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 Berkaitan
Berita Terkini
Penafian: Entiti XM Group menyediakan perkhidmatan pelaksanaan sahaja dan akses ke Kemudahan Dagangan Atas Talian, yang membolehkan sesorang melihat dan/atau menggunakan kandungan yang ada di dalam atau melalui laman web, tidak bertujuan untuk mengubah atau memperluas, juga tidak mengubah atau mengembangkannya. Akses dan penggunaan tersebut tertakluk kepada: (i) Terma dan Syarat; (ii) Amaran Risiko; dan Penafian Penuh. Oleh itu, kandungan sedemikian disediakan tidak lebih dari sekadar maklumat umum. Terutamanya, perlu diketahui bahawa kandungan Kemudahan Dagangan Atas Talian bukan permintaan, atau tawaran untuk melakukan transaksi dalam pasaran kewangan. Berdagang dalam mana-mana pasaran kewangan melibatkan tahap risiko yang besar terhadap modal anda.
Semua bahan yang diterbitkan di Kemudahan Dagangan Atas Talian kami bertujuan hanya untuk tujuan pendidikan/maklumat dan tidak mengandungi – dan tidak boleh dianggap mengandungi nasihat kewangan, cukai pelaburan atau dagangan dan cadangan, atau rekod harga dagangan kami, atau tawaran, atau permintaan untuk suatu transaksi dalam sebarang instrumen kewangan atau promosi kewangan yang tidak diminta kepada anda.
Sebarang kandungan pihak ketiga serta kandungan yang disediakan oleh XM, seperti pendapat, berita, penyelidikan, analisis, harga, maklumat lain atau pautan ke laman web pihak ketiga yang terdapat dalam laman web ini disediakan berdasarkan "seadanya" sebagai ulasan pasaran umum dan bukanlah nasihat pelaburan. Sesuai dengan apa-apa kandungan yang ditafsir sebagai penyelidikan pelaburan, anda mestilah ambil perhatian dan menerima bahawa kandungan tersebut tidak bertujuan dan tidak sediakan berdasarkan keperluan undang-undang yang direka untuk mempromosikan penyelidikan pelaburan bebas dan oleh itu, ia dianggap sebagai komunikasi pemasaran di bawah peraturan dan undang-undang yang berkaitan. SIla pastikan bahawa anda telah membaca dan memahami Notifikasi mengenai Penyelidikan Pelaburan Bukan Bebas dan Amaran Risiko mengenai maklumat di atas yang boleh diakses di sini.
