Careers

Diversity

With 17 offices, from New York to Los Angeles and Seattle to Orlando, we live and work in communities all over the U.S., collaborating across locations, disciplines and even borders. Our experienced, highly ranked lawyers serve businesses wherever they are and wherever they want to go.

Offices

About Us

Pages

Professionals

Thought leadership: blogs, podcasts, videos, publications, events and news

Insights

Services

Pro Bono

Am Law 100 firm with practices in Business, Digital Assets and Data Management, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Litigation and Tax.

Home | BakerHostetler

What to Expect and How to Prepare: A Guide to Employing Foreign Workers in the Age of Trump

Teresa Goody Guillén Supports New SEC Nominee in Institutional Investor Article

Carolina Alonso Shares Her Journey to the Legal Profession with High School Students

​Bill Bergmann Elected Treasurer of Court of Federal Claims Bar Association; Continues Role on Advisory Council

On October 2, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) found that Starbucks Corp. violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when CEO Howard Schultz made purportedly coercive comments to a worker during a companywide virtual meeting in 2022. When confronted with worker-raised issues relating to unionization, Schultz responded, “[I]f you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can work for another company.” This accompanied additional comments that the NLRB found “demeaning,” including calling the employee “angry” and noting that the employee had not worked for Starbucks for more than two years. The NLRB found this comment violated Starbucks employees’ Section 7 rights because it suggested that any employee who supports unionization should quit. The NLRB cited a long line of cases finding implicit threats of discharge when, in response to employees expressing dissatisfaction with working conditions, employers responded along the lines of “maybe this isn’t the place for you” and employees should “look somewhere else.”

core/paragraph

The Starbucks decision emphasizes the importance of carefully responding to employee questions on unionization or any other concerted activity protected by Section 7 of the Act, such as comments concerning pay. Starbucks, like many companies, has strongly opposed unionization in the workplace (as we have discussed previously in <a href="https://www.thebargainingtableblog.com/blogs/practical-impacts-of-the-cemex-decision/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">a November 30, 2023 blog</a>, <a href="https://www.thebargainingtableblog.com/blogs/a-brewing-issue-the-supreme-court-accepts-a-coffeemakers-request-to-revisit-section-10j/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">a February 2, 2024 blog</a>, <a href="https://www.thebargainingtableblog.com/blogs/employee-handbooks-remain-under-board-attack/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">a June 20, 2024 blog</a> and <a href="https://www.thebargainingtableblog.com/blogs/a-grande-decision-for-employers-the-supreme-court-raises-the-bar-on-section-10j-injunctions/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">a June 24, 2024 blog</a>), and it has been embroiled in multiple cases brought by the NLRB. This latest decision emphasizes just how important it is for an employer to select the correct method of opposition. As the NLRB held, suggesting an employee seek employment elsewhere if they are unhappy with working conditions has long been held to violate the NLRA. Schultz’s comments were nearly identical to the comments made in those prior cases, which made the facts in this case all the more difficult for Starbucks. While Starbucks attempted to frame Schultz’s comments as “general” and not specifically in reference to union activity, the NLRB rejected that argument, pointing to the additional comments calling the employee “angry” and referring to her short period of employment with the company. The NLRB also rejected the fact that Schultz offered a generic assurance against retaliation at the beginning of the meeting. The NLRB emphasized that the objectively coercive nature of the comments here was magnified because they were made by Schultz, the CEO.

Overall, the Starbucks decision does not greatly change the NLRA landscape but instead serves as an important reminder — choose your words carefully when speaking to employees on union issues or on any other matter involving Section 7 concerted activity. Schultz has taken a public anti-union stance in the past, and his position on unionization should have been no surprise to the employee. The language he used in this circumstance, however, fell directly in line with comments the NLRB had previously found to be coercive under Section 7. Schultz’s comments about the employee being “angry” and implying she had not worked for the company long enough to raise concerns further amplified the likelihood of a violation here. When an employee raises a concern regarding unionization, the employer must be very careful about how it responds. If employers hold live Q&A sessions with employees as occurred in this instance, the speaker must be prepared to respond in a noncoercive way while maintaining the company’s position. Otherwise, companies may find themselves in hot water with the NLRB, as occurred in this instance.

The Bargaining Table

Cincinnati

Partner

M. Scott McIntyre

Associate

Sean P. Ryan

Labor Relations

Labor and Employment

Enterprise Issues

Navigating Employment Issues

Choose Your Words Carefully — Starbucks Violated National Labor Relations Act Due to CEO’s Comments During Virtual Q&A

Related Services

Featured Insights