NLRB Hearing Officer Rules Amazon Illegally Interfered in Bessemer Election, Recommends New Vote

On August 2, 2021, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hearing officer issued a recommendation finding that Amazon had illegally interfered in the April 2021 union election at its Bessemer, Alabama warehouse, and recommending that the NLRB order a new election. The hearing officer’s decision, following months of hearings on the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union’s objections, concluded that Amazon’s arrangement for the U.S. Postal Service to install a ballot collection mailbox in the warehouse parking lot—positioned near Amazon’s surveillance cameras—had created a coercive atmosphere that destroyed the “laboratory conditions” necessary for a fair election. The ruling vindicated union claims that Amazon’s aggressive anti-union campaign had crossed legal lines, and it represented a significant rebuke to one of the world’s most powerful corporations for violating workers’ federally protected right to organize. The recommendation set the stage for a second election that would ultimately occur in early 2022, though it would not immediately have legal force until reviewed and adopted by the NLRB’s regional director.

The Hearing Officer’s Key Findings

NLRB Hearing Officer Kerstin Meyers conducted extensive hearings examining the union’s 23 objections to the April 2021 election. Her recommendation focused primarily on the mailbox controversy, finding it constituted illegal interference that warranted setting aside the election results and ordering a new vote.

The Mailbox Installation: In January 2021, at Amazon’s specific request, the U.S. Postal Service installed a large blue collection mailbox in the warehouse parking lot where workers could deposit their mail-in ballots. The hearing officer found this installation problematic for several reasons:

1. Amazon’s Request: Amazon had actively lobbied USPS to install the mailbox, emails revealed. The company claimed it wanted to make voting “convenient,” but the hearing officer found this explanation insufficient given the coercive effect.

2. Surveillance Context: The mailbox was positioned in an area covered by Amazon’s extensive surveillance camera system. Workers testifying at the hearings stated they believed Amazon could see them depositing ballots, destroying the secret ballot’s privacy.

3. Impression of Amazon Control: Most critically, the mailbox created the impression that Amazon, rather than the independent NLRB, was conducting the election. Workers testified they felt the vote was not truly independent when they had to deposit ballots on Amazon’s property under Amazon’s surveillance.

4. Alternative Available: A USPS facility was located nearby where workers could have mailed ballots without entering Amazon-controlled space. The mailbox installation was unnecessary and served only to extend Amazon’s presence into the voting process.

“Laboratory Conditions” Destroyed: NLRB precedent requires that union elections occur under “laboratory conditions” free from coercion or interference that might prevent workers from freely exercising their choice. The hearing officer found Amazon’s mailbox installation had “essentially highjacked” the election, destroying these necessary conditions.

The decision stated: “The employer’s flagrant disregard for the Board’s typical mail-ballot procedure…was sufficient to have affected the results of the election, given the credible testimony that at least one voter may have refrained from participating in the election.”

Additional Violations Found

While the mailbox was the central issue, the hearing officer also noted other problematic conduct:

Coercive Statements: The officer found credible worker testimony that Amazon managers had told workers the facility “could shut down” if they voted for the union—an illegal threat that violated workers’ rights.

Surveillance: Amazon’s surveillance of worker organizing activities, including monitoring worker communications and movements, contributed to the coercive atmosphere.

Overall Campaign Intensity: While not all elements of Amazon’s aggressive campaign violated labor law, the hearing officer found the cumulative effect—when combined with the illegal mailbox installation and threats—had prevented a fair election.

Union Response: Vindication and Determination

RWDSU President Stuart Appelbaum celebrated the recommendation: “Throughout the NLRB hearing, we heard compelling evidence how Amazon tried to illegally interfere with and intimidate workers as they sought to exercise their right to form a union. We support the hearing officer’s recommendation that the NLRB set aside the election results and direct a new election.”

The union emphasized several key points:

Workers Deserve a Fair Election: The ruling demonstrated that workers had not freely chosen to reject the union, but rather had voted under illegally coercive conditions. A new election would allow workers to make a genuine choice without Amazon’s illegal interference.

Amazon’s Tactics Exposed: The NLRB finding provided official validation that Amazon had broken the law, contradicting Amazon’s claims that its campaign had been appropriate and legal.

Ongoing Fight: The union committed to continuing the organizing effort and running a vigorous campaign in any second election, believing that workers wanted union representation but had been unable to express that preference due to Amazon’s illegal conduct.

Amazon’s Response: Denial and Deflection

Amazon issued a statement disputing the hearing officer’s recommendation: “Our employees have always had the choice of whether or not to join a union, and they overwhelmingly chose not to join the RWDSU earlier this year. It’s disappointing that the NLRB has now decided that those votes shouldn’t count.”

Amazon’s statement was notable for what it ignored:

• No acknowledgment that a neutral NLRB hearing officer had found illegal conduct
• No response to findings about the mailbox installation or coercive statements
• Characterization of the NLRB decision as arbitrary rather than based on extensive hearings and evidence
• Continued insistence that workers had “freely chosen” despite findings of illegal interference

Amazon indicated it would challenge any order for a new election, potentially appealing through multiple levels of NLRB review and federal courts.

