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
Asset collegati
Ultime news
Disclaimer: le entità di XM Group forniscono servizi di sola esecuzione e accesso al nostro servizio di trading online, che permette all'individuo di visualizzare e/o utilizzare i contenuti disponibili sul sito o attraverso di esso; non ha il proposito di modificare o espandere le proprie funzioni, né le modifica o espande. L'accesso e l'utilizzo sono sempre soggetti a: (i) Termini e condizioni; (ii) Avvertenza sui rischi e (iii) Disclaimer completo. Tali contenuti sono perciò forniti a scopo puramente informativo. Nello specifico, ti preghiamo di considerare che i contenuti del nostro servizio di trading online non rappresentano un sollecito né un'offerta ad operare sui mercati finanziari. Il trading su qualsiasi mercato finanziario comporta un notevole livello di rischio per il tuo capitale.
Tutto il materiale pubblicato sul nostro servizio di trading online è unicamente a scopo educativo e informativo, e non contiene (e non dovrebbe essere considerato come contenente) consigli e raccomandazioni di carattere finanziario, di trading o fiscale, né informazioni riguardanti i nostri prezzi di trading, offerte o solleciti riguardanti transazioni che possano coinvolgere strumenti finanziari, oppure promozioni finanziarie da te non richieste.
Tutti i contenuti di terze parti, oltre ai contenuti offerti da XM, siano essi opinioni, news, ricerca, analisi, prezzi, altre informazioni o link a siti di terzi presenti su questo sito, sono forniti "così com'è", e vanno considerati come commenti generali sui mercati; per questo motivo, non possono essere visti come consigli di investimento. Dato che tutti i contenuti sono intesi come ricerche di investimento, devi considerare e accettare che non sono stati preparati né creati seguendo i requisiti normativi pensati per promuovere l'indipendenza delle ricerche di investimento; per questo motivo, questi contenuti devono essere considerati come comunicazioni di marketing in base alle leggi e normative vigenti. Assicurati di avere letto e compreso pienamente la nostra Notifica sulla ricerca di investimento non indipendente e la nostra Informativa sul rischio riguardante le informazioni sopra citate; tali documenti sono consultabili qui.
