"Failure to Deliver: Assessing Amazon’s Freedom of Association Policy under International Labor Standards", 16 May 2022

On March 11, 2022, Amazon announced a new policy on freedom of association under international standards. Citing International Labor Organization and United Nations principles, Amazon pledged to comply with global norms on union organizing and collective bargaining, even when national labor law reflects a “gap in governance” with international standards.

This assessment shows that Amazon’s freedom of association policy, on its face, is non-compliant with international labor standards, and Amazon management’s conduct before and after issuing the policy continues to violate international standards.

Non-compliant on its face

Amazon’s March 11th statement on Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining contains no specific references to ILO Conventions 87 and 98, which are the foundation of international freedom of association standards. It makes no reference to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and OECD policy prescriptions urging “a positive approach towards the activities of trade unions and an open attitude towards organizational activities of workers.”...

The key international standard and Amazon’s violations

The polestar international principle on freedom of association is that of non-interference in workers’ organizing....

Instilling fear

Both before and since issuing its March 11th freedom of association policy statement, Amazon has violated this non-interference standard. Management imposed pressure and instilled fear through a massive communications offensive in weeks leading up to union elections in Bessemer, Alabama, and Staten Island, New York, led by anti-union consultants paid thousands of dollars per day by Amazon.

Anti-union discrimination

In a case involving the discharge of a union activist in Staten Island, an NLRB administrative law judge ruled on April 18, 2022, that...

• Amazon “rushed to judgement and was more concerned about justifying the discharge of [the employee] than conducting a good-faith investigation to determine what actually occurred.…”
• Amazon’s “stated reason for discharging [the employee] was a pretext for his protected concerted activity.”...

Workers’ choice—and Amazon’s defiance

...a majority of Staten Island workers voted in favor of union representation by the Amazon Labor Union...

Amazon has refused to accept the vote results in Staten Island and has begun a process of objections and appeals that could take years to resolve...And rather than honor the judge’s ruling in the discriminatory discharge case, Amazon immediately announced an appeal to the full five-member Board in Washington...

Recommendations

[...]

At a minimum, a freedom of association policy should emphasize:

• Not hiring anti-union consultants to wage campaigns against workers’ organizing efforts;
• Not forcing workers into anti-union captive-audience meetings;
• Not creating anti-union websites or using company communication systems to convey anti-union messages;
• Not disparaging, deriding, or otherwise attacking unions;
• Not telling workers that “management starts bargaining at minimum wage” or that workers could lose pay and benefits if they form a union;
• Not telling workers that management will replace them if they exercise the right to strike;
• Not refusing access to the workplace for union representatives to discuss organizing with employees under ILO rules (which specify that such access must be accompanied by “due respect for the rights of property and management”).

[...]