Karen Weise has written extensively about security and union efforts at Amazon’s facilities.
A judge ruled Monday that Amazon must recover and pay lost wages to an employee the company “unlawfully” fired two years ago after a protest at the Staten Island fulfillment center, the same warehouse that recently voted in a landmark election to unionize. .
A regional director of the National Labor Relations Board argued that the resignation was in retaliation for protesting over safety conditions, which are protected by federal labor law. Benjamin W. Green, an administrative judge, agreed.
The case revolves around a verbal altercation during the early days of the New York pandemic. On April 6, 2020, Gerald Bryson protested outside the warehouse, known as JFK8, saying it should be shut down for safety. Another employee said she wanted the facility to remain open because she was grateful for the extra pay she received for her work during the pandemic. The two exchanged insults, but only Mr. Bryson was fired. The woman received a written warning.
“For me to win and walk back through those doors changes everything,” Mr Bryson said in an interview Monday. “It will show that Amazon can be beaten. It will show that you have to fight for what you believe in.”
Amazon has said Mr Bryson has been fired for violating its policy against vulgar and intimidating language. It has defended its actions by pointing to an internal investigation it conducted and stating that the punishment was consistent with the way other workers were treated.
“We strongly disagree with this statement and are surprised that the NLRB would want an employer to approve of Mr. Bryson’s conduct,” Kelly Nantel, a company spokeswoman, said in a statement. “Mr. Bryson was fired for bullying, berating and defaming a female colleague over a workplace megaphone.”
She added: “We do not tolerate that kind of behavior in our workplace and plan to appeal to the NLRB”
mr. Green, the judge, rejected Amazon’s main justifications for the dismissal. He said Amazon’s investigation had been “skewed” and aimed at finding reasons to fire Mr Bryson for his protest. The judge noted that Amazon had not interviewed a protester who had recorded the argument, writing that Amazon “preferred not to obtain information from anyone who protested with Bryson, even though that person was probably in the best position to explain what happened.”
He also doubted the statements of the managers and other employees that Amazon did interview. For example, Amazon has documented that the woman, who is white, and a manager said that Mr. Bryson had called her a racist statement during the altercation. But a video of the encounter showed that never happened. The woman told Mr Bryson, who is black, to “go back to the Bronx,” which the judge said could reasonably be construed as “racial.”
“I find it implausible that six individuals would see the argument and happen to provide these one-sided, exaggerated bills unless such bills were requested of them,” he wrote.
Mr Bryson, who celebrated the verdict with his 9-year-old son, said he was pleased the judge had determined that some of Amazon’s public statements about him were not valid. “I really feel like they damaged my name for two years for nothing,” he said.
Amazon justified the dismissal by saying that other facility employees had been fired for similar behavior, but the judge disagreed. He said Amazon’s data indicates a lesser penalty “for behavior more threatening than Bryson’s or involving physical touching.” None of the examples involved incidents outside the facility on unpaid time, he added.
Mr. Green also found that Amazon had not submitted all the documents requested in a subpoena. He said Amazon should post notices in the warehouse confirming workers’ right to form a union and publicly acknowledging the measures it should take.
“This is a very stern rebuke of Amazon’s unlawful, retaliatory termination of Gerald,” said Frank Kearl, an attorney with Make the Road New York, a progressive advocacy group that represented Mr. Bryson.
Amazon had challenged the case in the employment office and in federal court. To question a witness in hearings last year, Amazon hired Zainab Ahmad, a lawyer at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and a former federal prosecutor who had tried cases against terrorists.
In a related proceeding, the Labor Board last month sued Amazon in federal court, asking a judge to order the company reinstate Mr. Bryson, otherwise its “serious violation” of protections would “remain unchecked.” That case is still ongoing.
Amazon argued that the job center was biased when it asked the federal judge to intervene just before the JFK8 union election. The company has cited Mr Bryson’s case as a key reason why the union victory should be discarded.
The Amazon Labor Union, which won the vote on JFK8, faces a second vote at a neighboring warehouse in late April.
Mr Bryson, who is active in the union, said the ruling strengthened the case for the workers. “I’m there to say, ‘Listen, I just fought and won with them for two years,'” he said.
Amazon’s appeal against Monday’s ruling would go to the agency’s five-member board of directors. If it loses there, it can challenge the result in federal court.
