09/23/2025: Starbucks Unlawfully Fired Four Employees for Union Activity

Some fairly standard regional election decisions.

Starbucks Corporation, JD-80-25, 18-CA-295458 (ALJ Decision)

This case addresses allegations that Starbucks Corporation violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) at two Madison, Wisconsin stores. Administrative Law Judge Melissa M. Olivero found that Starbucks violated Sections 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(1) of the Act by discharging four employees due to their union activities, designating one employee as ineligible for rehire, and failing to rehire that employee.

Background and Facts

In March 2022, employees at Starbucks' University Avenue store in Madison began organizing with United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1473. On March 15, 2022, union representatives held a meeting at the store near closing time. Four employees - Kendra Kindrai, Yanissa Rivera, Alex Lammers, and Megan Jenson - participated in union activities including distributing authorization cards and discussing unionization with coworkers.

After the store closed at 7:30pm, some employees including the four discriminatees remained in the store until approximately 8:20pm. The non-employee union representatives left shortly after 8:00pm. During this time, Kindrai briefly opened the drive-through window to speak with a customer, and Lammers opened the safe after the store had closed.

District Manager Chloe Kim contacted Starbucks' Partner Contact Center about the meeting, and Senior Partner Relations Manager Steve Fox initiated an investigation. Fox interviewed the employees in April 2022, interrogating them about their union activities and the events of March 15. During these interviews, Fox questioned employees about who organized and attended the union meeting.

On May 6, 2022, Starbucks terminated all four employees, citing safety and security violations and alleged untruthfulness during the investigation. When Kindrai later applied for a position at another Starbucks location, she was designated as ineligible for rehire.

Legal Analysis and Findings

The ALJ applied the Wright Line framework to determine whether the terminations were unlawfully motivated. Under this test, the General Counsel must show that (1) employees engaged in protected activity, (2) the employer knew about the activity, and (3) the employer demonstrated animus toward the protected activity.

Judge Olivero found that all elements were satisfied:

1. The employees engaged in union activities by attending meetings, distributing authorization cards, and discussing unionization.

2. Starbucks was aware of these activities, as evidenced by surveillance footage showing employees exchanging union cards and Kim's knowledge of the union meeting.

3. Starbucks demonstrated animus through the timing of the discharges, cursory investigation, disparate treatment compared to other employees, and unlawful interrogations.

The burden then shifted to Starbucks to prove it would have taken the same actions regardless of the employees' union activities. The ALJ found that Starbucks failed to meet this burden, noting:

• The investigation was pretextual and motivated by animus

• Employees' alleged safety violations were exaggerated

• Despite claiming serious safety concerns, Starbucks allowed employees to continue working for nearly two months after the incident

• Management made no effort to retrain employees or verify claims about past practices

• Starbucks treated the discriminatees more harshly than other employees who committed similar or worse violations

Judge Olivero also found that Fox's questioning of employees about the union meeting constituted unlawful interrogation under the Rossmore House test, considering (1) the history of employer hostility, (2) the nature of information sought, (3) the supervisor's position, (4) the place and method of interrogation, and (5) the truthfulness of replies.

Remedies Ordered

The ALJ ordered Starbucks to:

• Cease and desist from interrogating employees about union activities

• Offer reinstatement to all four discharged employees

• Make employees whole for lost wages and benefits

• Remove references to the discharges from employee records

• Post notices at both Madison stores

• Hold mandatory meetings where the notice is read to employees

The ALJ also ordered a broad cease-and-desist remedy due to Starbucks' "egregious and pervasive unfair labor practices" and "scorched earth campaign" in response to union organizing.

Significant Cases Cited

• Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Established the framework for analyzing dual-motive discipline cases where protected activity may have been a factor.

• Rossmore House, 269 NLRB 1176 (1984): Set forth the test for determining whether employer interrogations violate the Act.

• Intertape Polymer Corp., 372 NLRB No. 133 (2023): Clarified that once unlawful motive is established, the employer bears the burden of persuasion to show it would have taken the same action regardless.

• Supershutttle of Orange County, Inc., 339 NLRB 1 (2003): Held that an employer cannot rely on misconduct elicited by a sham investigation to discharge an employee.

• Limestone Apparel Corp., 255 NLRB 722 (1981): Established that when an employer's explanation is pretextual, the reasons either did not exist or were not relied upon.

Fiorenza Dental Group, LLC, JD-77-25, 25-CA-335779 (ALJ Decision)

In this September 2025 NLRB decision, Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter found that Fiorenza Dental Group violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by maintaining an overly broad confidentiality policy and making coercive statements to employees, but ruled that the dental practice lawfully terminated employee Lacy Baker.

