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
Mga Kaugnay na Asset
Pinakabagong Balita
Disclaimer: Ang mga kabilang sa XM Group ay nagbibigay lang ng serbisyo sa pagpapatupad at pag-access sa aming Online Trading Facility, kung saan pinapahintulutan nito ang pagtingin at/o paggamit sa nilalaman na makikita sa website o sa pamamagitan nito, at walang layuning palitan o palawigin ito, at hindi din ito papalitan o papalawigin. Ang naturang pag-access at paggamit ay palaging alinsunod sa: (i) Mga Tuntunin at Kundisyon; (ii) Mga Babala sa Risk; at (iii) Kabuuang Disclaimer. Kaya naman ang naturang nilalaman ay ituturing na pangkalahatang impormasyon lamang. Mangyaring isaalang-alang na ang mga nilalaman ng aming Online Trading Facility ay hindi paglikom, o alok, para magsagawa ng anumang transaksyon sa mga pinansyal na market. Ang pag-trade sa alinmang pinansyal na market ay nagtataglay ng mataas na lebel ng risk sa iyong kapital.
Lahat ng materyales na nakalathala sa aming Online Trading Facility ay nakalaan para sa layuning edukasyonal/pang-impormasyon lamang at hindi naglalaman – at hindi dapat ituring bilang naglalaman – ng payo at rekomendasyon na pangpinansyal, tungkol sa buwis sa pag-i-invest, o pang-trade, o tala ng aming presyo sa pag-trade, o alok para sa, o paglikom ng, transaksyon sa alinmang pinansyal na instrument o hindi ginustong pinansyal na promosyon.
Sa anumang nilalaman na galing sa ikatlong partido, pati na ang mga nilalaman na inihanda ng XM, ang mga naturang opinyon, balita, pananaliksik, pag-analisa, presyo, ibang impormasyon o link sa ibang mga site na makikita sa website na ito ay ibibigay tulad ng nandoon, bilang pangkalahatang komentaryo sa market at hindi ito nagtataglay ng payo sa pag-i-invest. Kung ang alinmang nilalaman nito ay itinuring bilang pananaliksik sa pag-i-invest, kailangan mong isaalang-alang at tanggapin na hindi ito inilaan at inihanda alinsunod sa mga legal na pangangailangan na idinisenyo para maisulong ang pagsasarili ng pananaliksik sa pag-i-invest, at dahil dito ituturing ito na komunikasyon sa marketing sa ilalim ng mga kaugnay na batas at regulasyon. Mangyaring siguruhin na nabasa at naintindihan mo ang aming Notipikasyon sa Hindi Independyenteng Pananaliksik sa Pag-i-invest at Babala sa Risk na may kinalaman sa impormasyong nakalagay sa itaas, na maa-access dito.
