Business and Trade Committee
Oral evidence: Make Work Pay: Employment Rights Bill, HC 370
Tuesday 17 December 2024
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 17 December 2024.
Members present: Liam Byrne (Chair); Antonia Bance; John Cooper; Sarah Edwards; Alison Griffiths; Charlie Maynard; Gregor Poynton; Mr Joshua Reynolds; Matt Western; Rosie Wrighting.
Questions 44-93
Witnesses
III: Stuart Morgan, HR Director, Amazon Logistics; Jennifer Kearney, HR Director, Amazon UK and Ireland.
Examination of witnesses
Witnesses: Stuart Morgan and Jennifer Kearney.
Q44 Chair: Welcome to the third panel in our Select Committee’s inquiry into the Employment Rights Bill and industrial relations in the UK. I am immensely grateful to Jennifer Kearney and Stuart Morgan for joining us from Amazon. You are very welcome here this afternoon. Thank you for making time in your busy schedules to come and give evidence to us.
Jennifer, perhaps I can start with you: does Amazon basically hate trade unions?
Jennifer Kearney: I would like to start by introducing myself and sharing with the Committee what I do.
Chair: Don’t worry: we have the biography, so we are just going to jump straight into the questions, because time is against us. The question is: does Amazon basically hate trade unions?
Jennifer Kearney: Amazon is really clear that our preference is working directly with our employees. That has worked very well for us in the 25 years that we have been inside the UK. Should our employees choose union representation in any way, of course we will comply.
Q45 Chair: Okay. You will be aware of a report published by one of our sister Committees in the United States on Sunday by Senator Sanders and others. In that report, the allegation is that Amazon basically, in the report’s words, “accepts worker injuries…as the cost of doing business.” Is that true?
Stuart Morgan: I am aware of the report that has been published. At this point in time, I have not had the opportunity to go through the details of that, but I would like to reassure you and state that actually, for Amazon, safety is our No. 1 priority. It always has been and always will be.
We benchmark ourselves against Health and Safety Executive data. The data for the 2022 period, which is published on our safety blog, actually states and proves that Amazon is 50% safer when compared to other businesses within this sector.
Q46 Chair: That is 531 injuries per 100,000, and, as you say, the last published figures were for 2022. Why have they not been updated since then?
Stuart Morgan: The actual data demonstrates that in 2022 there were 77 million hours worked, which gives you a kind of scale for the size of our operation. The data on that blog, which is in the process of being updated, demonstrates that actually that is one incident every 132 years. So, our priority is safety, and that has always been the case.
Chair: Well, the question was: will it be updated? The data that we have was published in 2022. Are there plans to update that data?
Stuart Morgan: We are in the process of updating the data. We are confident that, actually, we are making improvements in our safety. That is demonstrated by the fact that, on an annual basis, we complete more than 350,000 inspections each year; we continue to invest in automation within our network, which is, again, improving our safety; and we engage with our employees through safety committees. All these are active ways in which we continue to improve. But we are not complacent: one single safety incident is too many, and we will continue to improve in this area.
Q47 Chair: But you are planning to update that data and publish it: when, do you think?
Stuart Morgan: I am not able to confirm an actual date at this point, but the reason we set up the safety blog back in 2022 was that we wanted to actually be transparent around our record with safety. Many allegations have been made around the safety; when those have been investigated, they have been proven to be untrue, so we saw this as an opportunity in which, actually, we could support and help people to understand.
Q48 Chair: Okay. Let me just run through a few things to check. At the moment, people work a 10-hour shift in warehouses. Is that standard?
Jennifer Kearney: Our standard shifts are four 10-hour days. That is highly desired by our employees—it gives them the balance they need to live their life. We also offer flexibility so that they can make a change to their schedule on the spot, which we see our employees do. We also, of course, employ part-time employees and individuals who are on more flexible schedules. This is one of the things that Amazon does best.
Q49 Chair: Within the warehouses, there is an algorithm that helps set targets for the amount of, for example, picking that a worker might need to conduct on their shift?
Stuart Morgan: In Amazon, as you would expect, we use technology for a whole range of reasons, whether that is for tracking goods through different stages of the process within the warehouse, about the security of our sites, or, as I have explained, in the introduction of technologies to improve our overall safety. Do we set performance targets? Yes, like many other businesses, we set performance targets.
Q50 Chair: And those performance targets may change day by day?
