Federal regulators are trying to force Starbucks to reopen 23 stores
Federal labor regulators accused Starbucks on Wednesday of illegally closing 23 stores to stifle organizational activity and tried to force the company to reopen them.
A complaint from a regional office of the National Labor Relations Board alleged that Starbucks closed its stores because its employees engaged in union activity or to discourage employees from doing so. At least seven of the 23 stores identified had unionized.
The agency’s move is the latest in a series of allegations from federal officials that Starbucks broke the law during a two-year labor campaign.
The case will go before an administrative law judge next summer unless Starbucks settles the case sooner. In addition to asking the judge to order the stores to reopen, the complaint seeks compensation for employees for loss of income or benefits and for other costs incurred as a result of the closures.
“This complaint is the latest confirmation of Starbucks’ determination to illegally oppose worker organizing,” Mari Cosgrove, a Starbucks employee, said in a statement released by a spokesperson for the union, Workers United.
A Starbucks spokesperson said: “Every year we routinely review the store portfolio” and open, close or change stores. The company said it opened hundreds of new stores and closed more than 100 last year, about 3 percent of which were unionized.
The union campaign began in 2021 in the Buffalo, NY area, where two stores unionized in December before spreading across the country. More than 350 of the company’s approximately 9,300 locations have unionized.
The Labor Board has filed more than 100 complaints alleging hundreds of allegations of illegal conduct by Starbucks, including threats or retaliation against employees involved in union activities and a failure to bargain in good faith. Administrative judges have ruled against the company more than 30 times, although the company has appealed those decisions to the full labor panel in Washington. Judges have dismissed fewer than five complaints.
None of the unionized stores have negotiated a labor contract with the company, and negotiations have largely stalled. Last week, Starbucks wrote to Workers United that it wanted to resume negotiations.
According to Wednesday’s complaint, Starbucks executives announced the closure of 16 stores in July 2022, and then announced several more closures in the coming months.
An administrative judge ruled before that Starbucks illegally closed a unionized store in Ithaca, New York, and ordered workers reinstated with back wages, but the company has appealed the decision.
The new complaint was filed on the same day that Starbucks published a non-confidential version of a third-party review of whether its practices align with its stated commitment to labor rights. The company’s shareholders had voted in favor of the review in a non-binding vote, the results of which were announced in March.
The report’s author, Thomas M. Mackall, a former management attorney and labor relations officer at the food and facilities management company Sodexo, wrote that he found “no evidence of an ‘anti-union playbook’ or instructions or training on how to violate U.S. laws. ”
But Mr. Mackall concluded that Starbucks officials involved in the response to the union campaign did not appear to understand how the company’s operations Global Human Rights Declaration could limit their response. The rights statement commits Starbucks to respecting employees’ freedom to associate and participate in collective bargaining.
Mr. Mackall cited executives’ “allegedly unlawful promises and threats” and executives’ “allegedly discriminatory or retaliatory discipline and discharge” as areas where Starbucks could improve.
In a letter accompanying the report’s release, the company’s chairman and an independent director said the assessment was clear: “Starbucks has not intended to deviate from the principles of freedom of association and right to collective bargaining.” At the same time, the letter added: “There are things the company can and should do to improve its stated obligations and compliance with these important principles.”