Trump Labor Board Jeopardizes Starbucks Union’s Litigation Path

The Trump administration’s overhaul of the government’s labor watchdog will complicate attempts by Starbucks Corp. and the union representing over 12,000 baristas to settle litigation between the coffee giant and its workers.

Starbucks Workers United and the company have agreed to return to nationwide negotiations after they engaged a mediator. But legal observers say that attempts by the union to leverage widespread litigation before the National Labor Relations Board to get a better deal could be undercut by a Republican acting general counsel who might be more inclined to settle those complaints than his predecessor.

SBWU cut off talks late last year and called workers off on a five-day pre-Christmas strike, saying Starbucks refused to budge on economic provisions of the proposed “framework” that will be used to negotiate contracts at over 500 cafes nationwide.

One major factor will be the outcome of over 600 active unfair labor practice charges pending against the company.

“Oftentimes when you have contentious labor relationships, moving forward with negotiations and settling outstanding litigations can go hand in hand,” said Amy Gaylord, co-chair of Akerman LLP’s labor law practice. “Both the union and the company want to start fresh, you want a clean slate, and you want to resolve old problems and move forward.”

Settlement Process

Starbucks and the union face a series of administrative hurdles in settling the sprawling landscape of unfair labor practice charges. The process for settling a case depends on where in the pipeline it sits, with approval required from agency officials after a complaint has been issued.

The NLRB has hit Starbucks with 135 complaints covering 434 ULP charges, resulting in 25 NLRB decisions finding violations of the law. There are also 63 cases pending before the board after administrative law judge decisions, leaving 47 complaints still pending before ALJs.

According to data from the NLRB website, SBWU has filed 1,049 charges against Starbucks to levy claims of unlawful behavior since December 2021. Out of those charges, 349 have been closed—265 were withdrawn or dismissed—and 10 were closed after the company complied with board orders.

The other 93 cases were settled, mostly with the involvement of NLRB officials.

“The volume of those cases represents a lot of risk for Starbucks, particularly ones involving back pay,” said Jeffrey Hirsch, a labor law professor at the University of North Carolina. “So the extent that the union has some control or some influence in removing that risk can certainly be used as a bargaining chip.”

During the framework negotiations last year, the parties paused ALJ hearings around several large cases, including a nationwide refusal-to-bargain complaint.

The company also agreedto extend the union’s certification year—the period where decertification petitions are barred—and negotiate in good faith. But there are still hundreds of other charges working their way through the system.

A spokesperson for SBWU declined to comment. Starbucks representatives didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Different Remedies

The NLRB general counsel has the right to withdraw complaints and settle litigation up until the case goes to a hearing before an administrative law judge. When that happens, the ALJ then has to sign off on any settlements. If the case has already been through the ALJ and is before the board, then the board members must approve settlement terms.

The board can also hear challenges to settlement terms. In 2024 it rescinded its consent order standard that allowed the body to approve agreements between the agency and a respondent, over the objection of the complainant, in an effort to weigh more of the union voice in settlement talks.

Former NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo was opposed to consent orders, and pushed to incorporate further remedial relief in her settlement terms, including things like letters of apology and compensation for additional expenses incurred by the alleged unlawful act.

Gaylord said Abruzzo’s additional measures often slowed down the process to resolve litigation.

“A settlement is supposed to be a compromise between the parties where each party agrees to give something up in order to avoid the cost and time of litigation,” she said. “If your settlement terms are more than what you could face if you lose in litigation, then why would you ever settle?”

Jerry Hunter, a management-side attorney with Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner and former NLRB GC, said Acting GC William Cowen might be more inclined to approve broad settlements when compared to Abruzzo.

Cowen was promoted from regional director to GC by Trump following the terminations of Abruzzo and former Acting GC Jessica Rutter.

“He knows the kind of pressure the regional directors are under,” Hunter said. “He will obviously take a different view than Abruzzo on some of the remedies because he knows they’ve been negatively impacting the regions’ abilities to resolve cases.”

The ‘Holy Grail’

The shifting legal and political landscape, along with the passage of time, could start to put more pressure on the union to get a deal.

There have been at least 20 petitions filed at various stores around the country asking to remove SBWU as its representative. The union maintained that these were born out of unlawful activity, and the agency has dismissed nearly all of them due largely to the nationwide refusal to bargain litigation.

With that litigation settled, other efforts to oust the union could be permitted.

UNC’s Hirsch characterized the situation as a “classic union issue,” saying it’s not abnormal for first contracts to take a long time to negotiate.

“The union has an interest in getting a contract for their members. That’s their Holy Grail right now,” he said. “But they also have a duty to fairly represent their members and you might have some individual workers who would rather see their cases go through litigation than settle to get a contract. So the union has to be careful not to tick people off.”