The union that represents Starbucks workers at roughly 150 stores has accused the CEO of violating labor law during a public interview with The New York Times.
Starbuck Workers United claims that in a conversation with journalist Andrew Ross Sorkin at the DealBook D.C. policy forum on Thursday, Schultz threatened to refuse to bargain in good faith with the union. While talking about the coffee chain's relationship with its workers in the context of the union campaign, the charge hinges on comments by the coffee chain's CEO.
Sorkin asked if he could ever envision embracing the union as part of it, after Shultz said that they had to demonstrate to their people that they could trust them.
Shultz said no.
When negotiating a contract, both the union and employer must engage in meaningful dialogue. The union said that the remark suggests that he doesn't intend to do so, and that it sends a message to employees that unionizing would be futile. Unfair labor practices include conveying futility to workers.
He told Sorkin that he couldn't embrace the union because he wanted to exceed the expectations of his customers. The customer experience will be challenged and less than if a third party is included in the business.
The union says that he made an implied or actual threat that Starbucks will lose business if workers unionize.
A Starbucks spokesman wouldn't say anything.
“The union asked that the board seek an injunction related to Schultz’s comments.”
According to an interview with Sorkin, Starbucks is in a battle for the hearts and minds of its employees and will be successful.
The union said in its filing that he has a tendency to make statements that are not in line with the law. Starbucks was accused of violating labor law by the Starbucks Workers United when it was announced that the company might offer new benefits.
An unfair labor practice charge is filed when one party believes the other broke the law. An investigator from the National Labor Relations Board would look into the claim to see if there is merit to the charge. If there is, board officials would try to reach a settlement with Starbucks to remedy the situation, and if that doesn't work, they could prosecute the company.
The board has found merit in many of the charges the union has filed against Starbucks. The company was accused of breaking the law by firing half a dozen pro-union workers, disciplining others and closing two stores in the area.
“The union said in its filing on Friday that Schultz has a 'demonstrated propensity for using his national platform to make unlawful statements.'”
The charges haven't yet been argued before an administrative law judge. Starbucks says it hasn't broken the law. The company insists that it is not anti-union despite comments like those made by Schultz.
In some cases, the union wants the National Labor Relations Board to go to federal court to stop Starbucks from doing things the union thinks are illegal. The union asked the board to seek an injunction to stop the comments from being made.
A federal judge rejected the union's attempt to get an injunction that would have put the organizers back to work. More than 20 union organizers have been fired by Starbucks, but the company insists that all of them were justified.
The so-called Memphis Seven, a group of Tennessee baristas who were fired after giving an in-store interview, are among the people who have lost their jobs. The board is trying to get the company to restore the workers who were fired.
Despite the loss of seven organizers, Starbucks Workers United recently won a decisive victory in a union election at the Memphis store.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
