In a significant ruling for workers’ rights, a federal appeals court has largely rejected Starbucks’ challenge to a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finding that the coffee giant illegally fired two Philadelphia baristas for their unionizing efforts. The decision deals a blow to Starbucks and other companies aiming to curb the labor board’s enforcement powers amidst a growing wave of union activity.
Court Finds Starbucks Lacks Standing in NLRB Dispute
The Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Starbucks did not have standing to question the constitutionality of the NLRB’s administrative law judges, who are tasked with enforcing U.S. labor laws and collective bargaining rules. The three-judge panel, led by Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro, upheld the bulk of the labor board’s conclusions in the case.
Substantial Evidence of Unfair Labor Practices
Critically, the court found ample evidence supporting the NLRB’s determination that Starbucks engaged in unfair labor practices by terminating baristas Echo Nowakowska and Tristan Bussiere from their jobs at a South Philadelphia store. The panel also agreed there was substantial proof Starbucks reduced Nowakowska’s work hours prior to the firing in response to the unionization drive.
“Substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s conclusion that Starbucks engaged in unfair labor practices by firing Echo Nowakowska and Tristan Bussiere from their south Philadelphia store, and previously reducing Nowakowska’s hours.”
– Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro
Rejection of Starbucks’ Defenses
The court dismissed Starbucks’ arguments that it was justified in firing the workers. While Starbucks claimed it only later discovered the baristas had improperly recorded meetings with supervisors, the court agreed with the NLRB that evidence showed Starbucks was aware of the recordings prior to the terminations.
Judges also rebuffed Starbucks’ assertions that it fired Nowakowska for poor performance and customer mistreatment, and Bussiere for spreading false rumors about another worker’s impending firing. The court largely upheld the NLRB’s order for Starbucks to rehire the baristas with back pay, though it ruled the labor board went too far in telling Starbucks to cover the workers’ job search and out-of-pocket medical costs stemming from the illegal firings.
Implications for NLRB Authority and Union Campaigns
The case marked the first time a federal appeals court weighed in on broader challenges to the NLRB’s enforcement powers, which companies like Amazon, Trader Joe’s and SpaceX have sought to curtail. Judge Ambro’s opinion shot down Starbucks’ constitutional objections, finding the company failed to show it was harmed by the job protections for the agency’s administrative law judges.
The ruling comes as many Starbucks workers continue to accuse the company of illegal labor practices amidst a nationwide unionization push in its cafes. In May, Starbucks Workers United said employees at over 300 stores participated in strikes to protest what they describe as union busting by the coffee chain.
Key Takeaways:
- Federal court rejects Starbucks’ challenge to NLRB ruling that it illegally fired two Philadelphia baristas over union organizing
- Judges find ample evidence supporting labor board’s unfair labor practice findings against Starbucks
- Starbucks’ constitutional objections to NLRB’s enforcement powers shot down
- Decision comes as unionization efforts and allegations of union busting by Starbucks continue nationwide
The appeals court ruling solidifies the NLRB’s authority at a pivotal moment for the labor movement and worker organizing efforts in the United States. As union campaigns gain steam at corporate giants like Starbucks and Amazon, the decision affirms the labor board’s crucial role in enforcing workers’ rights and clamping down on unfair labor practices.
