Amazon Refuses to Negotiate with JFK8 Union After NLRB Certification - Stalls Contract for Over a Year

On January 11, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board officially certified the Amazon Labor Union’s historic April 2022 election victory at the Staten Island JFK8 facility, formally recognizing the ALU as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for approximately 8,300 warehouse workers. This certification came nine months after workers voted to unionize and should have triggered immediate good-faith contract negotiations. Instead, Amazon announced it would refuse to recognize the NLRB decision and continue appealing through multiple levels of review, deliberately stalling contract negotiations that workers had voted for. Amazon filed 25 objections to the election alleging misconduct, required nine months and multiple rounds of hearings to dismiss, and then simply refused to negotiate even after the NLRB certified the results. The NLRB subsequently filed a complaint in July 2023 accusing Amazon of illegally stonewalling contract negotiations, but as of late 2024—over two and a half years after the election—Amazon had still not negotiated a contract with the union. This obstruction demonstrated a deliberate corporate strategy: use unlimited legal resources to delay recognition indefinitely, exhaust the union financially and organizationally, and prevent workers from ever seeing the benefits of unionizing.

The Nine-Month Journey to Certification

After workers voted 2,654 to 2,131 to form a union on April 1, 2022, Amazon immediately signaled it would not accept the result:

April 8, 2022 - 25 Objections Filed: One week after the vote, Amazon filed 25 objections with the NLRB alleging election misconduct. The objections claimed:

• The NLRB regional office showed “inappropriate and undue influence” favoring the union
• Union organizers engaged in misconduct during the campaign
• The election process was flawed and workers’ free choice was compromised

Labor experts viewed these objections as frivolous—standard union-busting tactics designed to delay recognition rather than legitimate concerns about election integrity. The NLRB dismissed this characterization, but was required by law to investigate each objection through formal hearings.

May-December 2022 - Hearings and Dismissals: The NLRB conducted extensive hearings examining Amazon’s objections. On September 2, 2022, NLRB hearing officer Lisa Dunn recommended dismissing all objections, finding that Amazon “had not met its burden” of establishing that the NLRB, union, or other parties “engaged in objectionable conduct affecting the results of the election.”

Despite this clear recommendation, Amazon continued appealing and the certification remained in limbo for months. The process required multiple rounds of review as Amazon exhausted every procedural option to delay the inevitable.

January 11, 2023 - Official Certification: Finally, nine months after the election, NLRB Region 28 Director Lisa Henderson certified the election results, formally recognizing the ALU as the workers’ collective bargaining representative.

Under the National Labor Relations Act, this certification legally required Amazon to begin bargaining in good faith with the union. Instead, Amazon announced it would refuse to recognize the decision and would continue appealing.

Amazon’s Refusal to Bargain

Despite the NLRB’s clear certification, Amazon simply refused to negotiate:

Public Statement: Amazon stated it would not recognize the union certification: “We believe the NLRB is pushing for union wins at all costs and we’re trying to get a fair and trustworthy review. We will continue to pursue all legal options to get a fair review of the election.”

This statement was remarkable for several reasons:

• It directly contradicted federal law requiring employers to bargain with certified unions
• It accused the NLRB—an independent federal agency—of bias without evidence
• It suggested Amazon’s preferred outcome (no union) was the only “fair” result
• It signaled Amazon would use “all legal options” to avoid ever negotiating a contract

Continued Appeals: Amazon filed appeals to the full NLRB in Washington, D.C., challenging the regional director’s certification. The company argued that the election should be overturned based on claims of NLRB bias and union misconduct—the same claims that had already been thoroughly investigated and rejected.

Strategic Calculation: Amazon’s strategy was transparent: delay recognition through endless appeals, refuse to negotiate even when legally required, absorb NLRB penalties as a cost of doing business, and hope that the union would collapse financially or organizationally before a contract could be negotiated.

NLRB Files Complaint - Amazon Illegally Refusing to Bargain

On July 12, 2023—over 15 months after the election and six months after certification—the NLRB filed an official complaint against Amazon for violating federal labor law by refusing to bargain with the ALU.

