Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—NLRB: Amazon unlawfully banned employees from distributing union literature on nonwork time in nonwork areas, (Jul 13, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

Amazon barred employees from distributing union literature at the same time that the employer’s workplace was wired for rapid communication across the entire workforce to allow it to inundate employees with its antiunion messaging.

A three-member panel of the NLRB adopted the findings of an administrative law judge that Amazon violated Section 8(a)(1) when a security guard, who was an agent of the employer, prohibited an employee from distributing union literature on nonwork time in nonwork areas, surveilled employee’s union activities, and confiscated union literature from nonwork areas. Further, in a separate incident, a second security guard created the impression of surveillance of employees’ union activities. Similarly, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s findings that Amazon violated Section 8(a)(1) when a manager and a human resources employee told employees that they could not distribute union literature on nonwork time in nonwork areas and confiscated union literature (Amazon.com Services Inc., 374 N.L.R.B. No. 138 (July 2, 2026)).

Union organizing campaign. On April 20, 2021, employees at Amazon’s JFK8 fulfillment center formed a union and launched a campaign to organize the employees, with the goal of negotiating a collective-bargaining agreement with the employer. Adjacent to the JFK8 facility is DYY6, which is a delivery station.

The complaint alleged that on June 12, 2021, an HR assistant violated Section 8(a)(1) by telling employees that they could not distribute union literature and confiscating union literature from employees. The complaint also alleged that on the same day, an operations manager unlawfully prohibited employees from distributing union literature by telling employees that Amazon had the right to remove union literature from the breakroom, and confiscated union literature from employees. Finally, the complaint alleged that on June 12, 2021, an HR Business Partner also unlawfully prohibited employees from distributing union literature by telling employees that Amazon had the right to remove union literature from the breakroom.

Further, in early September 2021, at DYY6, an area manager coercively interrogated employees regarding their support for the union and union sympathies, in violation of Section 8(a)(1).

Labor consultants. The complaint also alleges that labor consultants, acting as agents of Amazon, engaged in conduct that violated Section 8(a)(1) at the JFK8 facility. Specifically, a labor consultant made numerous statements on May 4, 2021, that violated Section 8(a)(1), including: (1) threatening employees that it would be futile for them to select ALU as their bargaining representative by telling employees there would never be a union at the facility; (2) threatening employees that it would be futile for them to select the union as their bargaining representative by telling employees that the union’s organizing campaign would fail because the union’s organizers were “thugs;” (3) disparaging the union organizers by telling employees that the union’s campaign would fail because the union’s organizers were “thugs;” (4) interrogating employees regarding their union activities; and (5) soliciting grievances from employees with an express promise to remedy them if the employees rejected the union as their bargaining representative.

On October 31, 2021, a second labor consultant violated Section 8(a)(1) by interrogating employees regarding their union activities and threatening employees by stating that their support for the union would inevitably engender strikes and walk-outs.

In the absence of exceptions to the ALJ’s findings that Amazon violated Section 8(a)(1) by the conduct of its labor consultants, the Board adopted those findings that the first labor consultant coercively interrogated an employee regarding her union activities and made statements to an employee indicating that support for the union would be futile, disparaged the union using appeals to racial prejudice and derogatory racial stereotyping, and solicited employee grievances and promised to remedy them.

Additionally, the second labor consultant violated Section 8(a)(1) telling employees that, if the union campaign at the Amazon’s JFK8 facility succeeded, strikes would be inevitable, and coercively interrogating employees regarding their union sympathies.

Security guards. The complaint also alleged that security guards at the JFK8 facility, acting as agents of Amazon, engaged in conduct violating Section 8(a)(1). Specifically, the complaint alleged that on May 16, 2021, in an employee breakroom at JFK8, a security guard told employees that they could not distribute union literature without Amazon’s permission, confiscated union literature from employees, and conducted surveillance of employees’ union activities.

Additionally, the complaint alleged that on May 24, 2021, outside the JFK8 facility, a security guard created the impression that employees’ union activities were under surveillance.

The Board adopted the ALJ’s findings that Amazon violated Section 8(a)(1) when a security guard prohibited an employee from distributing union literature on nonwork time in nonwork areas, surveilled employee’s union activities, and confiscated union literature from nonwork areas. Further, a second security guard created the impression of surveillance of employees’ union activities outside the JFK8 facility.

Delivery station. The complaint also contained a series of allegations involving events that occurred at the DYY6 Delivery Station. Specifically, the complaint alleged that in late September 2021, an Area Manager interrogated employees at the DYY6 facility regarding their union sympathies and activities in violation of Section 8(a)(1). The complaint further alleged that in late October 2021, Amazon violated Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) when it suspended a DYY6 employee by dismissing him from a shift early, changed his work assignments, and subjected him to closer supervision, in retaliation for his union activities and concerted complaints regarding wages, hours, and working conditions.

Retaliation. In late October 2021, at DYY6, Amazon dismissed the employee from his work shift early in retaliation for his support for the union and protected concerted activities, in violation of Sections 8(a)(3) and (1). Additionally, Amazon altered the employee’s work assignments for his support for the union and protected concerted activities. Further, Amazon subjected the employee to closer supervision in retaliation for his support for the union and protected concerted activities.

There were also no exceptions to the ALJ’s findings that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) where an Area Manager coercively interrogated an employee regarding his support for the union, ended his work shift early, altered his work assignments, and subjected him to closer supervision in retaliation for his support for the union and protected concerted activities. Accordingly, the Board adopted those findings.

Discharge. However, the Board adopted the ALJ’s dismissal of allegations that Amazon violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging the employee from his position at the DYY6 delivery station for his union and protected concerted activity. Even if the Board were to apply the “cat’s paw” discrimination theory advanced by the union, neither the General Counsel nor the union put forth sufficient evidence to show under that theory that an agent of the employer was motivated by discriminatory animus in taking an action that was the proximate cause of the employee’s discharge.

The slip opinion is 374 NLRB No. 138.

Attorneys: Emily Cabrera for General Counsel. Jeanne E. Mirer, Esq. (Mirer Mazzocchi & Julien) for Amazon Labor Union. Kurtis A. Powell (Hunton Andrews Kurth) for Amazon.com Services Inc.

Companies: Amazon.com Services Inc.; Amazon Labor Union

Cases: Labor UnfairLaborPractices OrganizingElections Retaliation Discharge AgencyNews