A federal appeals court has largely rejected Starbucks' appeal of the National Labor Relations Board's (NRLB) finding that the coffee chain illegally fired two Philadelphia baristas because they wanted to unionize.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that the coffee shop giant has standing to challenge the constitutionality of administrative law judges at the NRLB, a government agency established to enforce U.S. labor laws regarding labor practices and collective bargaining. He said no.
The ruling marks a potential setback for companies such as Amazon, Trader Joe's and SpaceX, which have sought to limit the enforcement powers of government agencies.
Circuit Judge Thomas Umbro ruled against the NLRB's conclusion that Starbucks engaged in unfair labor practices, including firing Eko Nowakowska and Tristan Busiere from its South Philadelphia store and previously reducing Nowakowska's hours. wrote to a three-judge panel with substantial evidence supporting the
The court also found substantial evidence that Starbucks knew before firing that the baristas were recording their meetings with supervisors without their consent, and that the inappropriate recordings were only discovered later. Therefore, the company rejected Starbucks' argument that there was no need to rehire the baristas using the slush funds.
But the Philadelphia-based court said the NLRB overstepped its authority by ordering Starbucks to pay foreseeable costs resulting from the barista's termination. These may have included the cost of finding a new job or paying out-of-pocket medical costs.
Starbucks fired Novakowska in January 2020, citing poor performance and customer abuse, and announced the following month that Busiere had been fired for spreading a false rumor that another barista was being fired.
Neither Starbucks nor its attorney immediately responded to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the NLRB declined to comment.
Many Starbucks employees have accused the Seattle-based company of unfair labor practices, which the company denies as workers campaign to unionize at stores across the country. I am doing it.
Starbucks Workers United said its campaign included strikes at more than 300 stores this month.
This case marked the first time a federal appeals court considered a broad challenge to the NLRB's enforcement authority.
Umbro said Starbucks doesn't have standing to challenge removal protection because it can't prove harm.
