless of whether the conduct could have been prohibited by a lawful rule.
Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984): Established the "totality of circumstances" test for determining when employer interrogation of employees violates the Act.
Brunswick Corp., 282 NLRB 794 (1987): Ruled that requiring management's approval in advance is an unlawful restriction on employees' Section 7 rights.
AMAZON.COM Services LLC and Its Subsidiary, Amazon Air, JD-59-25, 09-CA-307021 (ALJ Decision)
This August 18, 2025 decision by Administrative Law Judge Arthur J. Amchan addresses multiple labor violations by Amazon at its Northern Kentucky/Cincinnati airport facility (KCVG). The case stems from charges filed between November 2022 and April 2023 by Amazon employees who were involved in union organizing activities.
The case began when employees at KCVG started organizing with the Amazon Labor Union-KCVG in November 2022, focusing on seasonal pay and cost-of-living increases. Several charging parties, including Griffin Ritze, Nicholas Hauser, and Braeden Pierce, were key figures in this union activity.
The ALJ analyzed several incidents where Amazon allegedly violated the National Labor Relations Act:
The judge dismissed an allegation regarding a November 10, 2022 incident where Griffin Ritze claimed he was approached by security while distributing union literature, finding inconsistencies in Ritze's testimony.
Regarding a January 17, 2023 incident, the judge declined to find a violation related to Area Manager Joshua McWilliams' confrontation of employees distributing union handbills in a smoking area, due to insufficient evidence about which employees were present and their duty status.
For a March 18, 2023 union rally, the judge found several violations:
Amazon unlawfully instituted badge checks and checkpoints at parking lot entrances
Amazon conducted surveillance of union activities during the rally
Amazon improperly attempted to remove union tables from non-work areas
On March 23, 2023, Amazon unlawfully enforced its off-duty access policy against employees distributing union literature in the "breezeway" connecting the sortation building and parking garage, which the judge determined was a non-work area.
Amazon violated the Act by failing to reappoint Braeden Pierce and Nicholas Hauser as "learning ambassadors" (employees who train new hires) in April 2023 due to their union activities. The judge found Amazon's reasons for not selecting them were pretextual.
The ALJ applied legal frameworks including the Wright Line standard for analyzing discrimination claims and the Tri-County Medical Center standard for assessing off-duty access policies. The judge found Amazon's selective enforcement of policies, surveillance, and discriminatory treatment of union supporters constituted violations of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the Act.
The decision orders Amazon to cease and desist from these unfair labor practices and to take affirmative actions, including reappointing Pierce and Hauser to their learning ambassador positions with uninterrupted service credit, and posting notices about the violations for 60 days.
Significant Cases Cited
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Established the framework for analyzing discrimination cases where the employer's motivation is at issue.
Republic Aviation Corp. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945): Requires balancing employer's property interests against employees' right to organize.
Tri-County Medical Center, 222 NLRB 1089 (1976): Established the standard for valid off-duty employee access rules.
Stoddard-Quirk Mfg. Co, 138 NLRB 615 (1962): Prohibits employers from restricting distribution of literature by employees in non-work areas when off duty.
NCRNC, LLC d/b/a Northeast Center for Rehabilitation, 372 NLRB No. 35 (2022): Addresses when employer surveillance of employees engaged in protected activity becomes unlawfully coercive.
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 32-RC-367739 (Regional Election Decision)
This case involves a petition filed by International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers, Local 39, AFL-CIO seeking to represent a unit of six IoMT Leads, Clinical Systems Engineers – IoMT Specialists, and Biomedical Engineering Chief Engineers at Kaiser Foundation Health Plan's Northern California facilities.
The hearing addressed three key issues: (1) whether the job classifications in the proposed unit are guards under Section 9(b)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act; (2) whether the petitioned-for unit limited to Northern California facilities is appropriate for bargaining or should include nationwide employees; and (3) the election mode.
Regarding the first issue, the Regional Director found that IoMT Cybersecurity Field Team members are not guards under Section 9(b)(3). The Director analyzed traditional guard indicia, noting that these employees do not engage in surveillance of coworkers, enforce rules against employees, wear guard uniforms, carry weapons, investigate internal cybersecurity threats, or control access to premises. Their work primarily involves implementing security controls on medical devices as instructed by other teams who handle threat identification and analysis.
On the second issue, the Director determined that the Northern California regional unit is appropriate for bargaining as it constitutes a distinct community of interest from employees in other regions. The Director applied the multifacility unit appropriateness test, examining factors including: employees' skills and duties, terms and conditions of employment, employee interchange, functional integration, geographic proximity, centralized control of management, and bargaining history. While skills and duties were similar nationwide, significant factors weighing in favor of the Northern California unit included limited employee interchange between regions, geographic separation, and the Employer's own regional organization of workflow and supervision.
Finally, the Director concluded that a mail-ballot election was appropriate given that employees work remotely and there is no single time when all employees are at the Employer's facilities.
The Direction of Election set forth the specifics of the mail-ballot election, including eligibility requirements and procedures for posting notices.
Significant Cases Cited
Boeing Co., 328 NLRB 128 (1999): Established factors for determining guard status under Section 9(b)(3).
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings, 341 NLRB 1079 (2004): Set forth factors for evaluating the appropriateness of a petitioned-for multifacility unit.
Audio Visual Services Group, LLC, 370 NLRB No. 39 (2020): Held that petitioned-for employees need only share a distinct community of interest from excluded employees.
Cazanove Opici Wine Grp., 371 NLRB No. 30 (2021): Found geographic proximity strongly weighed in favor of a metropolitan unit of remote employees over a statewide unit.
San Diego Gas and Electric, 325 NLRB 1143 (1998): Defined when employees may be deemed "scattered" for determining election mode.