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
Ativos relacionados
Últimas notícias
Isenção de Responsabilidade: As entidades do XM Group proporcionam serviço de apenas-execução e acesso à nossa plataforma online de negociação, permitindo a visualização e/ou uso do conteúdo disponível no website ou através deste, o que não se destina a alterar ou a expandir o supracitado. Tal acesso e uso estão sempre sujeitos a: (i) Termos e Condições; (ii) Avisos de Risco; e (iii) Termos de Responsabilidade. Este, é desta forma, fornecido como informação generalizada. Particularmente, por favor esteja ciente que os conteúdos da nossa plataforma online de negociação não constituem solicitação ou oferta para iniciar qualquer transação nos mercados financeiros. Negociar em qualquer mercado financeiro envolve um nível de risco significativo de perda do capital.
Todo o material publicado na nossa plataforma de negociação online tem apenas objetivos educacionais/informativos e não contém — e não deve ser considerado conter — conselhos e recomendações financeiras, de negociação ou fiscalidade de investimentos, registo de preços de negociação, oferta e solicitação de transação em qualquer instrumento financeiro ou promoção financeira não solicitada direcionadas a si.
Qual conteúdo obtido por uma terceira parte, assim como o conteúdo preparado pela XM, tais como, opiniões, pesquisa, análises, preços, outra informação ou links para websites de terceiras partes contidos neste website são prestados "no estado em que se encontram", como um comentário de mercado generalizado e não constitui conselho de investimento. Na medida em que qualquer conteúdo é construído como pesquisa de investimento, deve considerar e aceitar que este não tem como objetivo e nem foi preparado de acordo com os requisitos legais concebidos para promover a independência da pesquisa de investimento, desta forma, deve ser considerado material de marketing sob as leis e regulações relevantes. Por favor, certifique-se que leu e compreendeu a nossa Notificação sobre Pesquisa de Investimento não-independente e o Aviso de Risco, relativos à informação supracitada, os quais podem ser acedidos aqui.