Legal Process: Recommendation, Not Final Order

Importantly, the hearing officer’s recommendation was not immediately legally binding. The process would continue:

1. Regional Director Review: The NLRB’s regional director would review the hearing officer’s recommendation and could adopt, modify, or reject it.

2. Potential Appeal: Either party could appeal the regional director’s decision to the full NLRB in Washington, D.C.

3. Federal Court: After exhausting NLRB appeals, either party could seek federal court review.

This lengthy process meant months or even years might pass before a final determination and any second election. However, hearing officers’ recommendations carry significant weight and are often adopted by regional directors.

Legal Significance: Mailbox as Election Interference

The ruling established important precedent about employers’ ability to insert themselves into election logistics:

Boundary on Employer Involvement: Even when an employer claims to be making voting more “convenient,” creating situations where workers must interact with employer property or surveillance while voting can constitute illegal interference.

Appearance of Control Matters: It’s not necessary to prove Amazon actually monitored ballots—the appearance that Amazon could monitor them, created by the mailbox’s location, was sufficient to find coercion.

Laboratory Conditions Standard: The decision reinforced that the NLRB takes seriously its requirement for “laboratory conditions” free from employer interference, even when that interference is subtle or disguised as helpfulness.

Limits on Corporate Power: The ruling pushed back against Amazon’s apparent belief that its wealth and power entitled it to shape election procedures. The NLRB affirmed that union elections must be conducted by the Board, not by employers seeking to influence outcomes.

Worker Reactions: Mixed Feelings

Workers at the Bessemer facility had varied reactions to the recommendation:

Union Supporters: Workers who had supported the union felt vindicated that their concerns about Amazon’s tactics had been validated. Some expressed hope that a second election under fairer conditions might succeed.

Union Opponents: Some workers who had voted against the union felt frustrated that their vote was being “overturned,” not recognizing that a new election would allow them to vote again. Amazon’s messaging encouraged this view.

Exhaustion and Skepticism: Many workers, regardless of their union views, expressed weariness at the prospect of another intense campaign. Some doubted a second election would be meaningfully different, given Amazon’s resources and determination.

Broader Context: Broken Labor Law

Labor advocates placed the ruling in context of systemic problems with U.S. labor law:

Illegal Tactics Often Succeed: Even when employers engage in illegal union-busting, the process of challenging those tactics through NLRB proceedings takes months or years. By the time violations are found, the damage is done—workers have voted under coercion, organizing momentum has been lost, and union supporters may have been fired or left.

Minimal Penalties: Even when the NLRB finds violations, penalties are typically minimal—posting notices, holding a new election, or reinstating fired workers with back pay minus any wages they earned elsewhere. These remedies don’t meaningfully deter wealthy corporations from breaking the law.

Appeals and Delays: Employers can drag out NLRB proceedings through appeals, sometimes for years, exhausting workers and unions while making organizing prohibitively expensive and time-consuming.

Power Imbalance Continues: Ordering a new election doesn’t address the fundamental power imbalance that allowed Amazon to spend millions on union-busting while workers and the union had limited resources. Amazon could run the same aggressive campaign again, just without the specific illegal tactics identified.

The Fight for Labor Law Reform

The Bessemer ruling energized calls for comprehensive labor law reform:

PRO Act: The Protecting the Right to Organize Act, which had passed the House but stalled in the Senate, would strengthen workers’ organizing rights and impose stiffer penalties for illegal union-busting. Labor advocates argued Bessemer showed why such reforms were desperately needed.

Card Check Recognition: Some advocates called for eliminating NLRB elections entirely in favor of “card check” recognition, where unions are certified if a majority of workers sign authorization cards, avoiding the extended campaign period where employers can deploy coercive tactics.

Meaningful Penalties: Labor law reformers argued that fines and penalties for illegal union-busting needed to be substantial enough to actually deter corporations from breaking the law, rather than treating violations as a cost of doing business.

What Came Next: The Second Election

The regional director would formally order a second election in November 2021, which would take place in early 2022. The second campaign would be shorter and less intense than the first, but Amazon would again defeat the union, albeit with a closer margin.

However, the Bessemer ruling had broader significance beyond the specific facility. It established that Amazon’s union-busting tactics could cross legal lines, emboldening workers and unions at other facilities to challenge similar conduct. And in April 2022, workers at Amazon’s Staten Island JFK8 facility would make history by voting to form the company’s first U.S. union, demonstrating that despite Amazon’s power, workers could still organize successfully.

The August 2021 NLRB recommendation was a rare instance of a powerful corporation being officially held accountable for illegal union-busting, even if the accountability came too late to remedy the damage to the original election. It provided a measure of vindication to Bessemer workers who had been told their concerns about Amazon’s tactics were unfounded, and it reinforced that even the world’s wealthiest corporations are not above labor law.