Starbucks case before SCOTUS seeks to curb National Labor Relations Board's powers

Starbucks case before Supreme Court seeks to curb NLRB’s powers

Starbucks workers filed complaint after they were fired during union effort
Appeals court sided with labor agency, required workers to be rehired
Company wants Supreme Court to raise standard for NLRB injunctions

Updated: Apr 23, 2024 / 03:51 PM CDT

FILE – Starbucks employees and supporters link arms during a union election watch party Dec. 9, 2021, in Buffalo, N.Y. The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a case filed by Starbucks against the National Labor Relations Board. (AP Photo/Joshua Bessex, File)

WASHINGTON (NewsNation) — The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a case involving Starbucks and a group of fired baristas that could make it harder for the federal labor agency to step in during unionization disputes.

The case originated in Memphis, Tennessee, where seven Starbucks baristas lost their jobs in 2022 as they participated in unionizing efforts.

Starbucks baristas fired

Starbucks insists the baristas were fired for letting non-employees — including local journalists — into a store after it closed. The National Labor Relations Board accused Starbucks of illegally firing the workers, saying the company interfered with the workers’ right to organize.

A district court judge agreed with the NLRB and issued a temporary injunction ordering Starbucks to rehire the workers in August 2022. After the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling, Starbucks appealed to the Supreme Court.

Case heads to the Supreme Court

The company is asking SCOTUS to curb the government’s power in such cases.

The Chamber of Commerce supported Starbucks in court briefs, arguing, “By giving the Board unchecked sway … the Sixth Circuit’s rule assures unwarranted, long-term meddling in employers’ lawful business practices.”

Lawyers for the group of Starbucks workers wrote in court filings that the “Court should reject Starbucks’s attempt to limit a critical tool for combating employers’ unlawful suppression of rights guaranteed by the NLRA.”

Justices, during oral arguments Tuesday, noted Congress requires the National Labor Relations Board to seek injunctions in federal court, which gives the court the duty of considering several factors, including whether such a case against a company would be successful.

“The district court is an independent check. So it seems like it should be just doing what district courts do, since it was given the authority to do it,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, meanwhile, appeared to agree with the NLRB’s argument that Congress meant for the agency to operate under a different standard, the Associated Press wrote. She said the board already determined it was likely to win a case by the time it seeks an injunction — which she pointed out is already a very rare occurrence.

“I appreciate that maybe the standards we need to look at, and I understand four factors versus two factors, but this is not sounding like a huge problem,” Jackson said.

Since late 2021, the Workers United group says over 400 Starbucks stores have voted to unionize, though none have secured a labor agreement with Starbucks.

Standards for injunctions

Starbucks said the Supreme Court should intervene because federal appeals courts don’t agree on the standards that the NLRB must meet when it requests a temporary injunction against a company. Starbucks says temporary injunctions can be a major burden for companies since the NLRB’s administrative process can take years.

Since 1947, the National Labor Relations Act — the law that governs the agency — has allowed courts to grant temporary injunctions requested by the NLRB if it finds them “just and proper.” In its review of what transpired at the Starbucks store in Memphis, the Sixth Circuit required the NLRB to establish two things: that it had reasonable cause to believe unfair labor practices occurred and that a restraining order would be a “just and proper” solution.

But other federal appeals courts have required the NLRB to meet a four-factor test when seeking restraining orders, including showing it was likely to prevail in the administrative case and employees would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.

Starbucks has asked the Supreme Court to establish the four-factor test as the standard all courts must follow when considering NLRB injunction cases.

The NLRB says it already considers its likelihood of success before taking a case to court, making whether courts apply two factors or four largely irrelevant. The agency notes that it rarely asks courts for temporary injunctions; in its 2023 fiscal year, it received 19,869 charges of unfair labor practices and authorized the filing of 14 cases seeking temporary injunctions.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.