Supreme Court hears Starbucks bid to overturn labor ruling

The Supreme Court agreed To be heard on Friday a case filed by Starbucks challenging a federal judge's order to reinstate seven workers fired from a Memphis store during a union campaign there.

Starbucks argued that the criteria for such intervention by judges in labor cases, which could also include measures such as reopening shuttered stores, varies from region to region of the country, because federal appeals courts may adhere to different standards.

A regional director of the National Labor Relations Board, the company's opponent in the case, argued that the apparent differences in criteria between the appellate courts were semantic rather than substantive, and that a single effective standard already existed nationwide.

The Labor Council had urged the High Court to stay out of the case, saying the outcome could have implications for trade union organizing across the country.

The agency is asking federal judges for temporary relief, such as reinstatement of laid-off workers, because unfair labor practice litigation can take years. The agency says that retaliation against employees in the meantime could have a chilling effect on the organization, even if the employees ultimately win their cases.

In a statement on Friday, Starbucks said: “We are pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to consider our request to create a level playing field for all U.S. employers by ensuring that a single standard is applied as federal district courts. ”

The Labor Council declined to comment.

The union campaign at Starbucks began in the Buffalo area in 2021 and quickly spread to other states. The union, Workers United, represents workers at more than 370 Starbucks stores, out of approximately 9,600 company-owned stores in the United States.

The Labor Board has filed dozens of complaints against the company, alleging hundreds of labor law violations, including threats and retaliation against workers seeking to unionize and a failure to bargain in good faith. This week, the agency filed a complaint accusing the company of unilaterally changing work hours and schedules at unionized stores across the country.

The company has denied violating labor law and said in a statement that it has disputed the latest complaint and plans to “defend our lawful business decisions” before a judge.

The case that led to the Supreme Court dispute involves seven employees who were fired in February 2022 after allowing local journalists into a closed store to conduct interviews. Starbucks said the incident violated company rules; The workers and the union said the company did not enforce such rules against workers who were not involved in union organizing.

The Labor Council found the workers' accusations justified and filed a complaint two months later. A federal judge granted the Labor Board's request to reinstate the workers in August, and a federal appeals court upheld the order.

“Starbucks is seeking relief from Trump's Supreme Court for his illegal union fraud,” Workers United said in a statement Friday. “There is no doubt that Starbucks violated federal law by firing workers in Memphis for joining a union.”

Starbucks said it was critical that the Supreme Court weigh in on the case as the Labor Board became more ambitious in asking judges to order remedies such as the reinstatement of laid-off workers.

The Labor Council noted in its filing with the Supreme Court that it issued fewer injunctions overall than in recent years: only 21 were approved in 2022, compared to more than 35 in 2014 and 2015.

A Supreme Court ruling could, in principle, raise the bar for judges to issue orders to reinstate workers, effectively limiting the Labor Board's ability to obtain temporary relief for workers during a unionization campaign.

This case is not the only recent challenge to the Labor Board's authority. After the board filed a complaint accusing the rocket company SpaceX of illegally firing eight employees over criticism of CEO Elon Musk, the company filed a lawsuit this month. to argue that the agency's design for adjudicating complaints is unconstitutional.

The company said in its lawsuit that the agency's structure violates the right to a jury trial.