A recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has profound implications for California workers, particularly drivers who deliver packages for Amazon through third-party companies. The ruling determines that Amazon can be considered a joint employer of subcontracted drivers, a move that highlights the importance of California’s joint employer doctrine. This decision benefits many employees in the state, as it offers increased protection for workers and creates opportunities to hold companies accountable for wage and labor violations.
The Ruling on Amazon Drivers: A Game-Changer for Subcontracted Workers
The recent ruling by a regional director of the NLRB in Los Angeles states that Amazon is a joint employer of subcontracted drivers who deliver packages for the company in California. This determination challenges Amazon’s long-held stance that it is not responsible for these drivers since they are technically employed by third-party companies, known as Delivery Service Partners (DSPs). These DSPs employ over 275,000 drivers who handle Amazon’s immense delivery operations.
The Teamsters union, which represents drivers at companies like UPS, has been advocating for Amazon drivers to unionize. However, the union has faced significant obstacles because Amazon argues that it does not directly employ the drivers and, therefore, is not responsible for engaging in collective bargaining or union negotiations. This stance has allowed Amazon to bypass key labor regulations.
The NLRB’s decision stems from unfair labor practice charges filed by the Teamsters. The agency found that Amazon exercises a significant level of control over the drivers, including setting delivery targets, determining routes, and monitoring performance. Based on this, the NLRB determined that Amazon should be considered a joint employer of these drivers, meaning the company is obligated to engage in labor negotiations and abide by labor laws that protect employees.
California’s Joint Employer Doctrine: A Powerful Tool for Workers
California has long been at the forefront of labor rights, and the state’s joint employer doctrine is one of the broadest in the country. It means that even if a company does not directly employ a worker, it may still be responsible for unpaid wages or labor violations if it controls any aspect of the worker’s employment.
The California Supreme Court has solidified this interpretation in various rulings. In Martinez v. Combs (2010), the court outlined three criteria for determining whether an entity is an employer:
- Control over wages, hours, or working conditions: If a company dictates any of these elements, it can be classified as an employer.
- Permitting work to occur: Allowing workers to perform tasks, even indirectly, creates employer liability.
- Common law employment relationship: A company may be considered an employer if they engage in a traditional employment relationship with workers.
This definition allows workers to sue multiple entities as employers. For example, a worker whose direct employer goes bankrupt can still pursue claims against a larger company that controls aspects of their employment.
Vertical and Horizontal Joint Employers: Different Forms of Employer Liability
California’s joint employer doctrine recognizes two primary forms of joint employment: vertical and horizontal. Both types play an important role in labor disputes, particularly in industries with complex employment structures like logistics, hospitality, and manufacturing.
- Vertical Joint Employers: This type of joint employment occurs when one entity, often a parent company or holding corporation, owns or controls another entity that directly employs workers. A prime example of vertical joint employment is the case of Castaneda v. Ensign Group (2014), where a corporation with no employees was found liable as a joint employer because it controlled a company that did employ workers.
- Horizontal Joint Employers: Horizontal joint employers are businesses that share resources, such as employees, managers, or supplies, often in industries like retail or food services. In these cases, two or more businesses may be held liable for labor violations if they collectively control or influence the workers’ employment conditions.
Both forms of joint employment allow workers to expand the scope of liability when suing for unpaid wages, overtime, or other labor law violations. This means workers have a greater chance of recovering owed wages even if their direct employer is unable or unwilling to pay.
How the Amazon Ruling Benefits California Workers
The recent NLRB ruling in favor of Amazon drivers highlights the power of California’s joint employer doctrine. It ensures that workers employed by DSPs but controlled by Amazon have a legal pathway to hold the tech giant accountable.
This ruling benefits California workers in several key ways:
- Expanded Legal Protections: The ruling means that workers who are technically employed by third-party companies can now sue larger corporations like Amazon for labor violations, including unpaid wages, wrongful termination, and unsafe working conditions.
- Unionization Efforts: By recognizing Amazon as a joint employer, the NLRB ruling opens the door for unionization efforts. Workers can now pursue collective bargaining with Amazon, a powerful step toward improving wages, benefits, and working conditions for delivery drivers.
- Accountability for Labor Violations: Large corporations can no longer easily evade responsibility for labor law violations by outsourcing employment to smaller companies. This ruling ensures that if a company like Amazon controls significant aspects of a worker’s job, it can be held accountable under California law.
- Greater Chances of Wage Recovery: Many subcontracted workers find that their immediate employer lacks the funds to pay wages when disputes arise. Under California’s joint employer doctrine, workers can sue larger, wealthier companies like Amazon, significantly increasing their chances of recovering unpaid wages or receiving compensation for labor violations.
A Step Forward for Workers’ Rights
The recent NLRB ruling regarding Amazon drivers in California represents a significant victory for workers’ rights. By holding Amazon accountable as a joint employer, the ruling strengthens the state’s labor laws. It gives workers more tools to fight for fair treatment and compensation. This ruling sets a powerful precedent that could lead to better wages, improved working conditions, and greater protection from exploitation. At the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., we remain committed to protecting the rights of California workers and ensuring that employers are held accountable for their actions. Learn more about how we can help you by scheduling your consultation today.
