NLRB Finds Starbucks Violated Labor Law in Pair of New Opinions

The National Labor Relations Board in one opinion Friday concluded Starbucks Corp. violated federal labor law by changing dress code policy enforcement without an opportunity to bargain, and in another, found the retailer illegally asked workers about strike participation.

The rulings released by the board upheld decisions from administrative law judges that the coffee retailer violated the National Labor Relations Act at certain stores in the Pacific Northwest.

The rulings are the latest resulting from a long-running series of labor disputes between Starbucks and organized labor, which has filed many unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB, as unions work to organize throughout the company’s massive nationwide footprint.

In the first ruling, the NLRB upheld a decision from Administrative Law Judge Andrew S. Gollin from January 2024 on dress code enforcement at a Jantzen Beach Starbucks store in Portland, Ore.

“Here, the Respondent unilaterally changed a mandatory subject of bargaining by more strictly enforcing its Dress Code policy without providing the Union with prior notice and an opportunity to bargain,” the board said. “Therefore, the Respondent’s unilateral change, and the discipline it issued” violated the NLRA.

The board ordered the company to expunge any disciplinary measures from employees’ records who were punished for violating the code, and to rescind any unilateral changes to its policy. The board also ordered the company to cease and desist from “disciplining employees because of their support for and activities on behalf of the Union.”

Republican Member Scott Mayer said in a footnote he didn’t believe that the NLRB General Counsel had established that the company had unlawfully changed its dress code policy, finding that the “lawful” policy “provides for varying levels of discipline for violations including separation, at the Respondent’s discretion.”

The board also affirmed Gollin’s dismissal of allegations that Starbucks management threatened to withhold previously announced wage increases and that employees were discharged for union activity.

In a second decision, the board upheld a 2024 ruling from Administrative Law Judge Brian Gee that said Starbucks violated labor law by asking individual workers at two Seattle stores if they planned to participate in planned strikes from April to July 2023.

The panel agreed with Gee’s determination that Starbucks’ conduct constituted illegal interrogation under the NLRA.

The board ordered Starbucks to cease and desist from “coercively interrogating employees about their protected concerted activities” and to post notices informing employees that the company had violated labor law.

A spokesperson for Starbucks didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The cases are Starbucks Corporation, N.L.R.B., Case 19-CA-295708, 6/5/26and Starbucks Corporation, N.L.R.B., Case 19–CA–299573, 6/5/26