The ongoing struggle for unionization at Starbucks, the global coffee giant, has reached a critical juncture as the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving the company's dismissal of pro-union employees.
This case marks the first time the Supreme Court has taken up a case related to the nationwide campaign to unionize Starbucks stores.
The case revolves around a group of employees from a Memphis store who were terminated by Starbucks. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordered the company to reinstate these employees, a decision Starbucks has contested, escalating the matter to the Supreme Court following an unfavorable ruling from the 6th Circuit.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case follows a lower court ruling that Starbucks likely discouraged other employees from exercising their rights under U.S. labor law by terminating the Memphis workers in 2022. The Memphis store is among over 370 Starbucks locations in the United States that have unionized since 2021, a significant shift for a company that had remained non-union for decades.
The NLRB concluded that Starbucks unlawfully terminated the Memphis employees to discourage union support and send a message to other workers. The board sought an injunction to compel Starbucks to rehire the employees, which was granted by U.S. District Judge Sheryl Lipman. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Lipmans decision in 2023, criticizing Starbucks' actions.
Starbucks, however, maintains that the employees were dismissed for violating safety protocols, specifically opening the store without management's permission and allowing journalists inside. Despite rehiring the employees as per the NLRB's order, Starbucks continues to seek relief on appeal.
The company has faced hundreds of complaints in recent years, with over 700 reported. The crux of the issue is whether the 6th Circuit applied the correct legal test in upholding the NLRB's decision. Starbucks contends that it did not, arguing for a more comprehensive legal test.
According to Bloomberg Law, "The Third, Fifth, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh circuits use a two-part test that turns on whether a district judge has reasonable cause to believe there was a labor law violation and a 10(j) injunction would be 'just and proper.' The Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth circuits employ the four-factor test thats commonly used for other types of injunctions, which includes inquiries into whether the NLRB has a likelihood of success on the merits and the injunction is in the public interest."
Starbucks asserts that the Sixth Circuit should have used the four-part test in determining the appropriateness of the NLRB injunction. The NLRB, however, counters that the tests are essentially the same, differing only in terminology.
Given the current composition of the court and its history of limiting the power and scope of government agencies, the outcome of the case is uncertain. The NLRB and unions are reportedly concerned about potential negative implications, suggesting that the conflict with Starbucks is likely to persist.
Login