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
Activos relacionados
Últimas noticias
Descargo de responsabilidades: Cada una de las entidades de XM Group proporciona un servicio de solo ejecución y acceso a nuestra plataforma de trading online, permitiendo a una persona ver o usar el contenido disponible en o a través del sitio web, sin intención de cambiarlo ni ampliarlo. Dicho acceso y uso están sujetos en todo momento a: (i) Términos y Condiciones; (ii) Advertencias de riesgo; y (iii) Descargo completo de responsabilidades. Por lo tanto, dicho contenido se proporciona exclusivamente como información general. En particular, por favor tenga en cuenta que, los contenidos de nuestra plataforma de trading online no son ni solicitud ni una oferta para entrar a realizar transacciones en los mercados financieros. Operar en cualquier mercado financiero implica un nivel de riesgo significativo para su capital.
Todo el material publicado en nuestra plataforma de trading online tiene únicamente fines educativos/informativos y no contiene –y no debe considerarse que contenga– asesoramiento ni recomendaciones financieras, tributarias o de inversión, ni un registro de nuestros precios de trading, ni una oferta ni solicitud de transacción con instrumentos financieros ni promociones financieras no solicitadas.
Cualquier contenido de terceros, así como el contenido preparado por XM, como por ejemplo opiniones, noticias, investigaciones, análisis, precios, otras informaciones o enlaces a sitios de terceros que figuran en este sitio web se proporcionan “tal cual”, como comentarios generales del mercado y no constituyen un asesoramiento en materia de inversión. En la medida en que cualquier contenido se interprete como investigación de inversión, usted debe tener en cuenta y aceptar que dicho contenido no fue concebido ni elaborado de acuerdo con los requisitos legales diseñados para promover la independencia en materia de investigación de inversiones y, por tanto, se considera como una comunicación comercial en virtud de las leyes y regulaciones pertinentes. Por favor, asegúrese de haber leído y comprendido nuestro Aviso sobre investigación de inversión no independiente y advertencia de riesgo en relación con la información anterior, al que se puede acceder aquí.
