Amazon, SpaceX, and Trader Joe’s have all recently argued that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is unconstitutional. These claims have been made in separate legal filings and lawsuits, with each company expressing concerns about workers’ rights and organizing.
The most recent filing came from Amazon, in response to a case before an administrative law judge regarding allegations of unlawful retaliation against workers at a New York City warehouse who voted to unionize nearly two years ago. In its filing, Amazon denies many of the charges and requests for the complaint to be dismissed. However, the company’s attorneys take it a step further by arguing that the structure of the NLRB violates the separation of powers and infringes on executive powers outlined in the Constitution. They also claim that NLRB proceedings deny the company a trial by a jury and violate its due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
Seth Goldstein, an attorney representing both the Amazon Labor Union and labor group Trader Joe’s United, finds this trend concerning. He believes that these companies are attempting to destroy the entire union organizing process because they have been unsuccessful in defeating successful unionization efforts. Goldstein’s statement reflects the fear that these arguments against the NLRB could have far-reaching consequences for workers’ rights.
This is not the first time such claims have been made. SpaceX filed a lawsuit against the NLRB in January, also arguing that the agency’s structure is unconstitutional. This came shortly after the labor agency accused SpaceX of unlawfully firing employees who had written an open letter critical of Elon Musk and creating an atmosphere of surveillance. Similarly, Trader Joe’s faced allegations of retaliating against union activism, and during a labor board hearing in January, an attorney for the grocery chain claimed that the NLRB and its panel of administrative law judges are structured unconstitutionally.
These arguments from Amazon, SpaceX, and Trader Joe’s highlight a growing concern among companies regarding workers’ rights and the power of labor unions. While the NLRB has been in existence for 88 years, these recent challenges suggest that its structure and processes may need to be reevaluated. The outcome of these legal battles could have significant implications for the future of labor relations in the United States.
It remains to be seen how the NLRB will respond to these claims. As of now, the agency has declined to comment on Amazon’s filing, and Amazon itself has not provided any immediate response to requests for comment. The legal battles between these companies and the NLRB are ongoing, and their outcomes will likely shape the landscape of workers’ rights and organizing efforts in the future.
