Starbucks Executed Illegal Anti-Union Campaign, Labor Board Says

Starbucks Corp. committed extensive labor law violations to stymie worker organizing in western New York at the start of a unionization wave that’s since spread across the coffee chain nationwide, the National Labor Relations Board ruled.

The scope and severity of Starbucks’ labor law violations justified enhanced remedies against the company—including an order to bargain with Starbucks Workers United at a store where workers had voted against union representation, the NLRB held late Friday.

The decision saying that Starbucks showed a “general disregard for its employees’ fundamental statutory rights” at the start of its workers’ public unionizing push comes amid the apparent collapse of a détente between the company and the union that represents workers at approximately 500 locations.

Starbucks Workers United began striking Friday at a limited number of locations in Chicago, Seattle, and Los Angeles. The strike, which is set to last five days, has spread to a dozen metro areas and will continue to grow, according to the union.

The latest NLRB decision against Starbucks harkens back to the initial phase of unionizing at the coffee giant, which started in the Buffalo area three years ago.

Starbucks’ response to the union publicly announcing its organizing campaign there was “swift, extensive, and unprecedented,” the NLRB said in its ruling.

The decision listed more than 60 different ways Starbucks violated federal labor law, including anti-union discharges, disciplines, threats, restrictions, and other actions to suppress organizing activities.

Many violations stemmed from what Starbucks called a “level setting” campaign in the Buffalo area that involved a stricter enforcement of work rules, which demonstrated the company’s animus towards labor organizing, the NLRB said.

The board upheld some of the enhanced remedies that an administrative law judge called for in a sweeping March 2023 decision, such as a broad cease-and-desist order for stores in the Buffalo area.

But the NLRB declined to impose other remedies that the ALJ recommended, including training Starbucks management on labor rights, and requiring the company to give agency staffers access to facilities and records to check with its compliance.

Starbucks is reviewing the ruling, a company representative said.

“Our focus continues to be on training and supporting our managers to ensure respect of our partners’ rights to organize,” spokesperson Jay Go-Guasch said in a statement.

The decision is dated Dec. 16, Democratic NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran’s last day at the board before her term expired. Rulings that exiting NLRB members participated in sometimes aren’t published until after their departures due to editing lags at the agency.

The case is Starbucks Corp., N.L.R.B., Case 03-CA-285671, 12/20/24.