Stuart Morgan: When we set performance targets, we are thoughtful and considerate. We take our performance data over an extended period, so that it avoids looking at specific days and accepts that there are fluctuations. We are also considerate in that we take into account whether the employee is training in a new skill or learning or has recently joined the business. These are all different types of inputs that we take when we are setting our performance targets.
Q51 Chair: You will be aware of the allegations—because they have been reported by the BBC—that such is people’s fear of missing those performance targets, and perhaps losing their job, that they are urinating into plastic bottles to avoid taking the time to go to the bathroom. Is that true?
Jennifer Kearney: I do not recognise that in my seven and a half years at Amazon, and I think Stuart would say the same for his 10 years at Amazon. When we are in our buildings and we talk to our employees on the shop floor, who are doing meaningful work for our customers and are proud of their role, they tell us that they feel fulfilled and are able to provide for themselves and their families, so I simply do not recognise that.
Chair: Okay. Mr Morgan, can you confirm that you have not heard that allegation either?
Stuart Morgan: I have spent 10 years working in frontline positions, leading buildings across the entire Amazon network. I do not recognise that situation; it is a common myth, which is untrue. We do measure the performance of our employees. We do not monitor their movements in the building. We simply track performance when they are on task. At any point in time that they need to use the facilities or make an important telephone call or have an engagement with a leader, that is stopped.
Q52 Chair: You will be aware, too, of an Observer-led investigation that reported over 1,400 ambulance call-outs in just five years. To me, that indicates an environment that is not terrifically safe.
Stuart Morgan: I would disagree with the premise of the question. Allow me to explain. The first point is this: if an employee at any point needs medical attention that is beyond what our capable first aiders can do, would we call an ambulance? The answer to that would be yes. However, it is oversimplistic and not correct to make a correlation between ambulance call-outs and whether an environment is safe or not.
Could I share the experience of my time in Amazon and leading buildings? Whenever an ambulance was called to site, I would be informed of that matter, because safety is our priority, as I have stated. The majority of those cases were for what we would describe as a non-work-related incident or a pre-existing medical condition, so it is an oversimplification to state that a high ambulance call-out rate leads to an unsafe environment. I reinforce my earlier point about our data and how we benchmark against the Health and Safety Executive—
Chair: Most employers do not have to call ambulances 1,400 times in five years.
Jennifer Kearney: I want to point out that we employ 75,000 employees over 100 locations across the entirety of the UK.
Chair: There are 50,000 people who work in the Palace of Westminster each day. We don’t call ambulances 1,400 times over the course of five years.
Jennifer Kearney: I think the data that Stuart shared speaks for itself, but as we shared earlier, one incident is too many. We work actively to hear from employees about what we can do better or differently for them. Every time an idea or a concern is brought to us, it is our obligation, but also our privilege, to support them and make sure that we are doing everything as safely as possible.
Q53 Chair: If one incident is too many, how would you explain the case that we were given just an hour or two ago of a 30-year-old man who got chemicals in his eyes? We were told that Amazon did not or would not call an ambulance, because there was an excessive number of ambulance call-outs compared with other sites. It was not until he got home that he was able to go to hospital. Tragically, it was too late to save all his vision and he now only has 20% vision. Is that a case that you recognise?
Stuart Morgan: I don’t recognise that specific case. If you had details of that case, then we would write a follow-up. What I can say is that, for any incident that does take place, we conduct a thorough investigation of it.
Q54 Chair: It was on 6 October 2022, I think, that Mr Bezos said, “We”—Amazon—“are going to be the Earth’s best employer and Earth’s safest place to work.” Is that now true?
Jennifer Kearney: We are getting better every day. What you will see inside our buildings—we would like to invite each of you to come and see any of our buildings at any point—is a place where we care deeply about employees. When I say “we”, I mean every single one of our site leaders and our HR teams inside our buildings. You will see us continually getting better, as we should. We are not complacent, even though the data says that we are a very safe place to work. I also shared some words about flexibility and some other things employees tell us that they cannot get anywhere else. I hear constantly, “This is the best place that I have ever worked.” That is from multiple experiences in multiple buildings across the entirety of the UK.
Q55 Chair: Let’s turn from safety to pay. I think you have said that you are on a journey to become the Earth’s safest place to work, rather than you have reached that destination. When we look at your SEC filings and the breakout for sales in the UK, we can see that between 2018 and 2023, Amazon UK’s sales grew by 132%, but growth in pay for frontline workers was 42%. Are you basically profiteering from the hard work of employees and not giving them the full measure of their reward?