The Complaint’s Findings: The NLRB stated that “since on or about April 2, 2022,” Amazon had been violating the National Labor Relations Act because it “failed and refused to bargain with the Union” and tried to “test the certification of the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative” of JFK8 workers.

In labor law, “testing the certification” through refusal to bargain is illegal. Employers can appeal NLRB decisions through proper channels, but they cannot simply refuse to negotiate while appeals are pending. Amazon’s strategy crossed this line by completely stonewalling contract negotiations for over a year.

Remedies Sought: The NLRB complaint sought orders requiring Amazon to:

• Recognize the ALU as the exclusive bargaining representative
• Bargain in good faith with the union
• Post notices informing workers of their rights and Amazon’s violations
• Cease and desist from further refusal to bargain

However, even NLRB orders can be appealed through federal courts, meaning Amazon could continue delaying for months or years even if the complaint succeeded.

Impact on Workers and the Union

Amazon’s refusal to negotiate had devastating effects on the workers who had voted to organize:

No Contract Benefits: Workers had voted for the union expecting improvements in wages, benefits, working conditions, and respect. Over a year after their victory, they had received nothing. They continued working under the same conditions that had motivated them to organize, with no progress toward the improvements they had voted for.

Erosion of Support: Amazon’s successful delay strategy began eroding worker support for the union. Workers who had enthusiastically supported the ALU in April 2022 became frustrated and disillusioned as months passed without progress. Some questioned whether the union could deliver on its promises. Amazon’s message that unionization was futile became self-fulfilling as the company prevented the union from ever functioning.

Internal ALU Divisions: The stress of Amazon’s obstruction contributed to internal divisions within the ALU. Disagreements emerged about strategy, leadership, resource allocation, and whether to affiliate with established labor organizations for additional resources. These divisions, exploited by Amazon and covered extensively in media, further undermined the union’s cohesion.

Financial Strain: The ALU operated on a shoestring budget funded primarily by GoFundMe donations and limited external support. Sustaining the organization, paying staff, covering legal costs, and maintaining worker engagement required resources the union struggled to secure. Amazon’s delay strategy aimed to exhaust these limited resources before a contract could be negotiated.

Worker Turnover: Amazon’s notoriously high turnover rates meant that many workers who had voted for the union in April 2022 had left by 2023, either fired, terminated, or seeking employment elsewhere. New workers hired in the interim had not participated in the union campaign and might not feel the same investment in the union’s success. This turnover allowed Amazon to gradually change the workforce composition in ways that might undermine union support.

Amazon’s Continued Obstruction Through 2024

As of late 2024—over two and a half years after workers voted to unionize—Amazon had still not negotiated a contract with the ALU:

August 29, 2024 - Final Appeal Denied: The national NLRB in Washington, D.C., dismissed Amazon’s final appeal, ruling that “the Employer’s request for review has failed to establish objectionable conduct.” This meant Amazon had exhausted all NLRB appeals and the election results were definitively upheld.

However, Amazon could still appeal to federal courts, potentially adding more months or years of delay. And even with the NLRB’s final word, Amazon faced minimal penalties for its illegal refusal to bargain—typically just orders to begin negotiations and post notices, not meaningful fines that would deter further obstruction.

Worker Frustration Peaks: By late 2024, JFK8 workers remained deeply frustrated that they still had no contract despite voting to unionize over two years earlier. Some workers participated in strike authorization votes to pressure Amazon to negotiate, but the company remained unmoved.

ALU Challenges Continue: The ALU struggled with internal divisions, resource constraints, and the difficulty of maintaining worker engagement through years of Amazon’s delay tactics. In 2024, the ALU affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, seeking additional resources and support to continue the fight for a contract.

Legal Inadequacy: Labor Law Cannot Stop This Obstruction

Amazon’s successful multi-year obstruction of contract negotiations exposed fundamental inadequacies in U.S. labor law:

Minimal Penalties: Even when the NLRB finds employers illegally refusing to bargain, penalties are minimal—typically just orders to begin negotiations and post notices of violations. There are no substantial fines, no criminal penalties, and no meaningful consequences that would deter wealthy corporations from breaking the law.

