NLRB: Former Starbucks CEO’s Comment to Worker Violated NLRA

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is seeking to clamp down on CEO speech that’s deemed threatening to union supporters, ruling that former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by telling a pro-union worker that they could go work somewhere else if they were unhappy at Starbucks.

“At-will employment allows either party to end the relationship, as long as labor laws aren’t violated. Howard Schultz’s remarks reflect this principle: If an employee’s personal values or aspirations no longer align with the company’s, they have the right to seek employment elsewhere, just as the company has the right to foster a workforce that contributes positively to its mission,” said Emily M. Dickens, J.D., SHRM chief of staff, head of government affairs, and corporate secretary, in a statement.

We’ve gathered articles on the news from SHRM and other outlets.

Former CEO’s Remark to Employee

Schultz, who was interim CEO of Starbucks at the time, broke federal labor law in 2022 by telling a California barista who was a union supporter that “if you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can go work for another company,” according to the NLRB. A decision from the board said that Schultz’s statement was an unlawful, coercive threat.

(CNN)

Starbucks’ Reaction to Decision

In a statement provided by a spokesperson, Starbucks said it disagreed with the board’s decision.

“Our focus continues to be on training and supporting our managers to ensure respect of our partners’ rights to organize and continuing to make progress in our discussions with Workers United,” Starbucks said. Workers United is the union organizing the company’s workers. The NLRB’s decision can be appealed to a federal appeals court.

Workers at 500 Starbucks locations in the U.S. have voted to unionize since late 2021. Starbucks has faced allegations of illegal union-busting from workers, labor groups, and Democratic lawmakers, all of which it has denied. 

(Reuters)

Schultz Has Denied Union-Busting

Speaking at a U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions hearing on the company’s labor practices last year, Schultz said that the company had not broken federal labor law. “We treat our people fairly. We do nothing that is nefarious. We have the track record to prove it,” he said. “Our employee retention is twice the industry average.”
(SHRM)

Starbucks’ Supreme Court Win Against the NLRB

Earlier this year in a separate case, Starbucks persuaded the U.S. Supreme Court that a traditional, more stringent four-factor test should have been applied to injunctions under Section 10(j) of the NLRA, rather than a relaxed two-part standard. Section 10(j) is “a tool for the NLRB to seek quick relief against possible labor law violations before any violation actually has been found, such as reinstating a worker who alleges they were unlawfully terminated,” said David Pryzbylski, an attorney with Barnes & Thornburg in Indianapolis. The case was seen as a win for CEOs and a sign that companies don’t have to give up when facing labor claims.

(SHRM)

Amazon CEO Speech Case

In another case, a San Francisco administrative law judge (ALJ) for the NLRB found Amazon CEO Andy Jassy’s comments about unions to be unlawful. Jassy’s comments included a statement that Amazon thinks employees are better off not unionizing for several reasons and a description of those reasons.

The NLRB ALJ’s ruling was an “extreme infringement” not just on the First Amendment but also on Section 8(c) of the NLRA, which gives management representatives broad leeway to state opinions about how they prefer to work with employees, said attorney Phil Wilson, president of LRI Consulting Services in Broken Arrow, Okla. Section 8(c) provides that expressing any views, arguments, or opinions should not constitute an unfair labor practice if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force and no promise of benefit.

(SHRM)