Sign in Subscribe
News

🗞️ NLRB Affirms Amazon Violated Labor Law in Staten Island Union Drive, Declines to Fault a Related Firing

The NLRB affirmed that Amazon unlawfully surveilled, interrogated, and retaliated against JFK8 and DYY6 workers during the 2021 Amazon Labor Union campaign, while dismissing a claim that one worker's firing was retaliatory.

onthelaborfront

onthelaborfront

— 2 min read
Share
🗞️ NLRB Affirms Amazon Violated Labor Law in Staten Island Union Drive, Declines to Fault a Related Firing

The National Labor Relations Board issued a decision on July 2, 2026 largely upholding a 2023 ruling by Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposito that found Amazon.com Services violated federal labor law repeatedly during the Amazon Labor Union's organizing drive at the JFK8 fulfillment center and the neighboring DYY6 delivery station on Staten Island in 2021. The Board found that Amazon, through hired labor consultants, contracted security guards, and its own managers, unlawfully interrogated workers about their union sympathies, told employees that supporting the union would be futile, confiscated union literature, and conducted or created the impression of surveillance of organizing activity. One consultant was also found to have disparaged the union using language tied to racial stereotypes.

Separately, the Board upheld findings that Amazon retaliated against DYY6 worker Daequan Smith, an early union supporter, by sending him home before the end of a shift, reassigning his duties, and subjecting him to closer supervision after he raised concerns about the pace of work and identified himself to a manager as a union supporter. The Board agreed with the judge, however, that the NLRB's General Counsel and the union had not established that Smith's subsequent discharge, which stemmed from a negative unpaid time balance processed by a centralized human resources unit with no apparent knowledge of his union activity, was itself unlawful. The Board also declined to order broader remedies sought by the General Counsel and the union, such as a mandatory notice reading and companywide labor law training, concluding the violations, while serious, did not rise to the level required for such measures. Amazon must still compensate Smith for wages lost as a result of the early dismissal and post remedial notices at both facilities.

Key Points

  • The Board affirmed that Amazon violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act through coercive interrogation, threats of futility, confiscation of union literature, and surveillance or the impression of surveillance at JFK8.
  • A labor consultant's remarks comparing the union to a "Black Lives Matter protest" and calling organizers "thugs" were found to unlawfully disparage the union through appeals to racial prejudice.
  • Contracted security guards were found to be Amazon's agents for purposes of the Act, extending liability for their conduct to the company.
  • The Board upheld findings that DYY6 worker Daequan Smith faced unlawful retaliation, including an early shift dismissal and reassignment, for his union activity.
  • The Board dismissed the claim that Smith's ultimate discharge was retaliatory, crediting testimony that the decision was made by a centralized HR team unaware of his union involvement.
  • Amazon was ordered to make Smith whole for lost earnings and post remedial notices at JFK8 and DYY6, but the Board declined broader remedies such as a notice reading or mandatory labor law training.

Primary Source Author: National Labor Relations Board (Chairman James R. Murphy and Members David M. Prouty and Scott A. Mayer)

Primary Source: Amazon.com Services Inc. and Amazon Labor Union, 374 NLRB No. 138 (July 2, 2026)

Primary Source Link: nlrb.gov/case/29-CA-277198

Read more