Stuart Morgan: I would like to reinforce our current position on pay. It is above both the real living wage and the minimum wage. It gives the opportunity for our employees working 40 hours a week across 40 days to be earning, in a starting position, £28,000 to £30,000. When we set our pay, we go through an annual process and we take into account a number of different factors, including economic data points, and we benchmark against other businesses. We are confident that we are offering a fair rate of pay. It is one of the main reasons why employees choose to join us.
Jennifer Kearney: And it is not just pay; it is a benefits package that includes personal medical care and income protection. We go over and above for our employees to make sure that they are choosing us. The data shows that people want to work at Amazon not just because of pay, but because of their total compensation.
Q56 Chair: When we look at the premium, for example, that you pay over the national minimum wage, we can see that in September 2024 it was about 15% for lower-paid workers and about 22% for higher-paid workers. That has now fallen to a 10% premium for lower-paid workers and a 17% premium for higher-paid workers. We are looking at that alongside 2023 Amazon UK Services Ltd profits of £280.5 million. I guess the question is: who leads the conversation on workers’ behalf about how they get a bigger share of that almost quarter of a billion pounds of profit?
Jennifer Kearney: I think that growth in the national living wage is some of the reason why you will see that. Many of us, from a business perspective, have been trying to keep up with how much that has moved over the period that you mentioned. You ask the question, which I love to answer, about who is advocating the direct relationship that Amazon celebrates with our employees. The answer is that the entirety of our leadership team is listening through multiple different channels to employee voice and responding. Pay is something that we have heard them say is very important to them and, as Stuart has pointed out, if you ask them why they work at Amazon, we often hear that that is the No. 1 reason: because we pay competitively.
Chair: Do you want to add anything, Mr Morgan?
Stuart Morgan: I would like to reinforce the point that our employees join and stay with us, which is an important point, based not just on pay, but on the industry-leading benefits package that Jennifer has talked through. Another area where we focus is our skill development. We have an internal program called Career Choice, where Amazon contributes up to 95% of the fees over a four-year period to upskill our employees—that is an important point—and 20,000 people have now had the opportunity to upskill. When I talk about upskilling, that could be anything from HGV driving to cyber-security. We have almost 10% of our current employees enrolled in that scheme. It is important to take a step back and think about not just pay, but benefits and the focus on how we can help to develop a person’s skills.
Q57 Chair: We have heard this afternoon that there are very few people who work for Amazon for more than two years who do not have some kind of injury that they have sustained at work. Is that true?
Jennifer Kearney: That is simply not true. It does not match my experience. The data also does not say that at all. In fact, what we hear is that employees are looking for more opportunities to grow inside Amazon—to learn new skills and work in different areas inside our buildings.
Chair: Thank you. The challenge we have, I suppose, is that we have a company that is rich enough to put a man into space, but we have very conflicting stories about how safe it is to work at Amazon and clear evidence that pay has risen only about a third as much as sales. Let’s get into some of the issues behind that.
Q58 Charlie Maynard: Your statements are starkly different—unrecognisable—from what we heard an hour ago. We heard about the battle to get off £10 an hour, yet we have just heard what you said about pay. I guess what really sticks in the throat is the scale of the company. In 2023, Amazon paid £18.7 million of current tax on £27 billion of sales, and £932 million in direct taxes—corporation tax, business rates and digital services tax. That is 3.45% of sales, which is minimal. It seems like an incredibly unfair dynamic between online and offline, and it just does not seem at all reasonable. Your coming in here and saying, “They love working here,” when an hour ago we heard the opposite, seems like a kind of Kafka—
Chair: Put it as a question, Mr Maynard.
Charlie Maynard: Do you think it is fair to be paying that little tax in the UK as a company?
Stuart Morgan: What I can say at a high level is that Amazon pays all taxes that are required to—
Charlie Maynard: I get it, but the question was “Do you think it is fair?” Just a yes or no would be good.
Stuart Morgan: You will have read my bio. I am a HR director; I am not able to talk in detail about our financial position, our tax position—
Charlie Maynard: If you are not going to give me an answer, that is fine. We will leave it there.
Chair: We are going to move on. Mr Western?
Q59 Matt Western: Mr Morgan, you said quite categorically that transparency is important in Amazon as a culture. Can you confirm when the 2022 health and safety data was published? Secondly, do you actually provide performance targets for health and safety within your facilities for employees to see, so that they know what their performance is this year versus last year, in terms of health and safety, and how that compares with your other facilities in the UK?
