Starbucks could be forced to reopen at least 23 stores for violating union laws: feds
Federal regulators could force Starbucks to reopen 23 locations after officials accused the coffeehouse chain of illegally shuttering the outposts to suppress union organizing activity.
A regional office of the National Labor Relations Board raised a complaint on Wednesday arguing that Starbucks closed the nearly two dozen locations in question either because staffers have already unionized or because the company wanted to prevent them from doing so.
Employees at at least seven of the 23 stores had organized, per the complaint obtained by The Post.
The union that represents Starbucks’ staffers is Starbucks Workers United, a New York-based affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) representing baristas at 340 Starbucks locations across the US.
The case — which comes after a series of federal officials made similar accusations — is scheduled to go before a judge in the summer of 2024 unless Starbucks settles it earlier, according to the court filing that was earlier reported on by The New York Times.
The National Labor Relations Board has asked the judge to mandate that Starbucks reopen the unionized and non-unionized stores, pointing to 16 closures in July 2022 and several more in the following few months.
The locations spanned multiple major US cities, including Chicago, Portland, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Seattle, where Starbucks is headquartered, among others.
The complaint also requested that each location’s staff be compensated for the loss of earnings and benefits they incurred as a result of the closure.
Workers United spokesperson and Starbucks staffer Mari Cosgrove told The Post that “this complaint is the latest confirmation of Starbucks’ determination to illegally oppose workers’ organizing.”
“It adds to the litany of complaints detailed in the company’s own report released this morning. If Starbucks is sincere in its overtures in recent days to forge a different relationship with its partners, this is exactly the kind of illegal behavior it needs to stop,” she added.
The report Cosgrove is referring to is the nonconfidential version of an outside assessment Starbucks released on Thursday detailing whether its practices align with labor rights.
The audit “found no evidence of an ‘anti-union playbook’ or instructions or training about how to violate US laws,” wrote Thomas Mackall, a former management-side lawyer and labor relations official at the food and facilities management company Sodexo, and the author of the report.
A Starbucks spokesperson told The Post: “Each year as a standard course of business, we evaluate the store portfolio to determine where we can best meet our community and customers’ needs. This includes opening new locations, identifying stores in need of investment or renovation, exploring locations where an alternative format is needed and, in some instances, re-evaluating our footprint.”
The NLRB declined to comment.
A similar case was presented over the summer, and a labor board judge ruled against Starbucks, declaring in July that it had illegally closed a unionized store in Ithaca, NY, and ordered workers reinstated with back pay.
The store’s shutdown “was done in large part to discourage unionization efforts in Ithaca and elsewhere,” Judge Arthur Amchan wrote his ruling at the time, according to The Times.
Starbucks has since appealed the decision.
It’s not the first time that the coffeehouse chain — which operates some 16,200 locations in the US alone — has been accused of interfering with unionized workers’ rights.
In October, the Workers Union filed a suit against Starbucks accusing the company of defamation following a public spat between the two entities triggered by the union’s post on social media declaring “Solidarity with Palestine!”
Starbucks swiftly moved to distance itself from the Workers Union, filing a lawsuit in Iowa federal court shortly thereafter for trademark infringement, demanding that the union stop using “the Starbucks name and other identifying symbols.”
The lawsuit said “customers [were] misled and confused over the source or endorsement” of Starbucks Workers United’s pro-Palestinian message because of the union’s name and the two entities’ similar circular, green-and-white logos.
Aside from changing its name and logo on all signs, promotional materials, and social media accounts, Starbucks requested that the union pay statutory damages, plus attorneys’ fees.
