Last year, Amazon fired Emily Cunningham and Maran Costa. The pair of employees has been one of the company’s most vocal critics on staff, openly employing Amazon for environmental and labor issues.
This week, the National Labor Relations Board determined that the pair’s firing was an illegal form of retaliation. Speaking with The New York Times, Cunningham said the board would issue more public criticism of Amazon’s action if the company did not take steps to address the issue.
Amazon tells ClearTips that the decision was not a direct result of the pair’s criticism, but a product of other, volatile policies. A spokesperson says, “We support the right of every employee to criticize our employee’s working conditions, but it does not come with blanket immunity against any and all internal policies.” “We terminated these employees for violating internal policies.”
Meanwhile, Cunningham called the decision a “moral victory”.
In mid-April it was reported that COVID-19 was bored in the US in April, while Amazon was declared an essential service. Two weeks ago, the company opened a large-scale fulfillment center in Bessemer, Alabama, which has become the focal point of another labor fight for the online retail giant.
The warehouse is currently the ground zero for the largest unionizing effort in the company’s history. The National Labor Relations Board is tasked with counting votes, which closed on Tuesday of last week. In the final days of the vote, the company made an aggressive social media push against union partners, although it has since gone back a bit, including a soft apology around reports that reports that employees regularly Pissing in bottles to meet the stringent quota.
In addition to its reigns over Cunningham and Costa, the NLRB has also found for Amazon United’s co-founder, Jonathan Bailey.
Update: The company made an additional statement to ClearTips, “We disagree with these preliminary findings. We support the right of every employee to criticize our employee’s working conditions, but this does not come with blanket immunity against our internal policies, which are all legitimate. We stated these employees not for the reasons cited in the initial search, but because they have repeatedly violated internal policies. “