03/11/2025: Teamsters Dinged For Hiring Hall That Disfavored Non-Members
Another slew of Starbucks unfair labor practices.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 657 (North Center Productions, Inc.), JD(SF)-05-25, 16-CB-294650 (ALJ Decision)
This case involves allegations that Teamsters Local 657 violated the NLRA through its operation of an exclusive hiring hall for the motion picture and television industry in south-central Texas. The NLRB found that the union maintained a discriminatory referral system that favored union members over non-members and retaliated against union members who engaged in protected activities.
Discriminatory Hiring Hall
The union operated its hiring hall using multiple tiered lists: an "A List" and "B List" (collectively the "Craft List") comprised exclusively of union members with industry experience, followed by a "Call List" for other union members, and finally a "Non-Members List." The hiring process required production companies to exhaust 90% of each list before moving to the next, effectively prioritizing union members over non-members regardless of experience.
Administrative Law Judge Giannopoulos determined that this system violated Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(2) of the National Labor Relations Act by discriminating based on union membership. The judge found that the union's practice "favors those who are union members and disfavors individuals who have exercised their Section 7 right to refrain from union activity."
Discriminatory Delay in Referring Disfavored Members
The case also addressed allegations that the union discriminatorily delayed referring three specific union members—Jeffrey Norris, Michael Johnson, and Joe Olvera—for employment with Netflix on the production "Spy Kids: Armageddon" because they had engaged in protected activities, including running for union office as a dissident slate, filing internal union charges, and submitting NLRB charges against production companies.
Applying both a duty of fair representation analysis and the Wright Line burden-shifting framework, the judge found that the union unlawfully delayed the referral of Johnson and Olvera. Both held Class A commercial driver's licenses and were equally qualified compared to other Call List members referred earlier. However, the judge dismissed the allegation regarding Norris, finding that his Class B commercial driver's license limited the vehicles he could drive, and the production did not begin hiring Class B drivers until the date Norris was actually hired.
The judge also dismissed allegations that the union violated the Act by filing internal charges against Norris for sharing internal union business with non-members. The judge determined this was a purely intraunion matter that did not interfere with the employee-employer relationship or contravene a policy of the Act.
As a remedy, the judge ordered the union to rescind its discriminatory hiring hall rules, make Johnson and Olvera (or Olvera's estate, as he had died) whole for lost earnings, and post notices about the violations.
Significant Cases Cited
SSA Pacific, Inc., 366 NLRB No. 51 (2018): Established the framework for analyzing duty of fair representation and Wright Line allegations in hiring hall cases.
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1968): Set forth the burden-shifting analysis for determining discriminatory motivation in labor cases.
Teamsters Local 100 (Beta Productions LLC), 370 NLRB No. 36 (2020): Held that a union hiring hall giving preference based on experience in the "Teamsters Movie Industry" violated the Act.
OPEIU, Local 251 (Sandia National Laboratories), 331 NLRB 1417 (2000): Established that purely intraunion discipline that doesn't affect the employment relationship is not a violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A).
Operating Engineers Local 137 (Various Employers), 317 NLRB 909 (1995): Applied Wright Line to allegations involving a union's discriminatory delay in dispatching dissident union members from a hiring hall.
Starbucks Corporation, JD-21-25, 10-CA-305651 (ALJ Decision)
This case involves allegations that Starbucks Corporation violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) through several actions against employees Alyssa White and Mateo Molina-Elizalde related to their union and protected concerted activities.
The events took place at Starbucks locations in Raleigh and Winterville, North Carolina. White was a shift supervisor at the Raleigh store who played a leading role in union organizing activities beginning in February 2022, including signing a letter to the Starbucks' CEO about the union campaign. The union election at the Raleigh store resulted in a tie vote, and although objections were found meritorious, employees withdrew their petition following what the administrative law judge (ALJ) characterized as threats to withhold raises if the campaign continued.
On September 21, 2022, employees at the Raleigh store, including White, engaged in a strike to protest working conditions, specifically the store manager's alleged mistreatment of employees. The strike required closing the store for approximately 40 minutes. On October 21, 2022, Starbucks discharged White, claiming she closed the store during the strike without management approval.
Molina-Elizalde was a barista who had worked at multiple Starbucks locations. Although not employed at the Raleigh store during the strike, he posted social media content supporting the strikers. After being discharged from the Winterville store for attendance issues, Molina applied to work at the Raleigh store. Despite initial positive communications with the Raleigh store manager about rehiring him, on October 26, 2022, the manager declined to hire Molina, citing attendance concerns but also explicitly mentioning his social media posts supporting the strike.
The ALJ’s legal analysis addressed several key issues:
First, regarding questioning of White by a district manager about the strike, the ALJ found this did not violate Section 8(a)(1) because the questioning occurred during White's shift in a normal work area, White was open about her activities, and the employer had legitimate reasons to investigate the circumstances of the store closure.
Second, the ALJ concluded that the Raleigh store manager's statement to Molina that she would not hire people who expressed support for the strike violated Section 8(a)(1).
Third, the ALJ found that White's September 20 disciplinary warnings for attendance issues were not unlawfully motivated, noting that White had extensive attendance problems and that the relationship between White and her manager had become friendly following the end of the union campaign.
Fourth, the ALJ determined that White's discharge violated Section 8(a)(1) because it was based on her participation in a protected strike. The ALJ rejected Starbucks' argument distinguishing between striking and closing the store, citing Supreme Court precedent that employees cannot be required to obtain management permission before engaging in protected strikes.
Fifth, the ALJ concluded that Molina's discharge from the Winterville store did not violate the Act because the evidence failed to establish that the Winterville store manager knew about Molina's protected activities.
Finally, the ALJ found that Starbucks' refusal to hire Molina at the Raleigh store violated Section 8(a)(1), given the manager's explicit reference to his social media posts supporting the strike as a reason for not hiring him.
The ALJ ordered Starbucks to cease and desist from the unlawful conduct, offer reinstatement to White, offer employment to Molina, and make both employees whole for any losses resulting from the discrimination.
Significant Cases Cited
NLRB v. Washington Aluminum Co., 370 U.S. 9 (1962): Rejected employer's attempt to distinguish between protected right to strike and leaving work without permission.
FES, 331 NLRB 9 (2000): Established framework for analyzing refusal-to-hire allegations based on protected activity.
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Set forth framework for analyzing discrimination allegations that turn on motivation.
Triangle Elec. Co., 335 NLRB 1037 (2001): Recognized that supporting others' strike activity is protected concerted activity.
CGLM, Inc., 350 NLRB 974 (2007): Held that Wright Line analysis is not appropriate when an employee is discharged for the act of going on strike