Court rejects Starbucks’ challenge to US labor board ruling that it illegally fired baristas
Share:
Judge says coffee giant has no standing in appeal of NRLP finding it illegally fired two workers for trying to unionize. A federal appeals court has largely rejected Starbucks’ appeal of a National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) finding that the coffee chain illegally fired two Philadelphia baristas because they wanted to organize a union.
The third US circuit court of appeals said the coffee shop giant lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of administrative law judges of the NRLB, the government agency that is set up to enforce labor laws in the US concerning labor practices and collective bargaining.
The judgment represents a possible setback for companies such as Amazon, the Trader Joe’s grocery chain and SpaceX that have sought to limit the agency’s enforcement powers. Circuit judge Thomas Ambro wrote for a three-judge panel that substantial evidence supported the NLRB’s conclusion that Starbucks engaged in unfair labor practices by firing Echo Nowakowska and Tristan Bussiere from their south Philadelphia store, and previously reducing Nowakowska’s hours.
The court also found substantial evidence that Starbucks knew before the firings that the baristas had recorded meetings with supervisors without their consent, and rejected Starbucks’ claim it need not rehire the baristas with back pay because it discovered the improper recordings only later.
But the Philadelphia-based court said the NLRB exceeded its authority by ordering Starbucks to pay the baristas’ foreseeable expenses stemming from their firings. These might have included costs of finding new jobs and out-of-pocket medical expenses.
