The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which rejected an argument Starbucks used in its union-busting campaign on Wednesday, set a precedent against future use of this tactic.
The company has repeatedly stated that union elections should be held on a regional basis and not store-by-store. Voting this way would dilute the union elections for the company, making it so that employees at other stores that aren’t in the midst of unionizing would also cast a vote; this would make it harder for Starbucks Workers United to reach workers that are casting a ballot. The company claims that union elections at individual stores have an impact on other stores in the area, which can include a dozen or more.
Starbucks has used this argument to delay or stop elections in each election, but the NLRB rejected it each time. However, this week’s decision will make it harder for the company to make the argument in the future, setting a binding precedentIt should be avoided.
In this case, Starbucks had said that the vote count in Mesa, Arizona, which was scheduled for last week, should be delayed in order to accommodate more stores’ votes – an argument that was already deniedLast month, the company tried to stop an ongoing election.
The labor board said in its decision Wednesday that there are “no substantial issues warranting review” and that the board’s presumption that votes will be counted store-by-store is appropriate. The vote count for the Power and Baseline store has been scheduled for Friday afternoon, and the union is confident that it will be a “delayed victory” for the workers.
Starbucks used the same argument to delay a vote count at three Buffalo stores that was due to take place on Wednesday. The ballots have been imounded and the count has been delayed, while the NLRB reviews the challenge by the company.
The union expressed frustration that the NLRB allowed the Buffalo vote to be postponed even though the labor board has continually ruled against the company’s voting argument.
An attorney for Starbucks Workers United, Ian Hayes, stated that the company had deliberately filed its challenge after the period was over to make it eligible to do so to have the votes impounded. The petition to delay the Buffalo vote count was actually pushed so far back by the company that it was not even considered. ended up missing the deadlineFor the filing by eight minutes
“Starbucks will imply they had nothing to do with this further delay in the voting process by vaguely gesturing towards the legal process. That is a farce,” Hayes said in a statement. “This would not have happened without their strategic decision. This is exactly the result Starbucks wanted, and the NLRB handed it to them today.”
Although the union is positive that the Mesa, Arizona vote will succeed, workers, organizers, and others pointed out that the delay in the count was a company strategy to kill momentum. The company has become bolder in its union-busting tactics as the union campaign has grown stronger.
This was earlier in the month Starbucks firedSeven union organizers in Memphis Tennessee. Recently, It also fired.A Buffalo union organizer and member the bargaining panel. Although the union claims that Memphis terminations are illegal, labor laws only allow for very light punishments. Therefore, the company may consider it worth taking the risk to violate the law to prevent union bust.
Despite the company’s anti-union tactics, the union effort grows larger nearly every day. Starbucks Workers United was formed over the weekend. Attained a milestone ofOver 100 stores have filed for representation as the unionized Buffalo stores are in the middle of contract negotiations.
