[US] Will labour law protect union leaders fired by Starbucks?

On February 8, Starbucks fired seven union supporters at a store in Memphis, Tennessee, an action the union has portrayed as a retaliatory purge of the organising committee. The terminations mark the most significant escalation in the battle between the world’s largest coffee chain and the fast-growing Starbucks Workers United campaign, HuffPost reports.

The firings understandably made national news yet the reality is that employers regularly fire union activists, whether the terminations are justified or not. Labour law in the United States gives companies little to lose by sacking organisers. However, because of the high profile of the Starbucks campaign - together with recent changes at the National Labor Relations Board - this time things may be different.

Starbucks insists the firings were not retaliatory. Company spokesperson Reggie Borges said the sacked workers violated safety and security protocols by opening the store outside business hours and allowing non-employees in without permission. The case in part revolves around an interview that union supporters gave a local TV news station after hours from inside a Starbucks store.

The union representing the employees - the Service Employees International Union affiliate Workers United - has already filed an unfair labour practice charge accusing Starbucks of firing the workers because they were union supporters, which would be illegal. The charge is currently sitting with the NLRB; the federal agency that referees collective bargaining in the private sector.

A case like this would probably be decided on how regularly Starbucks enforces the rules that it claims the workers violated; that is, whether the company has a history of firing others who have unlocked the store or brought in non-employees without managers’ approval. If not, the union would argue Starbucks fired them out of anti-union animus and used the store policies as a pretext. 

Several of the fired workers said in an interview with the labour news organisation More Perfect Union that they were unaware of the rules.

“I would love to see what the history is of the company enforcing these policies,” Ian Hayes - a lawyer working with the union campaign - told HuffPost.

Even in cases of clear retaliation, winning reinstatement and backpay for lost wages can literally take years.

After a union files its claims, labour board officials must find merit in them and pursue charges against the company. If a settlement isn’t reached, the case would go to trial, with witnesses offering testimony for both sides. Then, an administrative law judge would issue a decision and possibly order remedies over the firings.

Even when the judge calls for reinstatement, the company still has options. It can ask the NLRB’s five-member board to review that decision and later it can seek further review in federal court. All of this occurs before the worker has a right to clock back in.

In cases where workers do win reinstatement and backpay, the wages they are owed are mitigated; any wages they earned since getting fired are subtracted from what the offending employer owes them.

It is easy to see why many workers choose to move on rather than fight to regain their jobs, even if they are committed to the Union cause. It is also easy to see why so many employers take the legal risk of firing union supporters. 

A 2009 analysis from Kate Bronfenbrenner - a labour researcher at Cornell University - reportedly found that about a third of employers discharged workers during union election campaigns.

The biggest risk to Starbucks may be public relations. Workers winning reinstatement over the firings would put a dent in the company’s claims that it is running a clean countercampaign. It would also provide a big morale boost to the union effort if the seven Memphis workers are pictured waving to cameras as they return to work.

The union has won elections at just two stores so far, but it has filed for elections at more than 50 others, and more petitions are popping up every week. Starbucks Workers United is already using the firings to amp up its campaign. On February 9, the group tweeted that workers could support those who were fired in Memphis “by organizing more stores across the nation.”

Source: HuffPost

(Links and quotes via original reporting)

On February 8, Starbucks fired seven union supporters at a store in Memphis, Tennessee, an action the union has portrayed as a retaliatory purge of the organising committee. The terminations mark the most significant escalation in the battle between the world’s largest coffee chain and the fast-growing Starbucks Workers United campaign, HuffPost reports.

The firings understandably made national news yet the reality is that employers regularly fire union activists, whether the terminations are justified or not. Labour law in the United States gives companies little to lose by sacking organisers. However, because of the high profile of the Starbucks campaign - together with recent changes at the National Labor Relations Board - this time things may be different.

Starbucks insists the firings were not retaliatory. Company spokesperson Reggie Borges said the sacked workers violated safety and security protocols by opening the store outside business hours and allowing non-employees in without permission. The case in part revolves around an interview that union supporters gave a local TV news station after hours from inside a Starbucks store.

The union representing the employees - the Service Employees International Union affiliate Workers United - has already filed an unfair labour practice charge accusing Starbucks of firing the workers because they were union supporters, which would be illegal. The charge is currently sitting with the NLRB; the federal agency that referees collective bargaining in the private sector.

A case like this would probably be decided on how regularly Starbucks enforces the rules that it claims the workers violated; that is, whether the company has a history of firing others who have unlocked the store or brought in non-employees without managers’ approval. If not, the union would argue Starbucks fired them out of anti-union animus and used the store policies as a pretext. 

Several of the fired workers said in an interview with the labour news organisation More Perfect Union that they were unaware of the rules.

“I would love to see what the history is of the company enforcing these policies,” Ian Hayes - a lawyer working with the union campaign - told HuffPost.

Even in cases of clear retaliation, winning reinstatement and backpay for lost wages can literally take years.

After a union files its claims, labour board officials must find merit in them and pursue charges against the company. If a settlement isn’t reached, the case would go to trial, with witnesses offering testimony for both sides. Then, an administrative law judge would issue a decision and possibly order remedies over the firings.

Even when the judge calls for reinstatement, the company still has options. It can ask the NLRB’s five-member board to review that decision and later it can seek further review in federal court. All of this occurs before the worker has a right to clock back in.

In cases where workers do win reinstatement and backpay, the wages they are owed are mitigated; any wages they earned since getting fired are subtracted from what the offending employer owes them.

It is easy to see why many workers choose to move on rather than fight to regain their jobs, even if they are committed to the Union cause. It is also easy to see why so many employers take the legal risk of firing union supporters. 

A 2009 analysis from Kate Bronfenbrenner - a labour researcher at Cornell University - reportedly found that about a third of employers discharged workers during union election campaigns.

The biggest risk to Starbucks may be public relations. Workers winning reinstatement over the firings would put a dent in the company’s claims that it is running a clean countercampaign. It would also provide a big morale boost to the union effort if the seven Memphis workers are pictured waving to cameras as they return to work.

The union has won elections at just two stores so far, but it has filed for elections at more than 50 others, and more petitions are popping up every week. Starbucks Workers United is already using the firings to amp up its campaign. On February 9, the group tweeted that workers could support those who were fired in Memphis “by organizing more stores across the nation.”

Source: HuffPost

(Links and quotes via original reporting)