Amazon Must Rehire Worker Fired for Union Activity, NLRB Judge Rules

A National Labor Relations Board judge ruled Friday that Amazon.com Services LLC violated federal labor law by interrogating employees about union organizing and firing a worker during a campaign at a San Francisco warehouse, ordering the company to reinstate the employee with back pay.

Administrative Law Judge Michael P. Silverstein issued the May 29 decision requiring Amazon to reinstate a terminated employee and provide back pay for time lost due to the unlawful firing, according to Bloomberg Law. The ruling also ordered the company to restore a second employee to its learning ambassador program after finding she was excluded from the role because of her organizing activities.

The decision marks the latest in a series of NLRB rulings against Amazon's labor practices. The opinion did not specify the dollar amount of back pay owed to the fired worker or identify the employees by name in the publicly available portions of the ruling.

Interrogation and Retaliation Findings

Judge Silverstein determined that Amazon managers at the San Francisco facility violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by questioning employees about their union activities. The interrogations occurred during the organizing campaign, creating what the judge found to be an unlawfully coercive environment.

The termination of the employee who was leading organizing efforts constituted illegal retaliation under federal labor law, the ruling stated. Employers cannot discharge workers for engaging in protected concerted activity, which includes discussing wages, working conditions, and union representation.

The learning ambassador exclusion similarly violated the Act. Amazon's learning ambassador program provides additional training and responsibilities to selected warehouse workers. By blocking the second employee from participating due to her organizing work, the company engaged in discriminatory treatment based on union activity, the judge found.

Amazon's Pattern of Labor Law Violations

The San Francisco warehouse ruling adds to a growing record of unfavorable NLRB decisions against Amazon. Administrative law judges have issued more than a dozen decisions since 2022 finding the e-commerce giant violated workers' organizing rights at facilities across the United States.

Previous rulings have addressed captive-audience meetings, unlawful discipline of union supporters, and surveillance of organizing activity. The company typically appeals adverse ALJ decisions to the full NLRB board in Washington, a process that can delay enforcement for months or years.

Amazon has consistently denied wrongdoing in labor cases, arguing that its employment practices comply with federal law and that terminations result from performance or conduct issues unrelated to union activity. The company did not issue a public statement on the San Francisco ruling as of Friday evening.

Employer spending on union avoidance has reached record levels, with U.S. companies investing $1.7 billion in anti-union consultants and legal services in 2025 as organizing campaigns increased across warehouse, retail, and service sectors.

Remedies and Enforcement Timeline

The reinstatement order requires Amazon to offer the fired employee his former position or a substantially equivalent role if the original job no longer exists. Back pay calculations will include wages lost from the termination date through the date of reinstatement, minus any interim earnings.

The company must also post notices at the San Francisco facility informing workers of their organizing rights and the judge's findings. Amazon has 20 days from the decision date to file exceptions with the NLRB's five-member board in Washington.

If the board upholds the ruling, enforcement moves to federal appeals court if Amazon refuses to comply. The reinstatement remedy carries immediate effect once the board issues its final order, though monetary awards can remain tied up in litigation for additional months.

Labor law practitioners note that reinstatement orders, even when delayed by appeals, serve organizing campaigns by demonstrating that retaliation carries legal consequences. Workers at facilities where the NLRB has found violations often cite the decisions when discussing unionization with colleagues.

What This Means for Union Members

The San Francisco Amazon ruling provides concrete legal precedent that organizers can reference when employers threaten retaliation or conduct workplace interrogations. NLRB judges continue to find that questioning workers about union views—even without explicit threats—violates federal law when done in a supervisory context.

Workers facing similar treatment should document interrogations with written notes immediately afterward, including the supervisor's name, exact questions asked, date, time, and any witnesses present. That documentation becomes critical evidence if the NLRB investigates unfair labor practice charges.

The learning ambassador exclusion finding is particularly significant for warehouse and retail organizing. Employers frequently use selective access to training programs, preferred shifts, or advancement opportunities to punish union supporters while maintaining plausible deniability. Friday's ruling affirms that workers cannot be denied workplace benefits because of protected organizing activity, giving labor advocates another enforcement tool as Amazon campaigns continue at facilities nationwide.