February 09, 2026|Franchise Frontlines
February 9, 2026 | National Labor Relations Board, Division of Judges (San Francisco Branch Office) | JD(SF)-03-26
Executive Summary
In Starbucks Corporation and Workers United Labor Union International, JD(SF)-03-26, 2026 WL 396052 (NLRB Div. of Judges Feb. 9, 2026), Administrative Law Judge John T. Giannopoulos held that Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act by unlawfully soliciting employee grievances during a union organizing campaign at its West Salem, Oregon store. The complaint also alleged that Starbucks unlawfully discharged the store manager for refusing to commit unfair labor practices. Applying Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083 (1980), the ALJ concluded that although the manager engaged in protected conduct by refusing directives that would have constituted unlawful surveillance and interrogation, Starbucks established it would have terminated him regardless, based on documented operational deficiencies. The decision offers a detailed analysis of grievance solicitation doctrine and provides a practical application of burden-shifting principles in the union-campaign context.
Relevant Background
Workers United filed a representation petition in late June 2023 seeking to represent baristas and shift supervisors at Starbucks store #9611 in West Salem, Oregon. In the weeks surrounding the petition, District Manager Michael Kane held individual meetings with employees.
The record showed that prior to the union petition, the store had longstanding cleanliness and pest-control issues. Wade Russell, the store manager, had received a written warning and then a final written warning in May 2023 for operational deficiencies, including failure to maintain “clean, safe, ready” standards and to sustain cleanliness improvements.
On June 28, 2023—one day before the union petition was filed—Kane initiated a “separation consultation” with Starbucks partner relations recommending Russell’s termination. Russell was ultimately discharged on July 24, 2023.
The General Counsel alleged two violations: (1) unlawful solicitation of grievances during the union campaign; and (2) unlawful discharge of Russell for refusing to commit unfair labor practices.
Decision
The ALJ first addressed the grievance-solicitation allegations.
Crediting employee testimony over Kane’s, the ALJ found that during one-on-one meetings after the petition was filed, Kane asked employees whether there was “anything he could do” to support them or “anything he could change” at the store. The ALJ concluded that, absent a prior practice of individualized outreach, such questioning in the midst of an organizing campaign carried an implied promise to remedy grievances.
Citing Register Guard, 344 NLRB 1142 (2005), and Royal Manor Convalescent Hospital, 322 NLRB 354 (1996), the ALJ reiterated that solicitation of grievances during a union campaign—without an established past practice—creates an inference that the employer is promising corrective action in exchange for abandoning union support. The ALJ therefore found a violation of Section 8(a)(1).
The ALJ then turned to the discharge of Russell.
The credited evidence established that after the petition was filed, Kane asked Russell whether he knew who was leading the union effort and suggested that he “listen” or “ask around” to find out. The ALJ concluded that such directives, if followed, would have constituted unlawful surveillance or interrogation under Section 8(a)(1). Russell refused and stated he would remain neutral.
Because supervisors are protected when they refuse to commit unfair labor practices, the ALJ analyzed the discharge under the Wright Line framework. The General Counsel satisfied the initial burden by showing protected conduct, employer knowledge, and anti-union animus—evidenced by the unlawful grievance solicitation and directives concerning union activity.
The burden then shifted to Starbucks to show it would have discharged Russell regardless of his protected refusal.
The ALJ found Starbucks met that burden. The record showed that Russell had received progressive discipline in May 2023—before the petition was filed—for persistent operational deficiencies. The store continued to exhibit cleanliness and pest issues after the final written warning. Importantly, the ALJ found no evidence that decisionmakers knew about the union organizing campaign when Kane initiated the separation consultation on June 28. Although the timing was “suspicious,” the ALJ concluded the evidence did not establish pretext.
Accordingly, while Starbucks was found to have violated Section 8(a)(1) by soliciting grievances, the ALJ dismissed the allegation that Russell’s discharge was unlawful.
Looking Forward
This decision reinforces several well-established but frequently litigated principles relevant to multi-unit employers and franchise systems operating in union-active environments.
First, individualized inquiries into employee concerns during an organizing campaign remain high risk unless the employer can demonstrate a consistent past practice of such engagement. Even well-intentioned questions framed as support may be construed as implied promises of remedy when union activity is underway.
Second, directing managers to “listen” for union leaders or to probe for organizing information can create surveillance concerns under the Act. The ALJ’s analysis underscores that even informal phrasing can trigger liability if it reasonably tends to interfere with protected rights.
Third, the case illustrates that contemporaneous unfair labor practices do not automatically render a subsequent discharge unlawful. Under Wright Line, employers may still prevail if they can establish that discipline would have occurred absent the protected conduct. Here, documented performance deficiencies and progressive discipline preceding the petition were central to the outcome.
Finally, the decision highlights the importance of timing and documentation. The fact that the separation consultation predated the employer’s knowledge of the petition was critical to the ALJ’s analysis. Employers operating in union-sensitive environments should expect that termination decisions made during organizing campaigns will receive heightened scrutiny, particularly where supervisor refusals or protected activity are implicated.
This is an Administrative Law Judge decision and may be subject to further review by the Board. Nonetheless, it provides a useful framework for evaluating both grievance-solicitation exposure and supervisory discharge claims during organizing campaigns.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Administrative Law Judge in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the ALJ’s decision in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter LLP and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