Endless Appeals: Labor law allows employers to appeal NLRB decisions through multiple levels of review, then appeal to federal courts, potentially delaying enforcement for years. Employers can comply with eventual orders only after unions have collapsed from exhaustion.

No First Contract Arbitration: U.S. labor law does not include “first contract arbitration” that exists in some other countries, where neutral arbitrators can impose a first contract if employers refuse to bargain in good faith. In the U.S., employers can stonewall indefinitely, even after workers vote to unionize.

Resource Asymmetry: Corporations have unlimited resources for legal appeals and delay tactics, while unions (especially new independent unions like the ALU) operate on limited budgets. This asymmetry allows corporations to simply outlast unions through attrition.

Weak Enforcement: The NLRB lacks enforcement power to immediately compel compliance with its orders. Even clear violations result in more proceedings, more appeals, and more delays rather than immediate consequences.

Comparison to Other Organizing Efforts

Amazon’s obstruction at JFK8 followed a pattern of corporations refusing to negotiate with newly organized workers:

Starbucks: After workers organized over 300 Starbucks stores beginning in 2021, the company refused to negotiate contracts at most locations, using similar delay tactics to Amazon. By 2024, almost none of the organized stores had contracts despite years of certified union victories.

Trader Joe’s: Workers who organized Trader Joe’s stores faced similar corporate stonewalling, with the company refusing to negotiate in good faith despite election victories.

Pattern of Obstruction: These cases revealed a corporate strategy: even when unions win elections, companies can prevent them from ever functioning by refusing to negotiate contracts. This strategy treats NLRB penalties as acceptable business costs while avoiding the actual labor relations changes that contracts would require.

Call for Labor Law Reform

The ALU’s experience strengthened arguments for comprehensive labor law reform:

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

First Contract Arbitration: Proposals for first contract arbitration would require that if parties cannot agree on a contract within a reasonable time, a neutral arbitrator would impose one—preventing employers from stalling indefinitely.

Meaningful Penalties: Reform proposals included substantial fines for illegal refusal to bargain and other violations—penalties large enough to deter corporate violations rather than treating them as business costs.

Faster Enforcement: Proposals to streamline NLRB processes and limit appeals would prevent employers from using procedural delays to exhaust unions before contracts could be negotiated.

Significance: The Hollowness of “Union Rights” Without Enforcement

The ALU’s experience at JFK8 revealed a fundamental truth about U.S. labor law: workers have the legal “right” to organize, but that right is nearly meaningless if corporations can prevent unions from ever functioning by refusing to negotiate contracts.

Winning Elections Is Not Enough: The historic JFK8 election victory should have been a breakthrough for workers. Instead, it became a case study in how corporate obstruction can negate even the most impressive organizing victories.

Labor Law as Theater: Amazon’s obstruction revealed that much of U.S. labor law functions as theater—providing the appearance of worker rights while allowing corporations to violate those rights with impunity through legal delay tactics and minimal penalties.

Power Imbalance: The ALU’s struggle demonstrated that even when workers organize successfully, corporate power remains overwhelming. Amazon could deploy unlimited legal resources to prevent a contract indefinitely, while the union struggled with limited funds to maintain the fight.

Deterrent Effect: Amazon’s successful obstruction at JFK8 sent a message to workers at other facilities: even if you vote to organize, the company can prevent you from ever getting a contract. This deterrent effect may discourage future organizing more effectively than any anti-union campaign.

Workers Still Fighting

Despite over two years of Amazon’s obstruction, JFK8 workers and the ALU continued fighting for a contract. In late 2024, workers voted to authorize strikes to pressure Amazon to negotiate. The affiliation with the Teamsters provided additional resources and support for the ongoing struggle.

The fight for a contract at JFK8 exemplified workers’ determination to win meaningful improvements despite overwhelming corporate power and inadequate labor law. It demonstrated that even when corporations can delay and obstruct through legal tactics, workers organizing for dignity and respect will continue struggling for justice—even if the law provides insufficient tools to compel employers to honor workers’ democratic choices.