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
Aset Terkait
Berita Terbaru
Pengungkapan: Entitas XM Group menyediakan layanan khusus eksekusi dan akses ke Fasilitas Trading Online kami, yang memungkinkan Anda untuk melihat dan/atau menggunakan konten yang tersedia pada atau melalui situs, yang tidak untuk mengubah atau memperluas, serta tidak mengubah atau memperluas hal tersebut. Akses dan penggunaan ini selalu sesuai dengan: (i) Syarat dan Ketentuan; (ii) Peringatan Risiko; dan (iii) Pengungkapan Penuh. Oleh karena itu, konten disediakan hanya sebagai informasi umum. Anda juga harus ketahui bahwa konten Fasilitas Trading Online kami bukan sebagai ajakan atau tawaran untuk untuk melakukan transaksi apa pun di pasar finansial. Trading di pasar finansial mana pun melibatkan tingkat risiko yang signifikan pada modal Anda.
Semua materi yang diterbitkan di Fasilitas Trading Online kami hanya untuk tujuan edukasi/informasi dan tidak boleh mengandung nasihat dan rekomendasi finansial, pajak investasi atau trading, catatan harga trading kami, penawaran, permintaan, transaksi dalam instrumen finansial apa pun atau promo finansial untuk Anda yang tidak diminta.
Konten pihak ketiga apa pun, serta konten yang disiapkan oleh XM, seperti opini, berita, riset, analisis, harga, informasi lain atau link ke situs pihak ketiga yang tersedia "sebagaimana adanya", sebagai komentar pasar umum dan bukan menjadi nasihat investasi. Sejauh konten apa pun ditafsirkan sebagai penelitian investasi, Anda harus memperhatikan dan menerima bahwa konten tersebut tidak dimaksudkan dan belum disiapkan sesuai dengan persyaratan hukum yang dirancang untuk mempromosikan kemandirian riset investasi dan dengan demikian akan dianggap sebagai komunikasi pemasaran di bawah hukum dan peraturan yang relevan. Mohon dipastikan bahwa Anda telah membaca dan memahami Notifikasi pada Riset Investasi Non-Independen dan Peringatan Risiko kami mengenai informasi di atas, yang dapat diakses disini.