Stuart Morgan: I am not able to confirm an exact date when—
Matt Western: But you could come back to us, couldn’t you?
Stuart Morgan: I could, yes, using the data on our safety blog, which is what I referenced in terms of how we benchmark ourselves against the Health and Safety Executive. Yes, we are able to confirm that.
Matt Western: And on the second point?
Stuart Morgan: The second point, about the performance data that we consider, takes me back to the earlier conversation. That is around performance, and not—
Matt Western: Do you publish it in your facilities for employees’ visibility?
Stuart Morgan: The majority of our employees are highly engaged. My experience is that when I am on the shop floor, frequently an employee will ask what their performance level is. If an employee were to ask what their performance level is, that is something that we would share with them.
Q60 Matt Western: I understand, but I am going back to the point that you earnestly made: you said that Amazon is a very transparent organisation. I am not hearing that in your reply.
Stuart Morgan: I do not recall using the word “transparent”. We talked about the culture of Amazon being a day one culture, where we are focused around innovation, and we are focused around the employee experience.
Jennifer Kearney: If I can jump in, I wanted to say that, versus publishing, what would feel very normal inside our Amazon buildings is to have a conversation with your manager about what is going well and what I need to improve. Maybe there is an accommodation, a barrier, an idea or a change to a workstation that we can make to be able to support you. The conversation is very much one that would take place between two people, versus publishing and reporting.
Q61 Antonia Bance: We heard earlier from some workers at BHX4 in Coventry. I am interested that you mentioned the common management practice of talking to employees, giving feedback and providing accommodation where accommodations are necessary. We heard the story of one of your employees at BHX4 who had had a heart attack and was put on duties that were appropriate for what she was able to do, but those accommodations were withdrawn as a result of her union activities.
We also heard a number of stories from that fulfilment centre of workers who had experienced injury at work being asked to do too much—being asked to pick, to load from the back of vehicles on their own and to lift heavy weights above their head—and about the rate of injury in that workforce. Is it the case that BHX4 Coventry is a uniquely dangerous Amazon facility to work in, or is that true for the rest of the country as well?
Jennifer Kearney: I am going to disagree with the premise of the question altogether. I want to share a bit of data. As we heard earlier, employers often have a different version of events. As was shared earlier, “unrecognisable” would be exactly how those claims seem. We have asked employees at the Coventry location five times this year, “Would you recommend Amazon as a great place to work to your friends and family?” All five times, 87% of employees said yes—87% or more. What we are describing here is a place where people really come to work to do a good job. They are choosing this location out of anywhere that they could work inside Coventry.
Q62 Charlie Maynard: May I ask whether that is an anonymous question that you ask your employees? Is it untraceable to them, and do they believe that it is?
Jennifer Kearney: Absolutely. It is anonymous. It is something that they can answer directly on a device that they are interacting with when they do their work every day.
Q63 John Cooper: We have heard a lot today about balance and the need to offset the rights and responsibilities on both sides of the equation—employees and employers. Taking into account recent changes in the Budget, what is your view of how things are for employers in this country? Is Britain still a good place to do business?
Stuart Morgan: First, the UK is an important country for Amazon. Last year, we celebrated 25 years in business here. Across those 25 years, we have continued to grow and invest. Right now, we employ over 75,000 employees; we are one of the largest employers. We have recently been recognised as a top employer by the Top Employers Institute and we have hired over 10,000 additional employees to support us through our busy Christmas period. The UK is important, and we continue to grow and invest in our network in this country.
Q64 John Cooper: You have talked about the past and how you have had 25 good years here. In the light of the changes, what do you think the future is in the current circumstances? Do you think that is changing? Do you have another good 25 years here?
Stuart Morgan: We have a strong customer base here. We have an established network. Our investment decisions are complex, as you will appreciate, and I am not able to share any details around future investment decisions, but the fact that we have now been in the UK for 25 years and continue to invest is an indication.
Q65 John Cooper: It is clear that the demand and the customers are there. What is your view of the environment in which you do business, the rules you must abide by and things like that? Is it a hostile environment? Is it becoming a hostile environment? Has the pendulum swung away from you, towards the employees rather than the employers?
Stuart Morgan: Our cloud computing business, Amazon Web Services, has announced this year that we will invest £8 billion over the next five-year period. That was recognised by the Chancellor. Amazon also recently attended the growth summit, again demonstrating how we are willing to work constructively with this Government and to partner around future benefits for this country.
Q66 Charlie Maynard: You mentioned 100 locations. What proportion of those currently have union engagement?
