Supreme Court Sides with Starbucks in Consequential Ruling for Unionization Efforts
On Thursday, June 13th, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Starbucks on a matter relevant to workplaces experiencing unionization efforts. Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney relates to events that occurred in February of 2022, as several employees at a Starbucks storefront in Memphis, Tennessee announced their plans to unionize. As a result, they invited a local news crew to the franchise’s location to discuss their intentions and promote their efforts towards unionization. As a result of this invitation and subsequent interview, Starbucks fired most of the workers in question stating that by conducting interviews at the storefront after hours, they had violated company policy.
As a result of the firings, The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), who oversees unionization efforts, filed a complaint against Starbucks, accusing them of unfair labor practices in attempting to bar unionization efforts. The NLRB simultaneously filed a petition seeking a preliminary injunction for the duration of the proceedings that would, among other requests, require Starbucks to reinstate the employees terminated as a result of unionization attempts. Starbucks challenged the NLRB’s issuance of a preliminary injunction, with a district court subsequently siding with the NLRB and issuing a temporary injunction which required Starbucks to rehire the affected employees just 6 months after their termination. Starbucks proceeded to appeal this decision at the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, who ultimately upheld the forementioned ruling leading Starbucks to appeal with the Supreme Court.
The Court’s ruling decided a question that has split among districts, which is the standard by which preliminary injunctions are granted in response to a NLRB petition. The Court rejected a rule used by half of districts, instead opting to adopt a stricter test by which the NLRB must adhere to be granted a preliminary injunction during labor proceedings. This stricter test has four steps, that 1) the NLRB must be likely to succeed on the merits, 2) that the union will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief (i.e. a preliminary injunction), 3) that the balance of equities tips in the NLRB’s favor and 4) that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest. This is contrast to the more lenient standard favored by other courts, the only question being whether the NLRB’s request for preliminary injunction has reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices had occurred. The Court’s imposition of a stricter standard will most likely make it harder to challenge anti-union actions and put a damper on unionization activities.
If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
The Royal Law Firm LLP
Springfield, MA Office
33 Elliot Street
Springfield, Massachusetts 01105
Phone: (413) 586-2288
Fax: (413) 586-2281
Hartford, CT Office
750 Main Street, Suite 100
Hartford, Connecticut 06103
Phone: (860) 724-4248
Providence, RI Office
100 Dorrance Street, Suite 700
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
Phone: (401) 283-8971
Bennington, VT Office
204 South Street
Bennington, VT 05201
Kindly direct all mailings and faxes to our Springfield, MA location.
Disclaimer: The information you obtain at this site is for informational purposes only. It is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice and does not create or imply an attorney-client relationship. You should consult with an attorney for individual advice regarding your own particular situation. This website, including each page hereof, may be considered advertising pursuant to the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include the above copyright notice.