01/13/2025: More Starbucks Unfair Labor Practices
The Starbucks Labor Relations Board keeps on churning.
Starbucks Corporation, JD(SF)-02-25, 19-CA-312644 (ALJ Decision)
This NLRB case arose from events at a Starbucks store in Bellingham, Washington. On October 17, 2022, Workers United filed a petition to represent approximately 27 baristas and shift supervisors. The union won the election on December 1 and was certified on December 9, 2022.
Shortly after the petition filing, District Manager Romalie Murphy began soliciting employee grievances. The ALJ found this violated Section 8(a)(1) because, under established precedent, solicitation during a union campaign inherently includes an implied promise to remedy grievances unless the employer has a past practice of solicitation or clearly disclaims making promises. Neither exception applied here.
Gwen Williamson, a shift supervisor and open union supporter, became subject to a series of disciplinary actions. The legal analysis of these actions centered on Section 8(a)(3), which prohibits discrimination based on union activity, and Section 8(a)(5), which requires bargaining over changes in terms and conditions of employment.
On December 9, Store Manager Amber Gonzales announced stricter enforcement of attendance policies and issued Williamson a documented coaching for tardiness. This violated multiple sections of the Act:
Section 8(a)(1): The announcement itself was coercive
Section 8(a)(3): Under the Wright Line framework, timing and disparate treatment showed discriminatory motivation
Section 8(a)(5): Attendance policies are mandatory subjects of bargaining, and changes cannot be implemented without notice and bargaining with the certified union
The contrast with previous enforcement was stark - the prior manager never disciplined anyone for being less than 13 minutes late. Under Board precedent, such changes in enforcement patterns can constitute unlawful unilateral changes requiring bargaining.
In January 2023, Williamson received a final written warning for two incidents: leaving a safe open in October and allegedly leaving tips unsupervised in December. The ALJ found the investigation procedurally deficient - management failed to get Williamson's account before discipline, suggesting pretext under Board precedent holding that one-sided investigations indicate discriminatory intent.
When Williamson's apartment flooded in December 2022, she applied for emergency assistance through Starbucks' CUP Fund. Her January 2023 denial, based on not being in "good standing" due to the prior unlawful discipline, created a derivative violation under NLRB v. Relco Locomotive precedent - adverse actions based on previous unlawful actions are themselves unlawful.
Starbucks terminated Williamson on February 17, 2023, citing continued attendance policy violations. The termination relied on the previous disciplinary actions that the ALJ found unlawful, creating another derivative violation. The termination also violated Section 8(a)(5) as it implemented the unilateral change in attendance policy enforcement without bargaining.
The ALJ ordered a comprehensive remedy including:
Reinstatement with full backpay and benefits
Removal of all unlawful disciplinary records
Make-whole relief for the denied CUP Fund assistance
Standard notice posting requirements
The judge denied the General Counsel's request for special remedies like notice reading and training requirements, finding them unwarranted in this case's circumstances despite Starbucks' prior violations at other locations.
Significant Cases Cited
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980) - Established framework for analyzing discriminatory motivation in discipline cases
Tri-Cast, Inc., 274 NLRB 377 (1985) - Held statements about loss of direct communication were lawful (this case was prospectively overruled in Siren Retail Corp.)
Dynamics Corp., 286 NLRB 920 (1987) - Found discipline violated Act when issued pursuant to unlawfully strict enforcement
Livingston Pipe & Tube, 303 NLRB 873 (1991) - Established bargaining obligation runs from election date
Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022) - Required compensation for direct/foreseeable pecuniary harms