09/16/2024: ALJ Orders Starbucks to Reopen Two Illegally Closed Stores
09/16/2024: ALJ Orders Starbucks to Reopen Two Illegally Closed Stores
Region also continues to pursue a Cemex bargaining order against Starbucks.
Starbucks Corporation, JD–55–24, 03-CA-317496 (ALJ Decision)
This decision by Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter addresses allegations that Starbucks Corporation violated Sections 8(a)(3), (5), and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by permanently closing two stores in Ithaca, NY on May 26, 2023 for antiunion reasons and without bargaining with the union.
Key Facts:
Workers United union was certified to represent employees at three Starbucks stores in Ithaca in April 2022
Starbucks closed one store in June 2022, which was found unlawful in a prior case
Starbucks closed the remaining two stores (Commons and Meadow) on May 26, 2023
Starbucks cited issues like high employee turnover, store manager instability, and negative financial contributions as reasons for closing the stores
Legal Analysis:
The ALJ applied the standard from Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Mfg. Co., 380 U.S. 263 (1965) to analyze whether the store closures violated Section 8(a)(3). Under Darlington, a partial closing violates Section 8(a)(3) if:
The employer had an interest in another business
The employer closed part of its business with the purpose of chilling unionism elsewhere
It was reasonably foreseeable that employees elsewhere would fear their facilities would also be closed for union activities
The ALJ found Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(3) because:
As a single employer operating thousands of stores, Starbucks met the "interest" test
There was compelling evidence of antiunion motivation, including:
Ignoring bargaining requests
Unlawfully closing another Ithaca store previously
Rejecting job applications from union supporters
Unlawfully disciplining/discharging employees
Changing store hours without bargaining
Citing financial losses from strikes as a reason for closure
The timing was suspicious, coming shortly after unionization
Starbucks' stated reasons were pretextual and tainted by unfair labor practices
It was reasonably foreseeable the closures would chill unionism elsewhere given:
Ongoing union activity at other Starbucks locations nationwide
Geographic proximity to other organizing locations like Buffalo
Likelihood employees elsewhere would learn of the closures
National media coverage of Starbucks' response to unionization
The ALJ also found Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing to bargain over the decision to close the stores, citing First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666 (1981), which held that when a partial closing is motivated by antiunion animus in violation of Section 8(a)(3), it is not exempt from bargaining obligations.
As a remedy, the ALJ ordered Starbucks to reopen the closed stores, reinstate discharged employees, bargain with the union, and take other remedial actions. The ALJ also ordered a notice reading and nationwide electronic distribution of the notice.
Key cases cited:
Textile Workers Union v. Darlington Mfg. Co., 380 U.S. 263 (1965) - Established the standard for determining when a partial facility closure violates Section 8(a)(3).
First National Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB, 452 U.S. 666 (1981) - Held that when a partial closing is motivated by antiunion reasons in violation of Section 8(a)(3), the decision is not exempt from bargaining obligations.
Quickway Transportation, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 127 (2023) - Applied the Darlington standard and found unlawful closure of facilities.
DaVita Vallejo, 20-RC-346835 (Regional Election Decision)
The case involves DaVita Vallejo (the Employer) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), United Healthcare Workers – West (the Petitioner). The Union petitioned for an election to represent two distinct voting groups at the Employer’s in-center hemodialysis (ICHD) facility in Vallejo, California. The petitioned-for units include full-time, regular part-time, and per diem employees in professional and non-professional classifications. The Union sought to represent these groups at the Vallejo facility only, while the Employer argued that any appropriate bargaining unit should include multiple facilities across its ORCA Division Region 1, which covers Northern California.
Legal Analysis:
Single-Facility Presumption:
The primary issue was whether the petitioned-for single-facility bargaining unit at the Vallejo facility was appropriate or if the unit should include employees from multiple facilities in the ORCA Division Region 1. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) presumes that single-facility units are appropriate unless they are so functionally integrated with other facilities that they lose their separate identity. The burden of proof falls on the party challenging the appropriateness of a single-facility unit.
Citing D&L Transportation, Inc., 324 NLRB 160 (1997), the Regional Director held that the petitioned-for single-facility unit at Vallejo was presumptively appropriate. The Employer failed to meet its burden of proving that the Vallejo facility was so integrated with other facilities in the ORCA Division that it had lost its separate identity.
Centralized Control of Operations:
The Employer argued that the centralized control of labor relations and personnel policies across its ORCA Division meant that employees at Vallejo shared a community of interest with employees at other facilities in the region. However, the Regional Director determined that, while certain labor policies were centralized, there was significant autonomy at the facility level. Facility administrators at Vallejo had authority over hiring, discipline, promotions, and daily operations, which weighed in favor of finding the single-facility unit appropriate. The Regional Director relied on the precedent set in California Pacific Medical Center, 357 NLRB 197 (2011), which held that centralized control does not automatically rebut the single-facility presumption if local autonomy exists.
Community of Interest:
The Regional Director considered the community of interest among employees at the Vallejo facility and other facilities in the ORCA Division. While employees across the division shared similar skills, training, and job functions, there were significant differences in the services offered. For example, the Vallejo facility did not offer home-based dialysis services, which were provided at other facilities. Additionally, the Vallejo employees did not travel to other locations regularly or perform duties outside of the facility. This lack of functional integration further supported the appropriateness of a single-facility unit, citing Audio Visual Services Group, LLC, 370 NLRB No. 39 (2020).