The case arose after Baker, a dental assistant, and front office coordinator Danielle Danehy accessed a document containing employee pay rates. In November 2023, Danehy showed Baker the document on her office computer, revealing that another dental assistant was earning $6 more per hour than Baker. They reviewed multiple employees' pay information. Baker subsequently discussed this pay disparity with other employees and approached the owner, Dr. Garrett Fiorenza, about a raise.

Upon learning that employees had accessed and shared information from the pay document, Fiorenza launched an investigation. During a staff meeting in December 2023, he stated that discussing pay causes "turmoil" and asked employees to report anyone who had viewed or discussed the document. Throughout January 2024, Fiorenza and his wife Natalie conducted one-on-one interviews with employees, questioning them about who had seen or discussed the document. On January 16, 2024, Respondent terminated Baker and Danehy.

Legal Analysis

The judge first determined that Baker engaged in concerted activity by discussing pay disparities with coworkers for mutual aid and protection. However, he found that Baker's examination of other employees' confidential pay information was not protected by the NLRA. While Baker's initial viewing of another employee's pay was inadvertent, her continued review of additional employees' confidential information was deemed wrongful and therefore not protected.

The judge ruled that Fiorenza Dental Group violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining overly broad confidentiality policies that explicitly prohibited employees from discussing "compensation data" with each other or third parties. The policies lacked exceptions for protected activities and could reasonably be interpreted as prohibiting employees from discussing wages, which is protected concerted activity.

The judge also found multiple Section 8(a)(1) violations for coercive statements, including:

• Discouraging employees from discussing wages by stating such discussions cause "turmoil"

• Instructing employees to report coworkers who discussed the pay document

• Coercively interrogating employees about protected concerted activities

• Threatening Baker with unspecified reprisals if she continued to protect coworkers

However, the judge dismissed the wrongful termination allegation. He concluded that even though Fiorenza relied partly on the unlawful confidentiality policy when terminating Baker, the termination was lawful because Baker's conduct (wrongfully obtaining confidential information) was not protected by the NLRA.

The judge ordered Fiorenza Dental Group to rescind the unlawful confidentiality policies and post an appropriate notice, but did not order reinstatement or backpay for Baker.

Significant Cases Cited

• Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023): Established the framework for analyzing whether work rules reasonably tend to chill Section 7 rights.

• Continental Group, Inc., 357 NLRB 409 (2011): Held that discipline under an unlawful rule violates the Act only if the employee engaged in protected conduct or conduct implicating Section 7 concerns.

• Lush Cosmetics, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 54 (2023): Explained that the standard for analyzing Section 8(a)(1) violations is whether statements have a reasonable tendency to coerce employees exercising Section 7 rights.

• Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, 361 NLRB 151 (2014): Clarified that "concerted activity" and "mutual aid or protection" are analytically distinct elements that must be analyzed under an objective standard.

• LA Specialty Produce Co., 368 NLRB No. 93 (2019): Established that employees may be lawfully disciplined for using improperly obtained confidential information, as such activity is not protected.

Curaleaf Massachusetts, Inc., JD-75-25, 01-CA-346545 (ALJ Decision)

This case involves allegations that Curaleaf Massachusetts, Inc. violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) during a union organizing effort at its Oxford, Massachusetts cannabis dispensary. The decision was issued on September 19, 2025, by Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin.

Background

In February 2024, employees at Curaleaf's Oxford facility conducted a "march on the boss" and presented a demand letter seeking recognition of United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1445 as their collective-bargaining representative. The company declined, and an election was held on April 5, 2024, which the Union won 15-3. The company filed objections, and the Regional Director certified the Union on July 23, 2024. The company requested Board review, which remained pending at the time of this decision.

Unfair Labor Practice Allegations

The case involved multiple allegations under Sections 8(a)(1), 8(a)(3), and 8(a)(5) of the Act:

Section 8(a)(1) Violations

1. Wage Increase to Discourage Union Activity: The ALJ found that Curaleaf violated Section 8(a)(1) when it granted Aiden Rawson a promotion-related wage increase shortly after learning of his union support on February 16, 2024. Although the decision process began before the union activity, the increase was finalized and announced only after the company learned of Rawson's union support. The company failed to establish it would have announced the increase at that time absent the union activity.

2. Threat to Withhold Wage Increases: The General Counsel alleged the company threatened to withhold wage increases if employees selected the Union. The ALJ dismissed this allegation due to insufficient evidence about what was actually said and the context.

3. Prohibiting Discussion of Terms and Conditions: The ALJ found the company violated Section 8(a)(1) when investigator Joseph Frederico indefinitely prohibited employee Faye Worthington from discussing her investigatory meeting with anyone. This restriction was overbroad, with no explanation, exceptions, or time limitation provided.

