National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Judge Brian D. Gee says Amazon CEO Andy Jassy’s comments regarding unionization went too far.

Amazon is well-known for its anti-union stance, going so far as to hire Pinkertons to subvert unionization efforts. The company was found to have illegally fired an employee over organization efforts, violated labor laws in Alabama, and made investors uncomfortable enough for them to urge the company to stop pressuring workers who were poised to vote on unionization.

Jassy made a number of comments regarding unionization in various media interviews, interviews that became the subject of the NLRB review. Judge Gee found that some comments fell within the realm of what is acceptable, specifically those that simply made statements about how unionization would change the relationship between employee and employer.

Judge Gee ruled that Jassy’s comments went “far beyond” what is acceptable when he said that unionization would make employees less empowered.

Based on the foregoing, I find that Jassy’s comments threatened employees that, if they selected a union, they would become less empowered and would find it harder to get things done quickly.Accordingly, I find that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1), as alleged in complaint paragraphs 5(a) and (c), 6(c), and 7(a) and (b).

Again, the difference between what is acceptable and what is not is a very fine line. Had Jassy simply commented that he believed employees would be better off without a union, that would have been acceptable.

Whenan employer states its view that employees would be better off without a union— and such comments are unaccompanied by any promises or threats—those views are lawful opinion protected by Section 8(c).

Jassy did not stop there, going on to comment about employee empowerment—which is where he crossed the line.

In the instant case, Jassy’s comments that employees would be better off without a union were accompanied by his coercive predictions about the effects of unionization. Under these circumstances, employees could have reasonably understood Jassy to be saying that, without a union, they would be more empowered and could achieve improvements at work faster and with less bureaucracy—two assertions unsupported by objective fact—and thus be better off. I thus conclude that Jassy’s words relied on coercion to dissuade employees from supporting unions.

Amazon’s anti-union history continues to cause problems for the company and will likely continue to do so until its leadership softens its stance.