Employers can no longer categorically claim that unionization will harm their relationship with management, according to a divided ruling from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This decision overturns a nearly 40-year-old precedent in a case involving Starbucks Corp.
The NLRB found that Starbucks made a series of illegal threats to its employees during a union election campaign at its Seattle Roastery. This ruling is part of a broader trend of NLRB decisions against Starbucks as the company and union negotiate a bargaining framework for over 500 cafes across the country.
However, the board’s Democratic majority did not find that Starbucks illegally instructed workers to vote against unionization to maintain direct communication with their managers. Despite this, the ruling changed the standard for assessing the legality of such statements in the future. The NLRB dismissed its 1985 ruling in the Tri-Cast Inc. case, which stated that employers could explain how unionization affects the employee-employer relationship without making threats.
The board criticized the Tri-Cast ruling for allowing nearly any employer statement about unionization to be considered lawful. This marks the first precedential ruling from the NLRB since the nation voted in the last presidential election.
The ruling largely supports findings from a February 2023 decision by Administrative Law Judge John Giannopoulos. He determined that Starbucks made illegal threats by suggesting it would be pointless to join a union and by threatening to cut or eliminate employee benefits.
Starbucks managers also told workers that “if you want to maintain a direct relationship with leadership, you’ll check off no,” referring to the union vote. NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo argued that this vague statement could lead employees to believe they would lose their right to discuss workplace issues with managers. However, Giannopoulos dismissed this argument in his ruling, stating that the statement was legal under the Tri-Cast precedent.
The NLRB has ordered Starbucks to stop all unlawful activities and to remove Facebook posts made by one of its managers.
Read more: