Case Study: Starbucks- Due 6/16/16 by 13:00

2 Management Report / March 2009

© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Management Report DOI: 10.1002/mare

A UFCW spokesman said the key to the union victory was not the exodus of Hispanics, but bridging the divides between races.

Certainly, in some other situations—such as among janitors and health care workers—unions have been successful among Hispanic work- ers, even those who are here illegally.

Some say a more important factor was court involvement. The com- pany and the union agreed on election terms as part of a settlement of lawsuits filed against each other.

Ultimately, it may have been the union’s persistence that paid off. “They let everyone know that they were in it for the long haul,” an organizer from a farmworkers’ union observed. “When you give the people hope, and that hope is not going to go away, people tend to side with you.” n

Judge Says Starbucks Violated Workers’ Rights at NYC Stores

A New York City Industrial Workers of the World local—which also is known as the “Starbucks Workers Union”—may be making some head- way in its ongoing campaign to organize Starbucks workers at four New York City stores. An administrative law judge (ALJ) has ruled that the company unlawfully restricted workers’ union activity and fired three workers due to their support for the union.

Starbucks kept workers from wearing union buttons, using bulletin boards and talking about unions and working conditions, the ALJ said. Thus, the company interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act, the judge said.

The ALJ also said the evidence showed Starbucks fired three employ- ees due to their union activity. She recommended that the NLRB order the company to reinstate the workers with back pay.

Union Insignia In March 2006, the company settled prior unfair labor practices

(ULPs) filed by the union and entered into an agreement that recognized the right of its employees to wear “reasonably-sized-and-placed buttons or pins that identify a particular labor organization or [an employee’s] sup- port for that organization.”

Based on its interpretation of the settlement, the company told em- ployees they could wear only one pin.

The ALJ said her review of the evidence showed that employees wore numerous pins on their uniforms, hats, or aprons while work- ing. The judge said the company failed to prove there were special circumstances showing that wearing of more than one insignia may jeopardize safety, damage machinery or products, exacerbate em- ployee dissension, or unreasonably interfere with the employer’s public image. Absent such evidence, the limit of one union-related pin was unlawful.

Editor-in-Chief Alfred T. DeMaria

Editor Sarah Magee

Managing Editor David Famiano

Management Report (Print ISSN: 0745- 4880; Online ISSN: 1530-8286 at Bold-

Ideas, www.bold-ideas.com) is pub lished

month ly, 12 is sues per year, by Wiley Sub-

scrip tion Ser vic es, Inc., a Wiley Com pa ny,

111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774. Copy right © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., a

Wiley Com pa ny. All rights re served.

No part of this pub li ca tion may be re-

pro duced in any form or by any means,

except as per mit ted under Sec tion 107 or

108 of the 1976 United States Copy right

Act, without either the prior writ ten per-

mis sion of the publisher or au tho ri za tion

through the Copyright Clear ance Cen ter,

222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923,

(978) 750-8400, Fax: (978) 646-8600. Per-

mission re quests and in quir ies should be

ad dressed to the Per mis sions De part ment,

c/o John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River

Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774; (201) 748-6011, Fax: (201) 748-6008, http://www.

wiley.com/go/permissions.

Subscription price (2009): Elec tron ic only: $1,225 world wide. Pay ment must be

made in U.S. dollars drawn on a U.S. bank.

Please al low four weeks for pro cess ing a

change of ad dress. Address subscription

inquiries to Subscription Manager, Jossey-

Bass, a Wiley Company, 989 Market Street,

San Francisco, CA 94103-1741; Tel: (888)

378-2537, (415) 433-1767 (International);

E-mail: [email protected].

Other Correspondence: Ad dress all oth er cor re spon dence to: Management Re port,

David Famiano, Managing Ed i tor, Profes-

sional/Trade Division, c/o John Wiley &

Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774.

This publication is designed to pro vide ac cu rate and authoritative in for ma tion in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the un der stand ing that the pub lish er is not en gaged in ren der ing legal, accounting, or other pro fes sion al service. If ex pert as sis tance is re quired, the ser vic es of a com pe tent professional should be sought.

(Continued on page 8)

8 Management Report / March 2009

© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Management Report DOI: 10.1002/mare

Bulletin Boards At Starbucks’ Union Square East store, there was

a back room that contained two bulletin boards. One bulletin board was reserved for company use, but there was a dispute about the use of the second bulletin board. The company said it had a long-standing policy that employees could not post personal notices on the second bulletin board. The judge said the evidence showed that the timing of Starbucks’ announcement of this policy was “directly in response to open union activity” and that the company’s stated policies on bulletin board use had either been “unenforced or ap- plied in a very liberal manner by store management.” Therefore, the alleged policy was unlawfully applied to discriminate against union supporters and union- related notices.

Talking About the Union Store managers had told employees they could not

discuss the union while they were working, based on the company’s rule against solicitation during work time. The judge said the evidence showed that Star- bucks permitted social conversations on a variety of topics during work time. The Board has held there is a difference between soliciting an employee’s support for the union and holding a brief conversation about union-related matters, the judge noted. Starbucks’ use of its no-solicitation rule to prohibit union talk during work time was unlawful, because it singled out union talk while allowing social conversation on other topics.

The ALJ also concluded that supervisors unlaw- fully prohibited employees from discussing work- ing conditions, limited employees’ off-duty access to stores, and prevented some employees from working additional shifts at other locations. In addition, she found that three employees had been unlawfully fired because of their activity or comments in support of the union (Starbucks Corp., NLRB ALJ, No. 2-CA-37548, 12/19/08). n

(Continued from page 2)

union to represent you. It doesn’t even mention an election.

IF I SIGN ONE OF THESE CARDS, CAN I GET IT BACK?

The union never gives the cards back. You can write to them asking for the card, but I’ll bet you they will never return it to you. n

What You Can Say About a Union

This is the fourth article in a series that began with discussion of the acronym PITS. “PITS” is an easy way for supervisors and managers to remember the kinds of actions that will cause an unfair labor practice finding from the National Labor Relations Board. The forbidden actions are promises, interrogation, threats, and surveillance.

With so much to remember about what you can’t do or say, it’s important to note there is a great deal you can say. You can give your opinion without threat- ening. You can make statements, and you can show employees facts, all without asking questions or mak- ing threats or promises.

Here are examples of permitted statements:

You MAY tell employees that the vast majority of workers do not belong to labor unions. You may communicate the facts that (1) less than 7 percent of the private workforce in our country belongs to unions and (2) the trend in union membership has been downward for many years.

You MAY tell employees of your bad experiences with unions in general, or the unhappy experi- ences of your friends and relatives.

You MAY tell employees what you know about the union and about restrictive provisions in the union’s constitution such as fines, assessments, dues increases, union “trials,” and similar rules that give the union power over their work lives. Our campaign manager will provide you with the information you need. Be sure your statements are truthful.

You MAY tell employees about restrictive language in union contracts at other facilities that would make them worse off than under present policies.

You MAY tell employees why you believe they will be better off without the union.

You MAY tell employees who express resistance to signing a card for the union that they have the right to speak out against it and to tell coemploy- ees about the company’s good points and why a union is not needed. (But don’t directly ask or di- rect a worker to campaign against the union; just tell them they have the right to do so). n