Jennifer Kearney: We do not currently, nor will we ever, track union membership, so I am not able to answer that question.
Q67 Charlie Maynard: Okay. They may have union members in them, but do any locations have an organised union inside the location?
Jennifer Kearney: Recognition? No: over the 25 years we have been doing business here, we have not had a site vote for union recognition to this point.
Q68 Charlie Maynard: What is your response to the proposed changes to industrial relations as part of the Employment Rights Bill?
Stuart Morgan: First, we are fully aware that within the Bill there are a number of areas that are being discussed. We think it is important that we get these decisions right, but that is a matter for Government and for Parliament to decide upon. We of course would comply with any changes that were made. Having listened to the CBI and having had the opportunity to read their report and their recommendation on an additional independent review and further consultation, we can certainly see the benefits of that, because we think it would be right that we get these decisions correct.
Q69 Charlie Maynard: Are there any parts of the proposed legislation that you are particularly concerned about?
Stuart Morgan: Again, the CBI indicated the reduction in the strike notification period from 14 to seven days. While we respect our employees’ right to strike and understand that that can be disruptive, that reduction from 14 to seven days creates additional challenges. During the ballot at Coventry and strike action, we continued to maintain our operation because the majority of our employees wanted to continue to attend work, and we wanted to be able to continue to provide for and support our customers. A reduced notification period leads to additional challenges and could potentially impact and increase safety risk, but I think the CBI has articulated that.
Q70 Charlie Maynard: Is there anything else that is particularly concerning?
Jennifer Kearney: There are a lot of places where we still want more information; we are listening really carefully and learning as we progress to see where things land. Obviously we will comply and we will work productively wherever it lands.
Q71 Mr Reynolds: On that point, you mentioned strikes. If Amazon is such a great place to work—as you have said, that is what you hear time and again from your team—why have your team in Coventry gone on strike so much?
Jennifer Kearney: I think it is important to note that we absolutely support their right to do that—
Mr Reynolds: Excuse me; obviously we have sat here for quite a while now, and I feel as though I might need to get lessons from you both at some point in how not to answer the question that was asked. Directly, if you are as good an employer as you have explained to us so far, why have your workers in Coventry gone on strike so much?
Jennifer Kearney: I think they are executing their rights, as we absolutely would protect their ability to do. I have shared some data around that building and how employees are telling us it is a great place to work. I would love to invite you to come and see the building itself—
Mr Reynolds: I really apologise for interrupting you. My question was why—you have not answered why. You have told me that it is a great place to work, and that you have all this data. Yes, I would love to come and see what you do. But the one thing you have not answered yet is why, and that is the question that I actually asked you.
Jennifer Kearney: That is a good moment for me to again extend an invitation—
Mr Reynolds: I am sorry. I am going to really push this point. It is a great opportunity for you to not answer my question. If you are such a great place to work—you said you won an award recently on being a great place to work, and I congratulate you—why have your workers in Coventry gone on strike so much?
Stuart Morgan: Our employees have the right to join a trade union or not, and we totally respect that.
Mr Reynolds: I am pulling teeth at this point. Neither of you have answered my question so far. I will ask it once more, and then I will give up because I do not think I am going to get an answer. Why have they gone on strike so much? What is the reason behind it? You have told us that you have talked to workers every day—that is what your teams do. When you ask them why they are going on strike, what is their answer back to you? Why are they striking?
Jennifer Kearney: They were demonstrating their right to support the trade union that they were a member of, simply put.
Q72 Antonia Bance: Supporting a trade union is not a legal reason for people to go on strike. What was the legal reason why they went on strike, as set out in the paperwork that needs to be supplied to the employer in the relevant notice period?
Jennifer Kearney: Do you mean the ballot for strike action?
Antonia Bance: Yes, that is right. What was the legal reason?
Jennifer Kearney: There were multiple scenarios over the recognition attempts that the GMB has made at this site—
Antonia Bance: We are not talking about recognition. We are talking about the 37 days of industrial action at BHX4 in Coventry. Paperwork needs to be supplied to the employer that lists the reason for strike action. What was the reason given for strike action on those 37 days, in answer to my colleague’s question?
Chair: Mr Morgan?
Stuart Morgan: Please repeat the question.
Antonia Bance: In order to take industrial action, a union needs to win a ballot. In order to have a legal ballot, they need to supply to the employer some paperwork that lists the reason, and it needs to be a legal reason—supporting their union is not a legal reason—as to why they wish to take strike action, for that ballot to go ahead and be lawful and not be challenged in the courts. What was the legal reason on the paperwork supplied to you as to why your workers at Coventry BHX4 went on strike?
