There’s contrasting reporting on this:
- Reuters piece: Starbucks did not use ‘anti-union playbook’ against employees - report
- versus
- NYT archive link: Federal Regulators Seek to Force Starbucks to Reopen 23 Stores
Reuters:
The inquiry conducted from July to September called on Starbucks to improve the way it engages with unionization and revise its Global Human Rights Statement, but said there were no sign that it interfered with the freedom of employees to unionize.
“The assessment was direct and clear that while Starbucks has had no intention to deviate from the principles of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, there are things the company can, and should, do to improve its stated commitments,” said Mellody Hobson, independent chair of Starbucks.
The Starbucks Workers United union, which represents more than 9,000 employees at about 360 U.S. stores, said the report “acknowledges deep problems” in the company’s response to unionization by workers.
“If the company’s efforts at dialogue over the last few days are sincere, we are ready to talk,” the union said.
NYT:
The matter is scheduled to go before an administrative judge next summer unless Starbucks settles it earlier. In addition to asking the judge to order the stores reopened, the complaint wants employees to be compensated for the loss of earnings or benefits and for other costs they incurred as a result of the closures.
“This complaint is the latest confirmation of Starbucks’ determination to illegally oppose workers’ organizing,” Mari Cosgrove, a Starbucks employee, said in a statement issued through a spokesperson for the union, Workers United.
The new complaint was issued on the same day that Starbucks released a nonconfidential version of an outside assessment of whether its practices align with its stated commitment to labor rights. The company’s shareholders had voted to back the assessment in a nonbinding vote whose results were announced in March.
The author of the report, Thomas M. Mackall, a former management-side lawyer and labor relations official at the food and facilities management company Sodexo, wrote that he “found no evidence of an ‘anti-union playbook’ or instructions or training about how to violate U.S. laws.”
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
Federal labor regulators accused Starbucks on Wednesday of illegally closing 23 stores to suppress organizing activity and sought to force the company to reopen them.
In addition to asking the judge to order the stores reopened, the complaint wants employees to be compensated for the loss of earnings or benefits and for other costs they incurred as a result of the closures.
The labor board has issued more than 100 complaints covering hundreds of accusations of illegal behavior by Starbucks, including threats or retaliation against workers involved in union activity and a failure to bargain in good faith.
An administrative judge previously ruled that Starbucks had illegally closed a unionized store in Ithaca, N.Y., and ordered workers reinstated with back pay, but the company has appealed that decision.
The author of the report, Thomas M. Mackall, a former management-side lawyer and labor relations official at the food and facilities management company Sodexo, wrote that he “found no evidence of an ‘anti-union playbook’ or instructions or training about how to violate U.S. laws.”
But Mr. Mackall concluded that Starbucks officials involved in responding to the union campaign did not appear to understand how the company’s Global Human Rights Statement might constrain their response.
Saved 69% of original text.
The apple has been thrown.