Skip to main content

A Second Bite At the Apple? Buffalo Area Starbucks Seeks to Unionize Despite Losing Election


A few months ago, there were elections held at several Buffalo area Starbucks in which workers took steps to unionize at the company.  While initial attempts to unionize several of the Buffalo area locations was successful, the union lost one election in the Buffalo area with a 12 - 8 vote against unionizing.

While some might have thought that was the end of the road for that particular location, we have had an interesting development as of late.  Last week, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) sought to order Starbucks to recognize the union that lost the election on the grounds that the company had unlawfully intimidated and retaliated against workers that sought to unionize.

What happens here is quite simple.  The Buffalo regional office of the NLRB has to issue a complaint against Starbucks, which was previously done.  That complaint argued that Starbucks fired two employees because they supported unionization, promised benefits to workers to not unionize, and subjected workers to surveillance.  Based upon the complaint, it has been argued that a fair election could not be held based upon the alleged actions of Starbucks.  Next, these allegations will be heard by an administrative law judge that will make a ruling.  The ruling could then be appealed to the NLRB in Washington, D.C.

Ultimately, whether the complaint, which is being made to compel Starbucks to recognize the union at this particular location, proves to be successful remains to be seen.  However, with an NLRB that has come out guns blazing against employers, including Starbucks, as of late, this is one to keep an eye on in the weeks and months ahead.


For additional information:  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/20/business/starbucks-union-buffalo.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more