The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) obtained a court order forcing Starbucks to rehire seven workers fired for attempting to unionize their Tennessee store. Now, Starbucks seeks Supreme Court intervention to curtail the government’s authority in such cases. The hearing is scheduled for Tuesday. The Supreme Court’s ruling could significantly impact the NLRB’s ability to intervene when it alleges corporate interference in unionization efforts.
Despite the ongoing legal battle, animosity between Starbucks and Workers United, the union organizing its workers, has subsided. The two sides announced in February plans to resume negotiations with the goal of reaching contract agreements this year. Starbucks and union representatives are scheduled to meet Wednesday for their first bargaining session in nearly a year.
Over 420 company-owned Starbucks stores have voted to unionize since late 2021, but none have yet secured a labor agreement. The case before the Supreme Court stems from February 2022, when Starbucks terminated seven employees leading a unionization effort in Memphis, Tennessee.
Starbucks argued the employees violated policy by reopening the store after closing time and inviting non-employees, including a television news crew, inside. However, the NLRB determined the firings were an illegal interference with workers’ right to organize and sought a court order to have them reinstated.
A federal district court judge granted the NLRB’s request and issued a temporary injunction in August 2022. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, prompting Starbucks to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Starbucks contends that federal appeals courts disagree on the standards the NLRB must meet when seeking temporary injunctions. The company argues that such injunctions can impose a significant burden on businesses, as the NLRB’s administrative process can take years. The NLRB maintains that it already considers its likelihood of success before requesting injunctions.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have significant implications for the balance of power between employers and unions in the United States.
