12/26/2024: More Starbucks Unfair Labor Practices
They just keep coming.
Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc., 374 NLRB No. 13, 07-CA-234085 (Published Board Decision)
The NLRB issued its decision in a case involving Rieth-Riley Construction and Operating Engineers Local 324. The dispute arose after the Union notified MITA, a multiemployer bargaining association representing Rieth-Riley, that it was withdrawing from multiemployer bargaining in May 2018.
Prior to these events, in January 2018, Rieth-Riley had signed a confidential "all-for-one" agreement with MITA that bound contractors to multiemployer bargaining and prohibited individual negotiations with the Union. This agreement also gave MITA authority to direct lockouts.
After the Union's withdrawal notice, Rieth-Riley and MITA continued to insist on multiemployer bargaining. In September 2018, Rieth-Riley participated in a MITA-directed lockout of 129 employees that lasted 23 days. During this period, Rieth-Riley also made unilateral changes to employment terms, including wage increases and payroll deductions.
In July 2019, the Union went on strike against Rieth-Riley. The strike continued through the time of the NLRB hearing in 2021.
The NLRB majority found the Union properly withdrew from multiemployer bargaining since it provided notice before any agreed-upon date to begin negotiations. The Board held that Rieth-Riley violated the Act by insisting on multiemployer bargaining, implementing the lockout, and making unilateral changes. The Board also determined the Union's strike was an unfair labor practice strike from its inception, contrary to the ALJ's finding that it was an economic strike.
The Board ordered Rieth-Riley to provide backpay to locked-out employees, offer reinstatement to strikers, and rescind unilateral changes if requested by the Union. Member Kaplan dissented, arguing the Union's withdrawal was untimely and therefore the lockout was lawful and the strike was economic rather than driven by unfair labor practices.
The Michigan governor eventually intervened to end the lockout so road work could be completed before winter. The parties agreed that once construction season ended, the Union would negotiate with individual employers using federal mediators.
Significant Cases Cited
Retail Associates, 120 NLRB 388 (1958): Established the rules for withdrawal from multiemployer bargaining, requiring adequate written notice prior to date set for contract modification or agreed-upon date to begin negotiations.
Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service v. NLRB, 454 U.S. 404 (1982): Approved Retail Associates withdrawal rules while confirming that the Act neither forces employers into multiemployer units nor erects barriers to withdrawal prior to bargaining.
NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736 (1962): Established that unilateral changes to mandatory subjects of bargaining without notice and opportunity to bargain violate Section 8(a)(5).
RGC (USA) Mineral Sands, 332 NLRB 1633 (2001): Held that if a strike is caused in part by an employer's unfair labor practice, it is an unfair labor practice strike even if not the sole or major cause.
Greensburg Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 311 NLRB 1022 (1993): Found employer violated Act by locking out employees in support of proposal altering unit scope
Starbucks Corporation, JD-(SF)-39-24, 19-CA-291860 (ALJ Decision)
In 2022, Starbucks faced multiple unfair labor practice charges at several Washington state stores during union organizing campaigns. The consolidated case involved three complaints from stores in Olympia (Cooper Point), Seattle (505 Union Station), and other locations.
At the Cooper Point store, employees began organizing in early 2022 and filed a union petition on February 25. After the petition, District Manager Cunningham and Regional Manager Clemmons increased their presence at the store and began working on the floor, something they had never done before. Their presence made employees uncomfortable and interfered with union discussions. The ALJ found this created an unlawful impression of surveillance.
The store also required employees to sign a media policy prohibiting them from speaking to journalists. While Starbucks argued this was necessary due to operational disruptions from media inquiries, they presented no evidence of actual disruption. The ALJ found the policy violated employees' rights to communicate with media about working conditions.
At the 505 Union Station store, management held mandatory "two-on-one" meetings with employees shortly after they filed a union petition. During these meetings, managers solicited grievances about working conditions and promised improvements. The ALJ found these meetings unlawfully interfered with union organizing rights.