Jennifer Kearney: That is one that I would be willing to write back on. I do not have the information—I cannot recall it. Over a series of two years, we have been working with GMB through this process. We have responded back and forth for several claims—several allegations, I would say—that we simply do not recognise. Please let me come back on that one.
Q73 Chair: Okay. Mr Morgan, do you not know why the people went on strike?
Stuart Morgan: To reinforce Jennifer’s point, we will write back on that. I do not have that detail at this point.
Chair: You are required to be open with the Committee. Are you sure you do not want to lay out now why the people went on strike?
Stuart Morgan: Yes. I fully understand our responsibilities in front of the Committee.
Q74 Rosie Wrighting: What level of access does Amazon currently permit to union representatives at its warehouses and fulfilment centres?
Stuart Morgan: We actually have a level of interaction with not just the GMB but other unions. Any union members have the right to be represented at different meetings. If that is the case, we have unions on our sites when those meetings take place. Our position is aligned with other businesses within the private sector. We comply with the current regulations in this area.
Rosie Wrighting: Can I confirm what level of access the unions have to your sites?
Stuart Morgan: Could you clarify the question in terms of access?
Rosie Wrighting: With access into your fulfilment centres and warehouses, at what levels are the unions able to come in?
Stuart Morgan: Currently, they have access to enable the meeting to take place between the union member and a member of the leadership team for that building.
Jennifer Kearney: The other part of the law states that we obviously would not grant access as part of an access agreement, as you move through the ballot period.
Q75 Antonia Bance: But you currently have no live access agreement, because there is no live ballot period. The answer to the question at the moment is no access—yes?
Stuart Morgan: At this point there is no access, but our position is no different from other businesses’ and we are compliant with the current regulations. If that access were to change, and I know that it is a point of consideration on this Bill, we would comply with that.
Q76 Rosie Wrighting: You have just mentioned that unions can come in for meetings. Do you feel that you create a positive environment when the unions are coming into the warehouses and fulfilment centres? Are they welcomed in your buildings?
Stuart Morgan: I think that trade unions have an important role to play and all of our employees have the right to choose whether they are a member or not. In Amazon, our preferred way of doing business is through direct engagement with our employees, and we think that creates a more positive and engaging environment.
Q77 Antonia Bance: The GMB described to us a campaign of intimidation and interference at Amazon in response to attempts by its members to achieve union recognition at BHX4 in Coventry. What measures did you apply to put management’s view to workers?
Jennifer Kearney: We were focused on executing a free and fair ballot process at the site. There are a couple of things to note. Over 25 years of operation here in the UK, this is the first time that Amazon has ever actually been brought to a ballot period, so there was a ton for us to learn, and we did so successfully. We had 87% of the population inside a very large building, with 3,000 people, exercise their right to vote in the ballot period, which we feel very proud about. Not only that, but we made sure that we were providing information and support, and we had tons of questions coming our way from employees on some misinformation that we absolutely felt a responsibility to clarify.
Q78 Antonia Bance: How much did you spend on materials, consultants and other payments in response to the July 2024 ballot for statutory recognition? Your colleagues in the US, where they operate in a different industrial relations environment, as you will be aware, spent $14.2 million in 2022, attempting unsuccessfully to defeat union recognition attempts in the United States. How much did you spend in the UK?
Stuart Morgan: There was a cost to this as a business, as you would expect. An example of that would be that we gave paid time off to all our employers to enable them to vote, as well as attend information sessions. Our priority throughout this entire process was ensuring that our employees had the information that was available to them to make that decision, and Jennifer talked about the turnout for that. It was also the first time that we had been through this process in our 25-year history. Therefore, we wanted to get the right level of support and guidance to ensure that we followed that process. That entire process was overseen by an independent assessor appointed by the CAC, and we followed that process in a fair and free way.
Q79 Antonia Bance: Of course, you could have saved yourself all the money that you did spend by just doing voluntary recognition of the union, which is the approach that most employers would have taken. I understand that your lawyers are Eversheds—is that right? One of the ways in which you spent in the course of the recognition battle, which you fought to prevent GMB getting recognition in that workforce, was by asking Eversheds to do your job as managers by undertaking all of the communication with the union on your behalf. Don’t you think you could have saved that money and engaged with the representatives of your workforce directly?
