[US] Starbucks’ discipline of worker for subpoena response ruled illegal

In the US, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge has ruled that Starbucks Corp. violated federal labour law by punishing a worker at an Illinois café for responding to a subpoena directing him to appear at a National Labor Relations Board hearing, Bloomberg Law reports.

The worker ultimately did not testify because he received notice just prior to the hearing’s scheduled start to say that it had been cancelled. However, the law still protected him from being disciplined for missing work to comply with the subpoena, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Paul Bogas ruled.

The June 23 decision reportedly becomes the seventeenth out of eighteen cases in which an ALJ ruled that Starbucks violated federal labour law in connection with the nationwide organising wave at the coffee giant that has seen around 330 stores unionising since late 2021.

In addition, the ruling is the fifth time an ALJ found that Starbucks illegally discriminated against its workers for participating in an NLRB proceeding; an unfair labour practice that labour law observers have stated could potentially trigger adverse results before both the board and the courts.

Only last week, the NLRB ruled that Starbucks had unlawfully told Seattle workers they cannot testify when subpoenaed without arranging for a co-worker to cover their shift and by threatening them with disciplinary action should they fail to secure coverage.

In the most recent decision, ALJ Bogas reportedly held that the company also committed unfair labour practices when it disciplined workers at a Peoria, Illinois, store for their union activity. 

In one example, a manager sent a worker home after she asked for a union representative to be present during a meeting that could have led to discipline. A right guaranteed by the US Supreme Court’s 1975 ruling in NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., the judge found.

Starbucks did not immediately respond to Bloomberg Law’s requests for comment.

Source: Bloomberg Law

(Links via original reporting)

In the US, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge has ruled that Starbucks Corp. violated federal labour law by punishing a worker at an Illinois café for responding to a subpoena directing him to appear at a National Labor Relations Board hearing, Bloomberg Law reports.

The worker ultimately did not testify because he received notice just prior to the hearing’s scheduled start to say that it had been cancelled. However, the law still protected him from being disciplined for missing work to comply with the subpoena, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Paul Bogas ruled.

The June 23 decision reportedly becomes the seventeenth out of eighteen cases in which an ALJ ruled that Starbucks violated federal labour law in connection with the nationwide organising wave at the coffee giant that has seen around 330 stores unionising since late 2021.

In addition, the ruling is the fifth time an ALJ found that Starbucks illegally discriminated against its workers for participating in an NLRB proceeding; an unfair labour practice that labour law observers have stated could potentially trigger adverse results before both the board and the courts.

Only last week, the NLRB ruled that Starbucks had unlawfully told Seattle workers they cannot testify when subpoenaed without arranging for a co-worker to cover their shift and by threatening them with disciplinary action should they fail to secure coverage.

In the most recent decision, ALJ Bogas reportedly held that the company also committed unfair labour practices when it disciplined workers at a Peoria, Illinois, store for their union activity. 

In one example, a manager sent a worker home after she asked for a union representative to be present during a meeting that could have led to discipline. A right guaranteed by the US Supreme Court’s 1975 ruling in NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., the judge found.

Starbucks did not immediately respond to Bloomberg Law’s requests for comment.

Source: Bloomberg Law

(Links via original reporting)