An administrative law judge at the National Labor Relations Board in San Francisco recently ruled that Amazon CEO Andy Jassy violated the National Labor Relations Act when he made comments about labor unions in multiple media outlets. did. As a result of Mr. Jassy's violation, a judge ordered Amazon to post a nationwide notice stating that it was violating the law. Amazon.com Services LLC's decision includes the distinction between corporate management expressing opinions related to labor union activities (legal under the Act) and management making threats regarding such activities (illegal under the Act). The historical distinction between
Statements in the press
Mr. Jassy made three main comments. First, he said unionizing would make it more difficult for employees to have a direct relationship with management. Second, he said union organizing would make workplaces more bureaucratic and much slower to get things done. Finally, he said he believes Amazon employees would be better off without a union. So what is an opinion and what is a threat?
legal analysis
An NLRB administrative law judge analyzed these statements to determine whether they were illegal under the National Labor Relations Act. The judge noted that comments by management that simply state an opinion generally constitute free speech and are legal under the Act. However, the administrator's threatening comments do not fall under freedom of speech and are illegal under the same law. In this case, the first comment, that unionization would make it more difficult for employees to have a direct relationship with management, was determined to be a legitimate comment. But the second statement, that the workplace will become more bureaucratic and much slower, is unprotected free speech and violates the law. Perhaps it's not particularly clear why “difficult to build relationships with management” is very different from “bureaucratic and slow” and why one statement is legal and the other is not. I don't know. Amazon's judges agreed, ruling that the “bureaucratic and slow” comments amounted to threats.
This brings me to my third comment. The idea is that Amazon workers would be better off without a union. Sounds like some sort of opinion. However, since the second statement constitutes a threat, the third statement, although an opinion, is also illegal as it involves a threat. In other words, the comment was no longer an opinion, but a threatening opinion. It therefore amounted to an illegal statement (according to the judge).
Take-out
While the Amazon decision is not particularly clear-cut, what is clear is that the NLRB has never been more aggressive in protecting union activities. While management expressions have historically been legal under the Act, boards are doing everything they can to narrow the content of their opinions. Now, saying that a company would be better off without a union can be threatening. Especially if unions say the workplace is bureaucratic and slow. Please be careful. When trade union activity becomes active in the workplace, management needs to be very cautious and cautious about what it is allowed to say. At least for now.
