March 27, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
March 27, 2025 | National Labor Relations Board | Published Decision
Executive Summary
In Starbucks Corporation v. Workers United, 374 N.L.R.B. No. 23 (2025), the National Labor Relations Board affirmed an administrative law judge’s finding that a store manager violated Section 8(a)(1) by making an imprecise statement suggesting that unionization could lead to store closures. The Board dismissed three additional allegations involving a claimed retaliatory reduction in hours, an asserted constructive discharge, and an allegation that Starbucks was required to bargain over discretionary discipline before issuing it. Citing established precedent, including Care One at New Milford, 369 N.L.R.B. No. 109 (2020), the Board concluded that the remaining claims were not supported by the record.
Relevant Background
According to the allegations, employees at a Starbucks store in Los Angeles began discussing unionization in early 2022 during a period of heightened organizing activity within the company nationwide. In March, the Union filed a petition to represent the store’s baristas and shift supervisors. The election was conducted two months later in May, and a majority of ballots favored union representation. The Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative on June 1.
The General Counsel alleged that, before the election, one employee attended a virtual regional meeting with other shift supervisors and managers. Although unionization was not the scheduled topic, the employee raised a question about how Starbucks planned to handle unionization at other stores. Following the meeting, the employee allegedly had a brief conversation with the store manager in which the manager stated that unionization could increase costs and that Starbucks “could possibly” have to close stores if employees unionized. The General Counsel claimed this statement constituted an implied threat of adverse consequences tied to protected activity.
The complaint further alleged that, in the weeks that followed, Starbucks reduced the employee’s scheduled hours because of their support for the Union. The General Counsel asserted that the employee was outspoken about unionization and that management was aware of this support. According to the allegations, the store posted work schedules on a rolling basis, and the employee believed their hours began to decline around March. The General Counsel also alleged that other shift supervisors did not experience similar reductions. Starbucks denied these claims, arguing that the employee’s hours varied for normal business reasons and that scheduling decisions were consistent with established practices.
The General Counsel further alleged that the employee eventually accepted a full-time job elsewhere and sought to reduce their Starbucks availability to weekends only. According to the allegations, management declined to approve that change based on store needs and advised the employee of possible alternatives, such as a voluntary demotion or transfer. The complaint asserted that a series of events—including multiple absences, including some no-call/no-show occurrences—led to discipline and the employee’s resignation, which the General Counsel characterized as a constructive discharge stemming from earlier alleged reductions in hours. Starbucks disputed this theory and maintained that availability expectations and attendance guidelines were applied consistently.
Finally, after certification but before the parties reached an initial collective-bargaining agreement, Starbucks issued discipline to a different employee for walking off a shift. The General Counsel alleged that Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(5) by failing to provide the Union with prior notice and an opportunity to bargain over that discipline. Starbucks denied the allegation, citing Care One, which holds that employers are not required to bargain over discretionary discipline before a first contract unless existing policies are modified.
A two-day hearing was held before an administrative law judge, who credited portions of testimony, applied the Board’s burden-shifting frameworks, and ultimately found that only the alleged store-closure comment violated the Act. The General Counsel filed exceptions, including arguments that the Board should reconsider Care One. The Board issued its decision on March 27, 2025, adopting the judge’s findings.
Decision
The Board agreed that the store manager’s alleged statement violated established standards governing employer predictions about unionization. Under NLRB precedent, such statements must be based on objective and demonstrable facts, and the Board concluded that the remarks at issue provided no factual basis linking unionization to store closures. Even though the comment was phrased as a possibility, the Board found that it could reasonably be understood as suggesting adverse consequences tied to organizing. The Board reiterated that its analysis is objective and does not depend on an employee’s subjective reaction.
On the remaining allegations, the Board affirmed the administrative law judge’s dismissal. With respect to the claimed reduction in hours, the Board applied the Wright Line framework and found no basis to infer unlawful motive. The scheduling records showed ordinary week-to-week variation, including instances in which the employee’s scheduled hours increased after expressing interest in unionization. The General Counsel presented no comparative evidence indicating disparate treatment relative to other shift supervisors, and the employee’s account of a sustained reduction was contradicted by contemporaneous records.
The constructive discharge claim failed because the underlying hours-reduction theory could not be sustained. The record showed that the employee later obtained full-time employment elsewhere, requested weekend-only availability, and was offered options such as a voluntary demotion or transfer consistent with operational needs. Disciplinary action occurred only after multiple no-call/no-show absences, including for shifts that aligned with the employee’s stated availability. The Board found no evidence that Starbucks intended to induce a resignation or acted based on prohibited considerations.
Finally, the Board rejected the claim that Starbucks was required to provide the Union with notice and an opportunity to bargain before issuing discretionary discipline. Applying Care One, the Board held that employers are not obligated to bargain over discretionary discipline before a first contract unless they are changing existing policy. Although the General Counsel asked the Board to revisit that precedent, the Board declined to do so here and affirmed the administrative law judge’s application of existing law.
Looking Forward
This decision offers guidance to national brands, including franchisors with corporate units and multi-unit operators, on managing communications and personnel decisions during labor activity. The finding related to the store-closure comment demonstrates the importance of ensuring that managers avoid speculative statements about potential operational outcomes and instead rely on clear, objective guidance when addressing sensitive topics. The Board’s analysis of the scheduling and constructive discharge allegations underscores the value of thorough documentation: Starbucks’ timecards, availability records, and written communications played a central role in showing that its decisions reflected ordinary business needs. When employees request changes in availability due to outside employment or other obligations, employers who apply established procedures consistently and evaluate requests based on operational requirements reduce the risk of misinterpretation. Although Care One remains controlling, the General Counsel’s interest in revisiting that precedent suggests employers should continue monitoring developments, particularly when operating mixed systems of franchised and corporate locations. Overall, the ruling illustrates that well-supported, business-driven decisions withstand scrutiny during organizing efforts and that internal consistency remains a key safeguard.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court 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 Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC 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.
