Starbucks has appealed to the Supreme Court in a case that could make it harder for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to protect workers’ unionization efforts.
The case stems from Starbucks’ firing of seven employees who were leading a unionization campaign in Memphis, Tennessee. The NLRB found that the firings were an illegal interference and ordered Starbucks to rehire the workers, but Starbucks argues that the NLRB’s request for a temporary injunction was improper.
The Supreme Court’s decision will determine the standard that courts must follow when considering NLRB injunction requests. Currently, some courts require the NLRB to establish reasonable cause and that a restraining order would be a “just and proper” solution, while others require a four-factor test that includes the likelihood of success in the administrative case and irreparable harm to employees without an injunction.
Starbucks argues that the four-factor test should be the standard for all courts, while the NLRB argues that it already considers its likelihood of success before seeking injunctive relief.
The case comes as Starbucks and Workers United, the union organizing its workers, have begun to resume talks, but none of the 420 Starbucks stores that have voted to unionize have yet secured a labor agreement.
The Supreme Court’s decision will have significant implications for the ability of the NLRB to protect workers’ unionization rights and could make it easier for employers to interfere with such efforts.