Section 8(a)(3) Violations

1. More Strictly Enforcing Attendance Policies: The ALJ found Curaleaf violated Section 8(a)(3) by beginning to enforce a previously unenforced five-minute grace period for tardiness immediately after learning of the union organizing effort. The company's explanations for the sudden enforcement were pretextual.

2. Discipline of Rawson: The ALJ dismissed allegations that Rawson's verbal coaching for cash-handling issues and disrespectful conduct (calling the manager a "bitch") violated Section 8(a)(3). While the General Counsel established a prima facie case, the company proved it would have issued the coaching regardless of Rawson's union activities.

3. Discharge of Handlin and Worthington: The ALJ dismissed allegations regarding the discharges of Handlin and Worthington for discount abuse. Although the General Counsel established a prima facie case, Curaleaf proved it would have discharged them regardless of their union activities, presenting comparable situations where non-union employees were discharged for similar conduct.

Section 8(a)(5) Violations

1. Unilateral Change to Employee Discount: The ALJ dismissed allegations that the company unlawfully changed the employee discount program without bargaining, finding the General Counsel failed to prove the change was material, substantial, and significant.

2. Refusal to Provide Information: The ALJ found Curaleaf violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing to provide the Union with requested information relevant to collective bargaining. The company's contestation of the Union's certification did not excuse its obligation to provide the information.

Remedy

For the violations found, the ALJ ordered Curaleaf to cease and desist from the unlawful conduct and to take affirmative actions, including:

• Rescinding attendance-related disciplines issued under the five-minute grace period

• Providing the Union with the requested information

• Rescinding the restriction imposed on Worthington prohibiting her from discussing the investigation

• Posting appropriate notices

Significant Cases Cited

• NLRB v. Exchange Parts Co., 375 U.S. 405 (1964): Established that conferring benefits during a union organizing campaign to influence employees' choice violates Section 8(a)(1).

• Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980): Set forth the analytical framework for determining whether an adverse employment action was unlawfully motivated.

• Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023): Established the current standard for analyzing confidentiality rules in workplace investigations.

• Intertape Polymer Corp., 372 NLRB No. 133 (2023): Clarified that the Board looks at whether evidence as a whole supports a reasonable inference that protected activity was a motivating factor.

• Mike O'Connor Chevrolet Buick-GMC Co., 209 NLRB 701 (1974): Established that an employer's bargaining obligation attaches when a union wins an election, even while post-election proceedings are pending.

Vistra Nuclear Operations Company, 08-RC-361044 (Regional Election Decision)

In this decision, the NLRB Regional Director determined that Reactor Operators (ROs) at Vistra Nuclear Operations Company's Perry Nuclear Power Plant are eligible to join an existing bargaining unit through an Armour-Globe self-determination election.

The Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Local 270 petitioned to add ROs to their existing bargaining unit of operating, maintenance, and construction employees. Vistra opposed this, arguing that ROs were supervisors under Section 2(11) of the National Labor Relations Act and therefore ineligible for union representation.

The Regional Director analyzed whether ROs in the Supervisor Nuclear Unit and M&R Tech Lead Nuclear job classifications exercised supervisory authority over Non-Licensed Operators (NLOs). The decision examined several potential supervisory functions:

1. Assignment: The Director found ROs lacked independent judgment when distributing work orders to NLOs, as they followed priorities established by higher management and were constrained by NLO qualifications and collective bargaining agreements.

2. Responsible direction: While ROs directed NLOs' work, the employer failed to demonstrate that ROs faced consequences for NLOs' poor performance, which is required for supervisory status.

3. Discipline: Evidence was insufficient to establish that ROs had authority to discipline NLOs, as the only examples provided were informal "Employee Contact Records," not formal disciplinary actions.

4. Hiring: While ROs participated in interview panels, their recommendations were not shown to be effective without independent investigation by acknowledged supervisors.

5. Evaluating/rewarding: ROs' observation forms were used to track trends but weren't shown to affect NLOs' job status or compensation.

6. Adjusting grievances: There was no evidence of ROs resolving workplace disputes using independent judgment.

The Regional Director also addressed the Consulting Nuclear Instructors and Initial License Training Supervisor positions. Though these employees held RO licenses, they worked primarily in the Training Department, only occasionally performing RO duties. The Director ordered they vote subject to challenge as their dual-function status was inconclusive.

The decision concluded that ROs in the Supervisor Nuclear Unit and M&R Tech Lead Nuclear classifications constitute an identifiable, distinct segment of employees who share a community of interest with the existing bargaining unit. An election was directed for October 7, 2025.

Significant Cases Cited

• Oakwood Healthcare, Inc., 348 NLRB 686 (2006): Established framework for analyzing supervisory status, including definitions of "assign," "responsibly direct," and "independent judgment."