Degree of Employee Interchange:
The Employer also argued that there was significant interchange of employees between the Vallejo facility and other facilities in the region, which suggested a broader bargaining unit. However, the evidence presented did not demonstrate a substantial level of interchange. While some temporary transfers occurred to cover staffing needs, the Regional Director found that these transfers were limited in scope and did not involve a significant portion of the workforce. The Board’s decision in New Britain Transportation Co., 330 NLRB 397 (1999), guided the analysis, with the Regional Director concluding that the level of employee interchange was insufficient to overcome the single-facility presumption.
Functional Integration:
The Regional Director found that there was little evidence of functional integration between the Vallejo facility and other facilities in the region. Each facility operated independently, and employees at Vallejo did not rely on other facilities to complete their tasks. This lack of functional integration, combined with the lack of regular employee interchange, supported the conclusion that the petitioned-for single-facility unit was appropriate.
Geographic Proximity:
The Employer pointed to the geographic proximity of the facilities in the ORCA Division Region 1 as a factor supporting a multi-facility unit. However, the Regional Director found that the facilities were spread across five counties in Northern California, with significant distances between them. This factor weighed in favor of maintaining the single-facility unit at Vallejo.
Bargaining History:
There was no prior bargaining history at the Vallejo facility, so this factor was considered neutral.
Conclusion:
The Regional Director concluded that the petitioned-for single-facility unit at DaVita Vallejo was appropriate for collective bargaining purposes. The Employer failed to demonstrate that the Vallejo facility was so integrated with other facilities in the ORCA Division that it had lost its separate identity. As a result, the single-facility presumption remained intact, and the Union’s petition for a single-facility election was granted. A secret ballot election was directed for two voting groups: the professional unit, including Registered Nurses and Clinical Coordinators, and the non-professional unit, including Administrative Assistants and Patient Care Technicians.
Significant Cases Cited:
D&L Transportation, Inc., 324 NLRB 160 (1997): Established the presumption that single-facility units are appropriate unless they are functionally integrated with other facilities.
California Pacific Medical Center, 357 NLRB 197 (2011): Held that centralized control over labor policies does not rebut the single-facility presumption if local autonomy over daily operations exists.
Audio Visual Services Group, LLC, 370 NLRB No. 39 (2020): Reaffirmed that a single-facility unit may be appropriate if there is a distinct community of interest among employees at the facility.
New Britain Transportation Co., 330 NLRB 397 (1999): Provided guidance on the level of employee interchange required to rebut the single-facility presumption.
Starbucks Corporation, 14-RM-332374, 14-RC-331483 (Regional Election Decision)
This case involves Starbucks Corporation (the Employer) and Workers United/SEIU (the Union). The Union filed a petition seeking to represent full-time and part-time baristas and shift supervisors at Starbucks’ 955 NW Plaza Drive, St. Ann, Missouri facility. The petition excluded Store Managers, Assistant Store Managers, and other professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The Union delivered a letter to Starbucks on December 7, 2023, requesting recognition as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the petitioned-for unit. However, Starbucks refused to voluntarily recognize the Union and an election was held on January 22, 2024.
Election Results:
The results of the election showed:
20 eligible voters.
8 votes cast for the Petitioner (Union).
11 votes cast against the Union.
No challenged ballots or void ballots.
Following the election, the Union filed objections to the conduct of the election, asserting that the Employer's actions during the election period affected the fairness of the election.
Legal Analysis:
Unfair Labor Practices and Section 8(a)(1) Violations:
The Union alleged that Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by maintaining and discriminatorily enforcing unlawful policies. Specifically, Starbucks allegedly prohibited employees from posting union literature, threatened employees with reprisals for engaging in union activities, and enforced a no-recording policy to restrict union activity.
The Regional Director analyzed whether these actions constituted unfair labor practices under the NLRA and undermined the reliability of the election. Citing Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 130 (2023), the Regional Director noted that even a single violation of the NLRA by the employer during the critical period could invalidate an election if it interfered with employees’ free choice. In this case, the severity of the violations, combined with their dissemination to the entire bargaining unit, was found to have affected the employees' ability to vote freely.
Remedial Bargaining Order:
Based on the violations of Section 8(a)(1), the Regional Director determined that the Union’s objections to the election were valid. The violations were not considered minimal or isolated; instead, they were found to have directly impacted the election results.
Under the principles established in Cemex, if an employer commits unfair labor practices during the period between a union's demand for recognition and the election, and those practices affect the election's outcome, the election may be set aside. The employer would then be required to recognize and bargain with the union based on the employees' earlier designation of representation through non-election means.
The Regional Director determined that Starbucks’ unlawful conduct undermined the fairness of the election, warranting a remedial bargaining order. This means that Starbucks would be required to recognize and bargain with the Union without a new election.
Conclusion:
The Regional Director dismissed the petition for a new election and ordered Starbucks to recognize and bargain with the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees at the St. Ann, Missouri facility. The decision was grounded in significant violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, which were found to have affected the outcome of the election.
Significant Cases Cited:
Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 130 (2023): Held that even a single employer violation that affects employee free choice during the election process may result in a remedial bargaining order.
Longs Drug Stores California, 347 NLRB 500 (2006): Clarified that an election will be set aside if employer misconduct during the critical period is significant enough to affect the election's outcome.
Clark Equipment Co., 278 NLRB 498 (1986): Established that employer violations during the election period must be evaluated based on their severity, the extent of dissemination, and proximity to the election.