Ex-Starbucks CEO Schultz's comment to union supporter was illegal, NLRB rules
Adds Starbucks statement in paragraphs 6-7
By Daniel Wiessner
Oct 3 (Reuters) -Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz violated federal labor law by telling a barista in California who criticized the coffee chain's response to a nationwide union campaign to "go work for another company," the National Labor Relations Board has ruled.
The board on Wednesday said the comment by Schultz during a company event in 2022 amounted to an illegal threat that could discourage unionizing, upholding a decision by an administrative judge.
Schultz was chief executive of Starbucks for three separate stints beginning in the 1980s before he stepped down last year, and is widely credited with turning the brand into a global phenomenon.
Schultz had met with a group of Starbucks employees from stores in Long Beach, California, to discuss concerns about working conditions and made the comment to one of them, Madison Hall, after she criticized the company's treatment of workers and resistance to unionizing.
"Schultz's generic assurances against retaliation at the opening of the meeting hardly lessened the objective tendency of his invitation to quit to have a coercive effect on ... the employees in attendance, particularly given his surrounding explicit references to the Union," the board said.
Starbucks in a statement provided by a spokesperson said it disagreed with the board's decision.
"Our focus continues to be on training and supporting our managers to ensure respect of our partners’ rights to organize and continuing to make progress in our discussions with Workers United," the union organizing the company's workers, Starbucks said.
Workers United did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.
The decision can be appealed to a federal appeals court.
Workers at 500 Starbucks locations in the U.S., including one in Long Beach, have voted to unionize since late 2021.
Starbucks has faced allegations of widespread illegal union-busting from workers, labor groups and Democratic lawmakers, which it has denied. Earlier this year, Starbucks and Workers United announced a nationwide "framework" to guide organizing and collective bargaining and potentially settle scores of legal disputes.
At the 2022 event at a conference center in Long Beach, Hall said the company should engage in collective bargaining and pledge not to interfere with union organizing. She also asked Schultz about allegations of illegal labor practices, according to board filings. No other workers raised concerns related to unionizing, according to board filings.
Schultz in response asked Hall why she was "angry at Starbucks." He said he had not come to discuss union issues and told her that "if you're not happy at Starbucks, you can go work for another company," according to filings in the case.
The NLRB on Wednesday rejected Starbucks' claim that the broader context in which Schultz made the comments showed they were not intended to discourage organizing. Schultz demeaned Hall by calling her angry and noting that she had only worked for Starbucks for two years, the board said.
"These factors, set against a backdrop of unfair labor practice litigation arising from [Starbucks'] response to the Union’s nationwide organizing, provide ample context for finding Schultz’s statement objectively coercive," the board said.
The decision bars Starbucks from "impliedly threatening employees with discharge if they engage in union or other protected concerted activities" and requires the company to post notices of the violation at its stores in the Long Beach area.
The case is Starbucks Corp, National Labor Relations Board, No. 21-CA-294571.
For Starbucks: Jonathan Levine of Littler Mendelson
For the union: Gabe Frumkin of Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt
For the NLRB general counsel: Lindsay Parker
Read more:
Ex-Starbucks CEO Schultz illegally threatened union supporter, NLRB judge rules
Starbucks CEO Niccol says committed to "engage constructively" with workers union
US Supreme Court backs Starbucks over fired pro-union workers
Starbucks must rehire fired union supporters, US appeals court rules
Starbucks' ex-CEO Schultz resists 'union busting' claims by U.S. Senators
Starbucks must disclose spending on response to union campaign, judge rules
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.
