Judge Bans Starbucks From Firing Union Supporters

“This definitely adds a layer of protection and recourse for future violations, and it definitely speeds up the ordered reinstatement of anyone alleged to have been unlawfully discharged,” she said.

Starbucks said in a statement that the facts of the case didn’t merit such an order.

“We feel the extraordinary measure for injunctive relief prior to a full legal review of the matter is unwarranted and maintain that actions taken were lawful and in alignment with established partner policies,” the company said.

Starbucks said it fired Ms. Whitbeck because she left the store early during a shift, effectively forcing a co-worker to manage the store alone for roughly 20 or 30 minutes. That violated a company rule requiring at least two employees to be on hand.

Ms. Whitbeck didn’t dispute the facts of the case but contended that the violation would not have led to a firing absent her involvement in the union campaign, which included wearing a pro-union button.

The labor board found merit in her charge and issued a complaint, and an administrative judge ruled in her favor in October. Starbucks has appealed that decision to the full labor board in Washington.

The company noted in its statement that it had offered, and that Ms. Whitbeck had accepted, temporary reinstatement before the federal judge’s order. But the judge concluded that reinstatement without a court order would leave her vulnerable to retaliation as her case unfolded.

Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/17/business/starbucks-union-ruling.html