Amazon said the agency erred in operations for the election, including not having enough staff on hand to manage the vote, which the company said created long queues and suppressed turnout.

“Based on the evidence we have seen thus far, as described in our objections, we believe the actions of the NLRB and the ALU improperly suppressed and affected the vote, and we believe the election should be held again so that it can be widely representative voting.

In another objection, the company said the union failed to provide record financial reports. In an interview with The Times this week, union president Christian Smalls said he has provided cash to workers in need, through separate GoFundMe efforts and union money.

If a worker needs to pay her bills, “we pay that bill, and we send the money directly without any question,” Mr. Smalls said. Legal experts said some of these transactions – such as extra pay for union organizers who have contracted Covid-19 – may be good, but others could cause problems depending on when and how many people got them.

John Logan, a professor at San Francisco State University who studies employer campaigns, said the board “rarely” vetoes elections based on allegations of union misconduct. Amazon would need to demonstrate that any objectionable behavior could alter the outcome of the election, he said, and “unlike Amazon, the ALU does not have coercive power over employees.”

The Labor Agency has given Amazon two weeks, until April 22, to provide additional evidence supporting the objections.

In Bessemer, Alaa, Al Ittihad A little late in the initial count Of the votes announced on March 31: 993 workers voted against being represented by the Retail, Wholesale and Stores union, and 875 voted in favour. But no more than 400 ballot papers were counted because neither side had challenged them. The contested ballot papers, sufficient to potentially affect the outcome, are due to be resolved at a Labor Council hearing in the coming weeks.