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

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,...

Distance in a Non-Compete Agreement Measured "As the Crow Flies"

Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care - Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio Facts :  Dr. R. Douglas Martin ("Martin") sold his dental practice to an employee who worked there, Dr. David Ginn ("Ginn").  In doing so, Martin and Ginn signed a contract for the sale which contained a non-compete provision that prohibited Martin from engaging in business "within 30 miles" of the practice for five years starting from October 2010.  While Martin initially stayed on and worked with Ginn for a period, the relationship subsequently deteriorated between the two and Martin went to work for another dental office.  The new dental office was less than 30 miles away when measuring the distance in a straight line.  However, when driving between the offices, the distance was more than 30 miles. Ginn filed a claim against Martin on the grounds that Martin breached the non-compete.   At the trial court level, the court found that "within 30 miles"...

Breaking: Labor Secretary Rumored to Be Leaving Administration

A few hours ago, word leaked out that Labor Secretary Marty Walsh (“Walsh”) is in the midst of negotiations to head up the NHL Players Union and leave his position at the Labor Department. Walsh, who has served as the sole Labor Secretary under President Biden, has taken part in a labor renaissance of sorts as support for organized labor has increased during his term as Labor Secretary (although the number of workers that have joined a union over the past two years has not grown as mush as some expected.)  He has also overseen the ongoing negotiations with rail workers over a new contract, although that matter is still on shaky ground and playing out as we speak. As for who might step into the vacant Labor Secretary role, there are already rumblings that President Biden should nominate Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (a strong labor advocate) or even a progressive like Senator Bernie Sanders.  Until Walsh officially gives his notice, however, I would expect some/many potential...