• Golden Crest Healthcare Center, 348 NLRB 727 (2006): Held that theoretical authority without evidence of actual supervisory authority is insufficient to establish supervisory status.

• St. Vincent Charity Medical Center, 357 NLRB 854 (2011): Clarified standards for determining whether employees constitute a distinct and identifiable voting group appropriate for an Armour-Globe election.

• Globe Machine and Stamping Co., 3 NLRB 294 (1937) and Armour and Company, 40 NLRB 1333 (1942): Established the Armour-Globe doctrine allowing unrepresented employees to vote to join an existing bargaining unit.

• Berea Publishing Co., 140 NLRB 516 (1963): Established the "sufficient interest" test for determining whether dual-function employees should be included in a unit.

Dilling Group, Industrial and Commercial Solutions, 25-RC-366365 (Regional Election Decision)

The NLRB Regional Director issued a decision regarding a representation petition filed by Plumbers and Pipefitters UA Local 440 seeking to represent certain employees of Dilling Group, Industrial and Commercial Solutions. The union petitioned for a unit of pipefitters, welders, pipefitter apprentices, and welder apprentices at the employer's Indianapolis facility.

The key dispute was about the appropriate scope of the bargaining unit. While both parties agreed on the job classifications to include, the employer contended that the unit must include all employees in those classifications throughout Indiana, including temporary employees supplied by Kodiak Labor Solutions, LLC.

The Regional Director found that the petitioned-for Indianapolis-based unit was appropriate, applying the Board's single-facility presumption. This presumption holds that a single-facility unit is appropriate unless it has been so effectively merged or functionally integrated with other facilities that it has lost its separate identity.

In analyzing the case, the Regional Director evaluated five factors:

1. Central control vs. local autonomy: While the employer had centralized some aspects of labor relations (employee handbook, policies, etc.), there was significant local autonomy at the Indianapolis facility. Project managers and superintendents handled day-to-day supervision, evaluated performance, and had input on discipline.

2. Similarity of skills and working conditions: Employees across facilities shared similar skills, functions, and working conditions, but this factor alone wasn't determinative.

3. Degree of employee interchange: The evidence failed to show significant employee interchange between Indianapolis and other facilities. Most employees consistently worked within their assigned region.

4. Distance between locations: The distances between facilities (ranging from 37 to 102 miles) were considered neutral given the employer's operational structure.

5. Bargaining history: There was no prior bargaining history, making this a neutral factor.

The Regional Director also found that temporary employees supplied by Kodiak Labor Solutions should be excluded from the unit. Despite sharing some working conditions with directly-employed workers, Kodiak employees had different wage rates, benefits, and employment terms that didn't create a community of interest strong enough to mandate their inclusion.

The decision directed an election among pipefitters, welders, pipefitter apprentices, and welder apprentices solely employed by Dilling Group and based out of its Indianapolis facility.

Significant Cases Cited

• Trane, 339 NLRB 866 (2003): Outlines factors for determining whether the single-facility presumption has been rebutted.

• New Britain Transportation Co., 330 NLRB 397 (1999): Established standards for evaluating employee interchange between facilities.

• Engineered Storage Products Co., 334 NLRB 1063 (2001): Set the standard that jointly-employed employees must share such a strong community of interest with solely-employed employees that it "requires or mandates their inclusion" in the unit.

• Miller & Anderson, Inc., 364 NLRB 428 (2016): Explained how the Board determines appropriate units involving solely- and jointly-employed employees.

Total Renal Care, Inc. D/B/a DaVita Visalia Vineyard Dialysis, 32-RC-370127 (Regional Election Decision)

The NLRB Regional Director approved a union election petition for employees at DaVita's Visalia Vineyard dialysis facility. The decision addressed two key issues:

1. The Director ruled a single-facility bargaining unit is appropriate, rejecting DaVita's argument that only a multi-facility regional unit would suffice. The ruling applied the presumption that single-facility units are appropriate unless effectively merged with other operations.

2. The Director found that Administrative Assistants and Clinical Coordinators share a sufficient community of interest with other healthcare staff (RNs, LVNs, and PCTs) to be included in the bargaining unit, based on their integrated work in providing dialysis treatment.

An election for the approximately 29 employees will be held October 8-9, 2025.

Significant Cases Cited

• D&L Transportation, Inc., 324 NLRB 160 (1997): Established that single-facility units are presumptively appropriate.

• American Steel Construction, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 23 (2022): Clarified that multiple unit configurations may be appropriate at a single employer.

• Specialty Healthcare & Rehab. Ctr. of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011): Set forth that if a petitioned-for unit is appropriate, the inquiry ends.