Federal labor regulators have forced courts to stop Starbucks from saying it’s a widespread illegal activity in response to a national campaign in which workers in more than 150 corporate-owned stores voted for the union. I requested.
In a petition filed in the US District Court in Buffalo on Tuesday, National Labor Relations Commission officials accused the company of dismissing and disciplining union supporters. Intimidate and intimidate workers to discourage voting for unions. If a worker opposes the union, it effectively benefits the worker.
The agency also sought the reinstatement of seven Buffalo employees who were illegally evacuated by Starbucks in retaliation for union organization activities, and an order to effectively approve the union at stores in the Buffalo area that the union lost. There is. Vote despite strong initial support.
Authorities suggested in its filing that court intervention was needed to prevent Starbucks’ “strong, widespread and well-organized response to the protected and organized efforts of its employees.” Without remedies, Starbucks said, “it would achieve the illegal purpose of cooling union support.” Both in Buffalo and across the country. “
Starbucks spokesman Reggie Borges has rejected the accusation. “As I said earlier, I believe these claims are false and we are ready to defend our proceedings,” Borges wrote in an email.
Matt Body, a former Labor Relations Commission lawyer who teaches labor law at St. Louis University, said it was not uncommon for authorities to seek reinstatement of exiled workers. However, he said the nationwide range of injunctions sought by the authorities was much smaller, as was the court’s request to approve the union at the store where the union first lost the election.
“This is a big step in line with Biden’s commitment to a stricter and more proactive approach to labor law enforcement,” Body wrote in an email.
The Labor Relations Commission has already issued more than 30 formal complaints recognizing the benefits of allegations similar to those stated in Tuesday’s petition. It usually takes months or years to award such complaints, and the board of directors said, “Relieving this chill and finally, allowing the process to run while the company continues to violate the law. To nullify the effects of such relief. “
Officials said illegal anti-union activity began shortly after Buffalo workers announced their union campaign in late August and escalated after two stores in the Buffalo region won union votes in December. Starbucks said it had forced some union supporters out for violating rules that the company had not previously enforced.
The company “quickly abandoned past practices to target union supporters more effectively,” the Labor Relations Commission wrote.
Associate Justice Recently rejected A request for the reinstatement of a Labor Relations Commission parent union worker who said Starbucks had illegally evacuated in a similar, narrower case in Arizona.
The judge found that in the case of the two workers, there was no evidence of retaliation for union activity, or the evidence was “inconsistent” with the accusation.
In the case of the third worker, the judge has a debate in support of their position, and administrative proceedings finally show that Starbucks tried to retaliate against the workers’ union activities. I discovered that there is a possibility. However, the judge concluded that Starbucks would have dismissed the workers without the involvement of the union.