Amazon Flex sacks its delivery drivers without giving them details of their alleged policy violations.
Former Amazon Flex driver Mohammad Shereen lost his livelihood and means of supporting his family because Amazon claimed he ‘mishandled package deliveries’
Other drivers have complained that packages can be damaged before the driver even receives them
Mohammad had been working as an ‘Amazon Flex’ delivery driver for about 9 months before he was told his account would be terminated immediately, stopping him from receiving any further work through the company.
He was devastated, having grown to rely on Amazon as his sole source of income to support himself, his wife and his 6 children. In some weeks he had earned up to $2,000 but he said his shifts had been reduced over the past 5 months or so:
“When you first start they give you shifts all the time, so that you are working pretty much full-time and have to give up any other sources of income you might have. Then, once you are dependent on them and desperate to take whichever shifts they offer you, they cut it back to 3-4 shifts per week on average. This has happened to friends of mine who are Amazon Flex drivers as well.”
In a response to the Small Business Ombudsman, Amazon stated it had terminated Mohammad’s contract because of 4 complaints -two about throwing packages, one about throwing a package at a front door causing a loud bang, and one about leaving a package in the rain. Amazon said it had offered Mohammad an opportunity to appeal each violation, but he had chosen not to until after the termination.
However, the emails sent to Mohammad around the times of these incidents all consisted of almost identical generic statements that he ‘tossed or mishandled a package’, with no further details.
Furthermore, after being notified he had ‘tossed or mishandled a package on 24th November, Mohammad messaged Amazon asking what address they were talking about, what evidence they had, whether the item was broken and stating he did not remember throwing any package. Without answering any of his questions, Amazon replied stating ‘We see that the situation was outside of your control. This instance will not be reflected in your delivery history.’
But Amazon did reflect the incident for 24th November 2024 in Mohammad’s delivery history, and used that incident to justify their termination of his contract. In an added twist, Amazon’s response to the Small Business Ombudsman stated this incident was one where the ‘package was left out in the rain when delivered causing the box to rip’ -information that had never previously been communicated to Mohammad who recalls that it was not raining on the package when he left it that day.
Mohammad also asked questions and disputed the other alleged incidents at the time of them occurring, asking what customers and addresses the complaints related to, only to be refused on grounds of privacy.
After being given notice of his termination on 17 December 2024, Mohammad replied explaining with regard to two other alleged incidents dated 10 October that he thought it could have been one customer and an incident where he tripped on a stone, with the customer able to verify that using video footage.
Amazon’s responses to Mohammad’s four appeals after his termination were completely lacking in any detail or attempt to address his concerns, consisting of pro forma text along the lines that Amazon had reviewed Mohammad’s information and re-confirmed their original decision.
Mohammad’s responses to Amazon became increasingly desperate. On 5th January 2025 Mohammad explained to Amazon that he had 6 children to support, had paid $49,000 for a van for his Amazon Flex deliveries (he bought the van earlier in December before the notice of termination), and he remembered some boxes being wet inside the bag (in other words before he had delivered the boxes and through no fault of his own, as some customers order deliveries of liquid products that may not always be tightly sealed).
One thread on social media site Reddit, showed Amazon’s ‘mishandled packages metric’ was viewed as unfair by many other delivery drivers, who pointed out packages could be roughly handled inside the warehouse before the driver even took possession of the package.
Mohammad begged Amazon to allow him to undertake training and have his contract reinstated, only to receive another pro forma response stating Amazon re-affirmed its decision to terminate.
“Mohammad told me he’d delivered approximately 10,000 packages for Amazon during his time working for them, and that since his termination he has struggled to make ends meet. This kind of treatment, by a multinational company earning billions of dollars and paying next to no tax on their profit in Australia, should shock the conscience of anyone who cares about workers, and our members won’t stand for it.
Mohammad’s treatment throughout this entire process lacked any semblance of procedural fairness because he was denied details of the supposed allegations and Amazon refused to respond meaningfully to any of his explanations. Regarding the alleged ‘loud bang’ incident that Mohammad was informed of through the Small Business Ombudsman after exhausting all his appeals with Amazon, Mohammad points out that if true this only means a customer heard a loud noise which could have been anything including his diesel vehicle as he was driving away.”
Said Caspar Cumming, member of ASF Melbourne South.
Amazon has until 24 March 2025 to tell Mohammad his account is reinstated or we will escalate this matter publicly amongst Amazon’s workers, customers, and the broader community.
0421 755 688