NLRB in Starbucks case lowers bar for proving anti-union threats
Adds Starbucks statement in paragraph 7
By Daniel Wiessner
Nov 8 (Reuters) -The National Labor Relations Board on Friday said Starbucks broke the law by telling workers at its flagship Seattle cafe that they would lose benefits if they joined a union.
The board in a 3-1 ruling in the case, one of scores involving a nationwide union campaign at Starbucks, made it easier to prove that employers' predictions about the impact of unionizing amount to threats that violate the National Labor Relations Act.
The NLRB's Friday ruling overruled a 1985 decision that said most employer statements about the effects of unionization on the relationship between workers and management are lawful. The board said that moving forward, those statements will be deemed illegal unless they are "carefully phrased," based on objective facts, and relate to consequences out of an employer's control.
Otherwise, the board said, "the statement is no longer a reasonable prediction based on available facts but a threat of retaliation based on misrepresentation and coercion."
The NLRB said Starbucks violated that standard by telling workers during mandatory meetings in 2022 that if they unionized, they would be deprived of benefits granted to non-union employees.
Workers at the Seattle store voted that year to join the union Workers United, as have employees at more than 500 other Starbucks locations. In April, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an NLRB ruling ordering Starbucks to bargain with the union at the Seattle store.
Starbucks in a statement said: "This ruling unfairly applies a new legal standard on Starbucks retroactively, which the NLRB should not do. We are considering our next steps."
Workers United did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran in a statement said the new standard would bring greater consistency to the board's approach in evaluating employer statements.
The ruling "better protects workers' right to make a free and fair choice about union representation while respecting an employer's prerogative to share their views in a non-coercive manner," McFerran said.
The decision is the latest by Democratic President Joe Biden's appointees to the board to reverse or update longstanding NLRB precedent in ways seen as favoring unions.
Those rulings, including one creating a path for unions to organize workers outside of the traditional election process, will likely be on the chopping block after Republican former President Donald Trump's victory in this week's election.
After he takes office in January, Trump could install a Republican majority on the five-member board fairly quickly, as one seat is already vacant and McFerran's term expires next month.
The board's current lone Republican, Marvin Kaplan, dissented on Friday, saying the 1985 test appropriately distinguishes between non-coercive statements and threats.
Kaplan also said his colleagues should not have addressed the broader issue because it was not raised by the union or general counsel in Starbucks' case, and that as a result, it should not be treated as binding precedent.
"This case would make Shakespeare proud. It is truly a decision full of sound and fury that signifies nothing," Kaplan wrote.
The case is Siren Retail Corp, National Labor Relations Board, No. 19–CA–290905.
For Starbucks: Jeffrey Dilger and Ryan Hammond of Littler Mendelson
For the union: Dmitri Iglitzin of Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt
For the NLRB general counsel: Sarah McBride
Read more:
Starbucks loses appeal over union election at Seattle store
Starbucks CEO Niccol says committed to "engage constructively" with workers union
Unions poised to capitalize on U.S. labor board rulings that bolstered organizing
NLRB paves way for workers to unionize without formal elections
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