Jennifer Kearney: As I think the Committee knows, this is a very complicated process and it is very important that diligence is demonstrated through the entirety of the process, not only to get it right from a legality standpoint but to deliver the right experience for our employees. I think the answer to that question is that we took a lot of care to make sure that the process was executed completely free and fair.
Q80 Sarah Edwards: In 2023, Amazon made about $575 billion in global sales. That equates to it being the 25th largest economy, equivalent to Ireland or Argentina, so there is a lot of power there, and perhaps we might say a lot of imbalances. You mentioned wanting to operate a free and fair ballot, so I wanted to ask a few questions about the equal access to different ways of communicating with people. First, how many meetings did you hold with workers at BHX4 to express the management’s view on the ballot in the run-up to July 2024?
Jennifer Kearney: We meet with our employees regularly. Our managers in our sites have, and we share, this direct relationship. We have a process called “team connects”, where we meet with our employees. We have start-of-shift briefs, where we talk about the plan for the day. Speaking directly to employees is a very normal part of doing business at Amazon inside our warehouses.
Sarah Edwards: The question was specifically about expressing the views on the ballot, not about what you generally talk about in running the business day to day. Specifically, how many times did you meet employees to express the management’s views, and how did you express those views?
Jennifer Kearney: Simply put, any time an employee would ask us a question, we would answer. That would be—
Sarah Edwards: So you did not organise and invite them to any meetings directly.
Jennifer Kearney: We had multiple touch points with employees to answer the questions, not only about the process itself but about what a trade union could and could not deliver for them—moments when, again, there was an opportunity to clarify misconceptions or misinformation.
Q81 Sarah Edwards: Did you agree a set number, and then give the union the same set number, to make that free and fair?
Jennifer Kearney: The access agreement was agreed by the GMB.
Sarah Edwards: You had to agree to it as well.
Jennifer Kearney: Absolutely. It was—
Sarah Edwards: Did you play by those rules or not?
Jennifer Kearney: That question would be a really tough one—I think the premise of it is what I am arguing with. We talk to our employees constantly, so comparing day to day—
Sarah Edwards: It is a simple question about how many times you organised meetings, which would be diarised, so you would have a list of how many times you had done that with employees. That is what the union would have to do.
Jennifer Kearney: Once again, every time an employee were to ask us about what this meant for them, we answered them as transparently as possible.
Q82 Sarah Edwards: So what you are saying is that you had unlimited access to express management’s views on the ballot.
Stuart Morgan: What we are saying is that our entire approach to our industrial relations is based around direct engagement with our employees, and we do that constantly, through many different formats, on a day-to-day basis. I think what we recognise—and the point here—is that we agreed the access with the GMB: that was negotiated, and we followed that to the word. That entire process was overseen by an independent assessor, and at no point was a formal compliant raised during that period or within the qualifying period.
Q83 Sarah Edwards: What about the internal apps, TV screens and noticeboards that you could make use of? Did you allow the GMB to make use of those as well, to make sure that it was a free and fair ballot?
Jennifer Kearney: As part of the access agreement, the GMB did have TV screens, and they had a table available to them, where they could provide information not just on a poster, but on a pamphlet. We had 84 sessions of 45 minutes each, inside our building, for them to speak directly to our employees, and during the access period any employee could at any point speak directly with the GMB in a surgery-style, small-group conversation.
Q84 Sarah Edwards: So they were allowed unfettered access. They could speak with them at any point, any time they wanted.
Jennifer Kearney: It was not unfettered; I would say that it was agreed as part of the access agreement, which is exactly how the process works.
Q85 Sarah Edwards: Okay. That is very different from the story that we heard earlier about the types of messages that were put on those screens and the access that they had to tools and availability. It is interesting that you think they had that when, clearly, they categorically did not.
Stuart Morgan: This is an opportunity to clarify the actual situation. As we have explained, we followed a process that was negotiated in terms of access. The entire process was overseen by an independent assessor, and at no point was any formal complaint made about access within the qualifying period.
Q86 Sarah Edwards: Did you bring any additional workers in to work for Amazon during that period of time, so change the number of people who worked for the company during the time that you received the notification for recognition?
Stuart Morgan: Amazon is a retail business. It is seasonal and demand changes throughout the entire year. Thereby, our overall headcount—the number of employees within a building, not just in Coventry but anywhere across the network—changes from time to time.
Q87 Sarah Edwards: So the timing was just complete happenstance—that the number of employees rose significantly during that time period?
Stuart Morgan: A number of additional factors impacted the headcount in Coventry.
