Published
March 27, 2026
In April of 2023, the Teamsters Union bragged about how they had organized a union at Amazon. There’s just one problem. As the Chamber noted at the time, the Teamsters had done no such thing.
In fact, the Teamsters had unionized a group of drivers at a small company called Battle Tested Strategies (BTS). BTS had been a contractor for Amazon, although its contract had been terminated. Based on BTS’s former status as a contractor, the Teamsters argued that Amazon should be forced to recognize the union because it was a joint employer with BTS.
This claim is something of a stretch. But now, according to a new legal filing, the union “win” at BTS may have been illegitimate.
On March 24, 2026, Amazon filed a special appeal of a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Administrative Law Judge’s procedural ruling in a case against the company. The underlying case accuses Amazon of committing an unfair labor practice by, as an alleged joint employer, refusing to recognize the union at BTS.
The NLRB has long acknowledged that, under the law, recognition of a union is illegitimate if it does not have majority support at the time of recognition. Based on evidence in the special appeal, it sure seems like that’s what happened here.
According to Amazon’s filing, a Teamsters organizer testified that early on the morning of April 23, 2023, he and ten other organizers showed up at BTS and solicited 46 signed cards indicating workers’ interest in forming a union. With those cards in hand, the Teamsters and BTS signed a recognition agreement at 10:00 AM that same day.
But that’s not the end of the story. Because in later testimony, BTS employees testified that the lead organizer who claims he was on site soliciting cards on April 23 was never there. Nor, workers testified, were any cards at all signed that day. In addition, there were only 40 drivers on hand that morning, not 46. And finally, BTS employed more than 91 drivers and dispatchers, meaning that, even if 46 cards had been signed, that would not constitute a majority. Therefore, if the workers’ testimony is correct, the majority needed to form a union did not exist.
Three things stand out here. First are questions about the veracity of the lead organizer’s testimony versus the sworn statements of BTS employees. Second is a procedural question—specifically that the NLRB is currently refusing to allow Amazon to examine the actual cards in question to determine their legitimacy. And third are the flaws of card check organizing generally.
The failings of card check are well known. Cards can be forged, workers can be pressured into signing them, and workers may also not realize just what they are signing. By contrast, unions can also be formed using secret ballot elections, where workers are able to express their opinion in private, away from prying eyes. Secret ballot elections are also organized and scheduled by the NLRB so workers know exactly what is happening (as opposed to a group of organizers swooping in early in the morning and requesting signatures)
Numerous courts and the NLRB have both recognized the superiority of secret ballot elections over card check. Unfortunately, the Biden-era NLRB decided to prioritize card check (most notably in a case called Cemex). The current NLRB now has an opportunity to both overturn the unfortunate Cemex decision, and take a closer look at what really happened on the morning of April 23, 2023.
About the author
Glenn Spencer
Spencer oversees the Chamber’s work on immigration, retirement security, traditional labor relations, human trafficking, wage hour and worker safety issues, EEOC matters, and state labor and employment law.
