07/20/2026: Starbucks Blocking Charge
Board upholds blocking charge decision in Starbucks case.
Starbucks Corporation, 374 NLRB No. 141, 10-RC-369790 (Published Board Decision)
The Board denied an employer's request for review of a regional director's decision to hold a representation petition in abeyance under the Board's blocking-charge policy at a Starbucks store in the Tenth Region.
The employer had filed a petition seeking an election, but the regional director paused processing after the union alleged the employer fired a lead organizer just hours before the petition was filed. Under Section 103.20(b) of the Board's Rules and Regulations, a regional director must hold a petition in abeyance, absent special circumstances, if the offer of proof describes conduct that would interfere with employee free choice in an election. The Board found that a discharge of this kind, if proven, meets that standard, even though the regional director's letter had used the word "could" rather than "would" in describing the standard.
The Board limited its review to whether the regional director abused his discretion based on the information available at the time of the blocking decision, and found no such abuse. It noted that the employer had not identified any special circumstances justifying processing the petition despite the pending unfair labor practice charge. The denial was without prejudice to the employer later asking the regional director to unblock the petition if new developments occur after the blocking letter.
Significant Cases Cited
Excel Case Ready, 334 NLRB 4 (2001): Held that discharging union supporters, especially union leaders, is among the most flagrant forms of interference with employees' Section 7 rights due to its long-term coercive impact.