07/04/2024: More Starbucks Nonsense
Plus a self-determination election at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival Assocation.
Oregon Shakespeare Festival Association, 19-RC-336570 (Regional Election Decision)
This decision addresses a petition by IATSE Local 154 for a self-determination election to add box office employees to an existing unit of finance employees at Oregon Shakespeare Festival. The key legal analyses are:
Appropriateness of the self-determination election: The Regional Director applied the two-prong test from Warner-Lambert Co, which requires the voting group to be an identifiable, distinct segment and share a community of interest with the existing unit. The Director found both prongs were met, applying the traditional community of interest factors.
Supervisory status of box office supervisors: The Director analyzed whether box office supervisors met the statutory definition of supervisor under Section 2(11) of the NLRA, applying the three-part test from NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc.. The Director found the Employer failed to meet its burden of proving supervisory status.
Key cases applied:
Warner-Lambert Co., 298 NLRB 993 (1990) - Establishes two-prong test for self-determination elections.
PCC Structurals, Inc., 365 NLRB No. 160 (2017) - Reiterates traditional community of interest factors.
Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006) - Defines "independent judgment" for supervisory status analysis.
NLRB v. Kentucky River Community Care, Inc., 532 U.S. 706 (2001) - Sets forth three-part test for supervisory status.
The Director ultimately directed a self-determination election for the box office employees to vote on joining the existing finance unit.
Starbucks Corporation, 06-RD-340875 (Regional Election Decision)
Starbucks is currently in the stage of the union-avoidance process where, after losing the election and stonewalling bargaining for a long period of time, they are now having workers file decertification petitions to have the union decertified as the representative of the workers.
According to my NLRB database, Starbucks has attempted to do this exact same thing at least 19 times. There is even a published Board decision specifically addressing a prior Starbucks decertification case where the Board clearly indicates that decertification is not appropriate in these circumstances. But Starbucks keeps doing it, arguing that the Board’s prior decisions on this topic were wrongly decided.
The underlying legal issue here is whether a decertification election should be held when there are pending unfair labor practice charges against the company that would, if successful, result in a bargaining order and an extension of the time in which the union cannot be decertified. Under existing Board law (Rieth-Riley Construction Co.), the answer is no, and so the regional director dismissed this decertification petition.