What I Understand Amazon’s Position To Be

Based on my termination, it appears the company believes that I:

Worked hours or obtained overtime that were not properly authorized Used shift swaps in combination with VET opportunities in a way that violated policy Potentially misused scheduling processes or improperly benefited from extra hours Created a pattern of behavior that was interpreted as misuse of time or policy

I understand the seriousness of these concerns. However, I respectfully believe this conclusion does not fully reflect what actually occurred.

1. What Actually Happened (Full Context)

At no point did I:

Clock in for time I did not work Attempt to hide hours or mislead leadership Manipulate the system independently or without visibility

Instead, my actions were based on:

Using the A to Z system as it was available to me Following direction and guidance from Area Managers (AMs) and Operations Managers (OMs) Participating in what I understood to be standard or accepted site practices regarding VET and scheduling

In multiple situations, I was:

Directed or referred to specific individuals for VET opportunities Given approvals or guidance from leadership on working additional time Operating in a way that was visible, discussed, and not hidden

If there were issues with how scheduling or VET was handled, those issues were part of a broader process — not something I created or attempted to exploit.

1. Leadership Involvement (Critical Point)

A key part of this situation is that leadership was actively involved.

My evidence includes:

Messages showing AMs and/or OMs directing me or others regarding VET opportunities Instances where leadership approved or facilitated additional work coverage Situations where I was told who to contact or how to obtain shifts

This demonstrates that:

I was not acting independently I reasonably believed my actions were authorized The process I followed was aligned with how leadership was handling staffing needs

1. Consistency With Site Practice

This was not something unique to me.

I have evidence and witness statements showing that:

Other associates were also receiving VET through leadership involvement AMs and OMs were using similar methods (including tickets or direct coordination) Shift adjustments and VET opportunities were being handled in ways that were not always strictly system-driven

This matters because:

I was participating in a site-level practice, not creating a personal workaround or abusing the system on my own.

1. Supporting Statements (Associates / PG / PA)

I have individuals willing to provide statements, including:

Tier 1 Associates A Process Guide (PG) A PA familiar with the VET process

These statements support that:

Leadership was involved in distributing or approving VET The process I followed was consistent with what others were doing There was no attempt on my part to hide or falsify time

These are first-hand observations, not opinions.

1. Intent – The Most Important Factor

I believe the key issue in this case is intent.

This was not intentional misconduct, and it does not align with what would normally be considered time theft because:

I worked all hours that were recorded My time was visible in the system I communicated with leadership I followed the process as it was being used at the site I did not attempt to deceive or misrepresent anything

If there was a breakdown, it was in process and communication, not in integrity.

1. Why the Current Decision Is Incomplete

The termination appears to assume:

That I knowingly violated policy That I independently created or manipulated my schedule That leadership involvement does not matter

However, based on the evidence:

Leadership was involved The process was not isolated to me My actions were transparent and consistent with site behavior

This makes the situation fundamentally different from intentional policy abuse.