Jennifer Kearney: Can I jump in? I would argue with any “raising of headcount”. We were very transparent with the bargaining unit and we obviously have to communicate that to the CAC. From the point when the recognition request was filed in March to the point of the ballot in July, the bargaining unit actually decreased in size.
Q88 Antonia Bance: But in the prior year, when the GMB sought statutory recognition in May/June 2023, the bargaining unit, which stood at 1,400 at the point that the GMB sought statutory recognition, increased to 2,749 in just 27 days. Is May/June a peak period of the year for your business, such that the bargaining unit would need to be increased by 93% during that period, or was that a transparent attempt to manipulate the rules to ensure that statutory recognition could not be achieved?
Stuart Morgan: Throughout the year, there are a number of what we describe as high-volume sales events, such as Black Friday.
Antonia Bance: In November.
Stuart Morgan: We also have early spring deals and summer deals—
Antonia Bance: Are the early spring deals in June?
Chair: Order.
Stuart Morgan: We have four high-volume sales events across the year, but the point is that the Coventry building is unique; it plays an important role in our operation. If you were to visit that building, you would note that we do not store goods or inventory there—we bring goods in. The purpose of the building is to then spread those goods across our network. As a result, its operational cycle—or when we have high volumes going into that building—is different from when you would expect a sale to be taking place.
Jennifer Kearney: I welcome the opportunity to respond to the 1,400 number. That is a GMB-reported number and simply was not the actual headcount at that time.
Q89 Antonia Bance: So how much was the headcount and what was the increase that you shipped in to ensure that the opportunity for statutory recognition was frustrated in May 2023?
Jennifer Kearney: I have to disagree with the premise of the question. I think Stuart did a wonderful job of explaining exactly why and how we staff, based on volumes, and how important the Coventry location is for us. I simply wanted to make the point that we transparently provided the headcount of the bargaining unit to the CAC throughout the entire process, and 1,400 was never an Amazon-reported headcount number.
Q90 Chair: You could supply those numbers to us.
Jennifer Kearney: I will happily take the request away.
Chair: Thank you.
Q91 Gregor Poynton: You said earlier that you think Amazon is the best place to work, but we have heard some cases where that simply was not the case. Will you commit, today, to take away the specific examples raised in the earlier session with the GMB, if those individuals are happy to share the details with you? Will you commit that they will be completely safe in doing so—there will be no retribution for coming forward with those specific cases, including the person who had had a heart attack and whose accommodations were taken away and changed? I would like you to come back to me with all the details of those individual cases and what you are doing to put those right.
Jennifer Kearney: We would be happy to.
Q92 Gregor Poynton: That is the only way you could come to the Committee and say that Amazon is a good place to work. In the macro, you may come back with statistics but there are specific people putting their case to you today and I want to hear your specific responses to them.
Jennifer Kearney: We would be happy to. We care deeply about every single one of our employees. The specifics would allow us to do our due diligence and then come back.
Q93 Chair: I want to come back to the question that Mr Cooper posed at the top of the session. You co-signed a letter to the Chancellor on 18 November about the economic consequences of the Budget on UK retail. That letter was co-ordinated by the British Retail Consortium. Were there any other points in that letter that you strongly agreed with and want to make to the Committee?
Stuart Morgan: Like any other business, Amazon benefits from a healthy economy, stability and confidence. That letter, of which we were a co-signatory, highlights some of the concerns that we had around the changes to national insurance contributions and the impact that that would have on cost. I do not have any additional input, other than what was outlined in that letter.
Chair: Thank you.
Antonia Bance: Chair, there are a number of matters on which Amazon representatives have agreed to write back to the Committee. Would you care to summarise them?
Chair: I will summarise them in a letter that will be sent after this Committee meeting, once we have the Hansard in front of us.
Antonia Bance: Thank you very much.
Chair: That concludes our session, Jennifer and Stuart. We are so grateful to you for you coming to give evidence as we try to light up the key issues at stake in this Bill.
I think that most of us will be quite surprised that this is a £27 billion company in the UK—you have a subsidiary making a quarter of a billion pound profit, in and of itself—while on the record there are quite a high number of call-outs to ambulances and support staff, and sales are growing three times higher than frontline wages.
There is a remarkable lack of agreement between the evidence you have given us and the evidence that we have heard from others. There is a frankly bewildering lack of grasp of the reasons behind a really extensive strike that hit one of your facilities. We will write to you with some follow-up questions, but we now conclude this panel and this session.