The case included multiple incidents involving dress code enforcement. At various stores, managers began strictly enforcing policies against union insignia while continuing to allow other dress code violations. For example, at the Westlake store, employee Hayes was allowed to wear a transgender pride shirt with graphics but was prohibited from wearing a union shirt. The ALJ found this disparate enforcement unlawful.
Starbucks also removed union literature from break areas while allowing other postings to remain. At 505 Union Station, Regional Director Tovey removed union flyers from employee break areas, claiming it was due to fire code concerns. The ALJ found these justifications pretextual and the removal unlawful.
The Board ordered Starbucks to cease these practices, post notices, and make affected employees whole. Due to Starbucks' history of violations in other recent cases, the ALJ ordered broad remedial measures.
This case adds to a growing body of Board decisions finding Starbucks violated labor law in responding to nationwide unionization efforts. Between 2023-2024, the Board issued over 20 decisions finding violations by Starbucks, establishing what the ALJ called a "well-documented and complete disregard for the fundamental statutory rights of its employees."
Significant Cases Cited
Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980) - Established framework for analyzing discrimination cases where employer motivation is at issue
Stericycle, 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023) - Work rules interpreted from perspective of economically dependent employee who would interpret ambiguous rules to prohibit protected activity
Republic Aviation v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 793 (1945) - Established presumptive right of employees to wear union insignia during work hours
Maple Grove Health Care Ctr., 330 NLRB 775 (2000) - Solicitation of grievances during union campaign inherently implies promise to remedy
In-N-Out Burger, 365 NLRB 471 (2017) - Outlined situations constituting "special circumstances" warranting limitation on wearing union insignia
PruittHealth-Neuse, LLC, JD-82-24, 10-CA-311413 (ALJ Decision)
Coretta Jones worked as a CNA at PruittHealth-Neuse's nursing facility in New Bern, North Carolina. In April 2022, CNAs at the facility discovered pay discrepancies between new and veteran employees through a payroll document. The document showed new CNAs were being paid $17-18 per hour while veterans with 19 years of experience made only $12 per hour. Jones, who made $14.25 per hour, became a spokesperson for the CNAs regarding these wage concerns.
Over several months, Jones raised the wage issues with management multiple times. She met with then-administrator Hoke in April, participated in a group meeting in May where CNAs presented a written plan, and discussed the issues with new administrator Smith in June. The company conducted a market wage analysis in July and promised raises, but employees had not received them by September.
On September 29, Jones came to the facility on her day off after a coworker reported that VP Myers was visiting. Jones approached Myers about the wage concerns. During their private conversation in an office, Jones explained the pay disparities and expressed disappointment about promised raises not materializing. The conversation ended with Jones saying "have a great day" and leaving.
Later that day, RN Barnes called Jones and told her not to come to her next shift because she was being investigated. Jones followed this instruction and did not work her shifts on September 30-October 2. On October 3, management called to tell Jones she was terminated. The termination letter provided no reason for the discharge.
Internal personnel records listed "verbal aggression" as the reason for termination. However, the company conducted no investigation, did not interview Jones, and presented no witnesses with direct knowledge of the termination decision. The company later suggested job abandonment as an alternative reason, though this was not documented in contemporary records.
The ALJ found that Jones' discharge violated the National Labor Relations Act. The judge determined that Jones was engaged in protected activity when discussing wage concerns with Myers, and that the company failed to prove she engaged in any misconduct that would lose that protection. The judge ordered PruittHealth to reinstate Jones with backpay and clear her record.
Significant Cases Cited
Lion Elastomers, 372 NLRB No. 83 (2023) - Reaffirmed Atlantic Steel framework for analyzing discipline based on conduct during protected activity
Stanford New York LLC, 344 NLRB 558 (2005) - Establishes that employee conduct must be "sufficiently egregious" to lose Act's protection
Amptech Inc., 342 NLRB 1131 (2004) - Failure to investigate before discipline indicates unlawful motivation
Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, 361 NLRB 151 (2014) - Defines scope of protected concerted activity