Legal Filing Claims Amazon’s Challenge to “Unconstitutional” NLRB Structure Will “Destroy the Whole Process” – Read the Full Story!

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON – E-commerce giant Amazon has filed a legal argument contending that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is unconstitutional, as part of its response to a case involving alleged unlawful retaliation against workers at a New York City warehouse who had voted to unionize nearly two years ago. The company’s filing is the latest in a series of arguments made by various organizations questioning the constitutionality of the NLRB.

In its filing, Amazon denies the charges brought by agency prosecutors and requests for the complaint to be dismissed. The company takes issue with the structure of the NLRB, particularly the limits on the removal of administrative law judges and five board members appointed by the president, arguing that the structure violates the separation of powers and infringes on executive powers stipulated in the Constitution. Amazon also asserts that NLRB proceedings deny the company a trial by a jury and violate its due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

The legal argument from Amazon follows similar claims made by other companies, including SpaceX and Trader Joe’s, in separate lawsuits and agency hearings. SpaceX recently sued the NLRB, arguing that the structure of the agency is unconstitutional, while Trader Joe’s has also raised concerns about the constitutionality of the NLRB and its panel of administrative law judges.

According to Seth Goldstein, an attorney representing both the Amazon Labor Union and the labor group Trader Joe’s United, the trend of companies challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB is “very frightening,” suggesting that it is a strategy to undermine the union organizing process.

The legal dispute between Amazon and the NLRB underscores the ongoing tension between companies and labor organizations, particularly in the e-commerce and tech industry, regarding workers’ rights and organizing efforts. As the case unfolds, it is likely to have broader implications for labor relations and the legal framework governing the relationship between companies and their workforce.