In a major development in the ongoing labor dispute at Starbucks, the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey P. Gardner ruled that the company must bargain with the Workers United union at its Great Neck, New York, Starbucks location, even though the workers at that location voted against joining the union in 2022. The decision comes under the NLRB’s new Cemex standard which was created last year.
The Case: What Happened?
The judge found that Starbucks violated the National Labor Relations Act in 2022 after workers at the Great Neck cafe began an organizing campaign with the Workers United union. The workers voted narrowly against unionizing, with a vote of 6-5. However, the NLRB judge determined that Starbucks had illegally threatened and interrogated employees during the organizing efforts. These actions, including threats and retaliation, were enough to undermine the election process, making it difficult for workers to freely choose union representation. Accordingly, despite defeating the union during the election, Starbucks must now recognize and bargain with the union due to its improper conduct during the election process.
Why the Cemex Standard?
This Cemex decision of 2023 held that if a company violates labor laws during a union election campaign, the NLRB can order the company to recognize and bargain with the union even if the union loses the vote. This applies if the company’s actions could have interfered with the election results.
In the Starbucks case, workers initially signed union authorization cards, but NLRB prosecutors argued that the company’s “unrelenting threats and retaliation” swayed the final vote. The Cemex standard aims to prevent such violations by ensuring that workers’ rights are respected throughout the organizing process.
What Did Starbucks Do Wrong?
Judge Gardner pointed to several unlawful practices by Starbucks during the organizing campaign:
- Interrogation of Employees: The company questioned workers about their union activities, which is a violation of labor laws.
- Threats and Retaliation: Employees were threatened, creating a climate of fear that influenced the election.
- Surveillance Concerns: The company created an impression of surveillance, leading workers to believe they were being closely watched.
One specific instance involved a store manager who mentioned making a list of employees who recorded conversations with management, further intensifying the feeling of surveillance.
What’s Next?
This ruling could set a significant precedent for labor relations across the country, as we see the NLRB continue to enforce the Cemex standard. With growing unionization efforts across the country, this case highlights the importance of protecting workers’ rights to organize without interference.
If you have any questions about the topics raised in this article, or about any other labor relations matter, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at Tobia & Lovelace Esqs., LLC at 973-746-6000 for further information.