Amazon partially wins unfair labor practice appeal

Amazon is one of the largest retailers in the world but few of its warehouses are unionized. This case arises from a unionization effort, where an Amazon employee, Bryson, was terminated following a warehouse parking lot protest that turned into a verbal altercation with a coworker about Amazon's COVID protocols in March 2020. 

The case is National Labor Relations Board v. Amazon.com, issued on June 12. The National Labor Relations Board petitioned to have Bryson reinstated at a time when workers were trying to unionize, as the NLRB believed Bryson's termination would chill unionization activity.  This dispute ultimately wound up in federal court, which said there was reasonable cause to believe that Amazon committed an unfair labor practice in firing Bryson, and that Amazon had to cease and desist from firing any employee who engaged in protected activity. The court, however, declined to order Bryson's reinstatement.

The Court of Appeals (Livingston, Chin and Wesley) finds that the district court abused its discretion in issuing the cease and desist order because it did not properly support its holding that the cease and desist order was just and proper after concluding that Bryson did not have to return to his former position. Injunctions under the National Labor Relations Act constitute an "extraordinary remedy" that must be equitable. 

The district court did not explain what in the record supported its finding that the cease and desist order was just and proper. While firing active and open union supporters contemporaneous with their union activity may justify an injunction under the NLRA, it does not appear that Bryson's termination had a negative impact on the union organizing, as employee interest in the union actually increased after Bryson was fired, and the employees voted in the union to represent them.

The Court of Appeals finds this is a "unique" case. It sums up this way: "We by no means suggest that cease-and-desist orders can never be appropriate in resolving labor disputes, nor do we purport to restrict a district court’s flexibility in fashioning equitable relief.  Rather, our holding is narrow: the absence of explanation justifying relief, coupled with the district court’s explicit, undisputed findings in rejecting the request to order Bryson’s reinstatement, cast serious doubt on the propriety of this cease-and-desist order. The district court’s injunction is therefore vacated as to parts (1)(a) and (1)(b)."