Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—NLRB: Amazon’s improvements to employee benefit plan not made to discourage support for union, (Feb 23, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

Record evidence that the benefits changes were companywide and that the September announcement made no reference to the union tended to weigh against an inference that the announcement was intended to dissuade employees from supporting the union.

The NLRB affirmed an administrative law judge’s dismissal of allegations that Amazon violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by promising employees improvements in its Career Choice Program in order to discourage them from selecting a union as their collective bargaining representative. Here, the Board observed that absent a complaint allegation that Amazon’s decision or its September announcement was unlawfully motivated, its motive for that conduct was not litigated. Further, because controlling Board precedent holds that the lawfulness of an employer’s reference to existing benefits does not turn on the extent to which employees had prior actual notice of the existence of those benefits, the ALJ did not err in dismissing those complaint allegations (Amazon.com Services LLC, 374 N.L.R.B. No. 38 (Feb. 19, 2026)).

In April 2021, a group of Amazon employees formed a union and began organizing facilities including the JFK8 fulfillment center in Staten Island, New York, at issue in this case. The union filed a representation petition for employees at JFK8 on October 25, which it withdrew on November 12 before filing a new petition on December 22.

Career Choice Program. In September, after the commencement of the union’s campaign but before the first JFK8 petition, Amazon announced a plan for January 2022 companywide enhancements to a previously existing Career Choice Program that provided reimbursement to employees for educational expenses. On November 10 and 11, Amazon conducted mandatory employee meetings at the JFK8 facility, during which its agents discussed, among other things, the Career Choice Program and the previously announced planned enhancements to that program.

The General Counsel alleged that Amazon’s November discussions of the program violated Section 8(a)(1) by promising employees improved benefits in order to discourage them from selecting the union. However, the General Counsel did not dispute that Amazon separately announced the planned benefit enhancements in September, a distinct communication from the November discussions, and has not alleged that the September announcement was unlawful.

Announcement of enhanced benefits. Here, the General Counsel contended that an ALJ erred in failing to infer that Amazon’s decision to enhance benefits and the September announcement were unlawfully motivated because it failed to present a legitimate business reason for this conduct. However, the Board noted that absent a complaint allegation that Amazon’s decision or its September announcement was unlawfully motivated, the employer’s motive for that conduct was not litigated. Record evidence that the benefits changes were companywide and that the September announcement made no reference to the union tended to weigh against an inference that the September announcement was intended to dissuade employees from supporting the Union under extant Board law.

November discussions. The General Counsel further contended that the ALJ erred in failing to find the November remarks unlawful because the September announcement was insufficient to put most employees on actual notice of the improvements to the Career Choice Program, making the November remarks the first effective announcement of the changes. However, the General Counsel did not contend that the September announcement was unlawful. Further, the Board has held that an employer may lawfully refer to existing benefits of which employees may not have been aware. Because controlling Board precedent holds that the lawfulness of an employer’s reference to existing benefits does not turn on the extent to which employees had prior actual notice of the existence of those benefits, the ALJ did not err in dismissing these complaint allegations.

The slip opinion is 374 NLRB No. 38.

Attorneys: Emily Cabrera, for General Counsel. Juan Enjamio (Hunton Andrews Kurth) for Amazon.com Services LLC. Seth Goldstein (Law Offices of Seth Goldstein) for Dana Joann Miller and Amazon Labor Union.

Companies: Amazon.com Services LLC; Amazon Labor Union

Cases: Labor UnfairLaborPractices AgencyNews PensionBenefitPlans GCNNews