Starbucks’ interim CEO, Howard Schultz, violated federal labor law in 2022 by telling a California barista who expressed concerns about unionization that “if you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can go work for another company.”
The National Labor Relations Board ruled on Wednesday that Schultz’s statement constituted an unconstitutional, coercive threat.
The decision highlights Starbucks’ difficult relationship with organized labor, as more and more employees at its outlets unionize.
Howard Schultz Violated Labor Law By Telling Employee ‘If You’re Not Happy At Starbucks, You Can Go Work For Another Company’
In 2022, as interim CEO, Schultz visited a business event in Long Beach, California, to address and improve working conditions at Starbucks locations. According to the NLRB, Barista Madison Hall attempted to discuss the benefits of unionization as well as Starbucks’ claimed history of unfair labor practices.
“Why are you angry at Starbucks?” Schultz inquired. He stated that the occasion was not the appropriate forum for discussing union problems before remarking on working elsewhere. The administrative law decision states that he “had an angry expression on his face.” The NLRB ruling maintains an administrative law judge’s decision from October 2023.
Starbucks issued a statement expressing its disagreement with the board’s decision. “Our focus remains on training and supporting our managers to ensure respect for our partners’ right to organize, and we are making progress in our discussions with Workers United,” a business representative said in a statement Thursday.
Though Schultz stepped down from his third term as CEO in March 2023, he remains involved with the company. When he retired from Starbucks’ board of directors in September, the business named him “lifelong chairman emeritus.”
“We note that the judge identified the Respondent’s highest official, interim CEO Schultz, as a ‘legendary leader,’ a status that would exacerbate the coercive nature of Schultz’s statement,” the ruling read.
Since the first Starbucks branch in Buffalo, New York, unionized in 2021, the coffee business has been embroiled in hundreds of labor battles over alleged union-busting practices. In June, the Supreme Court heard Starbucks v. McKinney, a case involving seven employees who were fired after attempting to form a union. The Supreme Court agreed with Starbucks.
An NLRB administrative law judge earlier stated that Starbucks had engaged in “egregious and widespread misconduct” in its dealings with employees involved in unionization efforts at Buffalo outlets, including the first site to unionize. Starbucks dispatched high-level executives into Buffalo-area stores on a “relentless” campaign, according to the judge, which “likely left a lasting impact as to the importance of voting against representation.”
Starbucks stated at the time that it is “considering all options to obtain further legal review,” and that “we believe the decision and remedies ordered are inappropriate given the record in this matter.”
Howard Schultz Violated Labor Law By Telling Employee ‘If You’re Not Happy At Starbucks, You Can Go Work For Another Company’
The NLRB ordered Starbucks on Wednesday to stop threatening to terminate employees for unionizing and to post a notice of employee rights in all of its Long Beach outlets.
“We are pleased to see the NLRB continuing to advocate for workers and their legal right to organize. At the same time, we’re looking ahead and proud to be on a new journey with the firm,” said Michelle Eisen, co-chair of Starbucks Workers United’s national organizing committee and bargaining delegate, in a statement to CNN on Thursday.
SOURCE | CNN
