Starbucks illegally threatened, sacked employees: US labour board rules

Starbucks illegally threatened, interrogated, and terminated pro-union employees in Philadelphia, the US labour board ruled.

In a Monday decision, a panel of three Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordered Starbucks to “cease and desist” from prohibiting staff from raising workplace complaints, placing them under surveillance when engaged in collective action, and discriminating against baristas for supporting labor groups. The decision also ordered the company to offer reinstatement with backpay to two terminated activists.

In an emailed statement, Starbucks said, “We disagree with the decision and are considering all options to obtain a full legal review of the matter.” The firm has said repeatedly that all claims against it of antiunion activity are “categorically false.” NLRB rulings can be appealed in federal court.

The dispute involves workplace activism in 2019, before the launch of the current Starbucks Workers United campaign which has reached hundreds of the company’s US cafes. Regional directors of the NLRB across the country have issued dozens of pending complaints accusing the company of breaking the law. 

Agency judges have ruled against the company in several of those cases, including finding that the firm threatened workers with the loss of healthcare and free tuition benefits if they unionised.

Amazon follows

US labour board prosecutors concluded that Amazon.com illegally used subpoenas to coerce staff and try to interfere with labor activism at a New York warehouse.

A regional director of the NLRB has determined that, in doing so, the firm violated employees’ rights, agency spokesperson Kayla Blado said. Absent a settlement, the director will issue a complaint on behalf of the labor board’s general counsel, Blado said.

The dispute stems from Amazon’s ongoing effort to overturn the Amazon Labor Union’s historic election victory last spring at an 8,000-employee facility on Staten Island. 

ALU attorney Seth Goldstein says Amazon sought in that case to obtain extensive records including text messages among employees, which had a chilling effect on workers’ willingness to be involved with the organization. 

“They violated their rights by requesting protected information,” Goldstein said Monday. “They asked for everything in their fishing expedition to overturn the election.”

Amazon denied wrongdoing. “Requesting information through subpoenas is standard practice and necessary to support our objections in this case,” spokesperson Mary Kate Paradis said in an emailed statement. “There was no unlawful activity and we look forward to showing that as this process continues.” The company is currently appealing a ruling from another NLRB regional director who rejected its objections to the Staten Island election –- a conflict which could stretch on for years and end up in federal court.

Complaints issued by NLRB regional directors are considered by agency judges, whose rulings can be appealed to labor board members in Washington, and from there to federal court. The agency has authority to order companies to change policies, but not to make them pay any punitive damages for violations of the law.