Amazon Beats Back Most of the Teamsters’ Charges

An NLRB administrative law judge just handed Amazon a mostly favorable decision in the Teamsters’ San Francisco organizing fight (DCK6 delivery station).

The General Counsel threw the kitchen sink at Amazon — a “myriad” of 8(a)(1) and (3) allegations. Surveillance. Threats. Promising perks to ditch the union vests. Stricter rules. The judge dismissed almost all of it.

What survived? Two unlawful interrogations by one manager, stricter enforcement of an off-duty access policy, pulling an organizer from a “learning ambassador” program, and one unlawful discharge.

The two termination calls are the interesting part.

Employee Daniele was fired after riding a stow cart. The judge found Amazon knew he supported the union, showed animus, and the timing looked bad. He still dismissed the charge. Why? The investigation was started by an employee-relations rep who had no idea Daniele was pro-union. No nexus between his union activity and the firing — so no violation.

Notably, the judge said Amazon’s investigation was “a mess from start to finish” and could have gone lighter. Didn’t matter. Sloppy isn’t the same as unlawful.

The other firing? Different result. The employee used a racial slur during a protected conversation, but under Lion Elastomers’ totality test, he kept the Act’s protection. That termination got reversed.

The lesson for employers: motive is everything, and who starts the investigation matters.