Starbucks Employee’s Constitutional Challenge to Labor Board Structure Fully Briefed at DC Circuit Court of Appeals
Trump recently removed a Biden NLRB appointee relying on constitutional arguments first raised by NY Starbucks workers’ lawsuit against the NLRB
Washington D.C. (February 24, 2025) – New York Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam have filed the final brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their landmark lawsuit asserting that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) violates the U.S. Constitution.
The case, which is being litigated by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys, is especially notable after the Trump Administration asserted the very same legal arguments in its efforts to reform the NLRB. President Trump on January 28 fired NLRB Board Member Gwynne Wilcox, criticizing the same removal protections that Cortes and Karam’s first-in-the-nation lawsuit targeted for violating the Constitution.
The Foundation lawsuit, initially filed by Cortes, and later joined by Karam, states that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) violates Article II of the Constitution by shielding NLRB Board Members from being removed at the discretion of the president. The appeal challenges a District Court decision that dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack legal standing. That decision did not address the underlying claim regarding whether the Labor Board’s structure complies with the requirements of the Constitution.
With the case now fully briefed, oral arguments are expected soon. A ruling in favor of Cortes and Karam could help cement making the Board more accountable to independent-minded employees and their rights.
Case Filed After NLRB Denied Starbucks Employees Right to Vote Out Unwanted Union
On April 28, 2023, Cortes submitted a petition, supported by a majority of her colleagues, asking the NLRB to hold a decertification election at her Buffalo-area “Del-Chip” Starbucks store to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials’ bargaining powers over workers. However, NLRB Region 3 rejected Cortes’ petition, citing unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against the Starbucks Corporation. Notably, there was no established link between these allegations and the employees’ decertification request.
Similarly, Karam filed a decertification petition seeking a vote to remove the union at his Buffalo-area Starbucks store. Like Cortes’ petition, NLRB officials refuse to allow the vote to take place, citing claims made by SBWU officials. As a result the workers remain trapped under union “representation” they oppose.
“This case demonstrates the direct harm caused to workers rights by unaccountable and biased NLRB bureaucrats that have stifled attempts to remove unwanted union representation,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “NLRB officials may not like it, but federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the highest law in the land, the Constitution.”
“We are proud that the very legal arguments first made by Foundation attorneys in this case have now been utilized by President Trump to rein in the biased Biden NLRB,” added Mix. “The NLRB’s refusal to process these workers’ decertification petitions, paired with its unchecked authority, exemplifies why reform is overdue.”
Starbucks Barista Asks Labor Board to Overturn Regional Official’s Decision to Continue Blocking Vote to Remove Union
With original case cited as grounds for blocking vote settled, worker pushes for decertification election to oust SBWU
Oklahoma City, OK (November 20, 2024) – Starbucks employee Amy Smith has filed a Request for Review with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in Washington, D.C., asking the agency to review a regional NLRB order tossing her petition seeking an election to remove the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union from her Oklahoma City store. Amy Smith, who works at the Nichols Hills Starbucks location, is receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Smith’s appeal challenges the regional NLRB’s refusal to reinstate her decertification petition, which it is still stonewalling despite the resolution of SBWU union officials’ charges against Starbucks that were ostensibly the justification for blocking the workers’ petition for a vote to remove the union. Smith argues that the decision is inconsistent not only with the Board’s past reasons for holding up the petition, but also with workers’ right under federal labor law to promptly have an election to remove a union they do not want.
Starbucks Employee Challenges Labor Board’s Unreasonable Stalling
In October 2023, Smith filed a petition asking the NLRB to hold a decertification election so she could vote to remove SBWU from her workplace. Her petition had enough of her coworkers’ signatures to meet the 30% threshold necessary to trigger a decertification vote. However, at SBWU union officials’ request, the NLRB dismissed the petitions “subject to reinstatement” until the unfair labor practice case Starbucks Corporation (01-CA-305952) was resolved. That case has now been settled, and the NLRB closed the case.
Last month, Smith had asked the NLRB Regional Directors in Region 14 (covering Oklahoma City) to reinstate her petition so the NLRB can promptly schedule a secret ballot election to determine whether a majority of workers want to end union officials’ monopoly power at her store. However, instead of reinstating Smith’s petition, regional NLRB officials instead came up with a different unfair labor practice case against Starbucks to scuttle the election again, without even giving Smith a hearing to defend her petition.
“This standard has proved not only to contradict the plain text of [federal labor law], but has failed to appropriately account for the Board’s statutory mandate to conduct an election,” the Request for Review says.
Growing Momentum for Decertification
Oklahoma is a Right to Work state, meaning union payments must be voluntary and cannot be required as a condition of employment. However, under federal law, SBWU officials’ monopoly bargaining powers still allow them to impose a union contract on all employees at the store, even those who are not union members and who oppose SBWU’s so-called “representation.” A successful decertification vote would strip union officials of that extraordinary monopoly bargaining power.
The growing movement among Starbucks partners to eject unwanted union officials from their stores is part of a larger trend, with an over 50% increase in the number of decertification petitions filed annually over the last four years. Already, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have assisted Starbucks employees in over a dozen stores seeking votes to remove the SBWU union. However, union officials have so far manipulated federal labor law to block any decertification votes from being held.
“Employees like Amy Smith should have the fundamental right to decide who represents them in the workplace, free from unnecessary delays and bureaucratic roadblocks,” commented Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. “The NLRB’s refusal to allow a timely vote is a clear disregard for the principles of employee free choice. We are committed to defending workers’ rights to hold unions accountable and ensuring that workers’ voices are heard.”
Starbucks Employees File Brief with Appeals Court in Case Challenging Constitutionality of Labor Board Structure
NY Starbucks workers are challenging NLRB that refuses to hold votes to remove unwanted SBWU union
Washington D.C. (October 16 2024) – New York Starbucks employees Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam have filed the opening brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in their groundbreaking lawsuit challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as unconstitutional. The lawsuit, initially filed by Cortes, and later joined by Karam, follows NLRB officials’ refusal to process their respective petitions requesting a vote to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace.
The lawsuit states that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA) violates Article II of the Constitution by shielding NLRB Board Members from being removed at the discretion of the president. The appeal challenges a District Court decision that dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack legal standing. That decision did not address the underlying claim regarding whether the Labor Board’s structure complies with the requirements of the Constitution.
The brief, filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, thoroughly refutes the District Courts decision that Cortes and Karams lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Board, and also argues why the Court should side with the plaintiffs on the merits of their constitutional challenge against the NLRB.
Starbucks Employees Are Being Denied Their Right to Vote
On April 28, 2023, Cortes submitted a petition, supported by a majority of her colleagues, asking the NLRB to hold a decertification election at her Buffalo-area “Del-Chip” Starbucks store to remove SBWU union officials’ bargaining powers over workers. However, NLRB Region 3 rejected Cortes’ petition, citing unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against the Starbucks Corporation. Notably, there was no established link between these allegations and the employees’ decertification request.
Similarly, Karam filed a decertification petition seeking a vote to remove the union at his Buffalo-area Starbucks store. Like Cortes’ petition, NLRB officials refuse to allow the vote to take place, citing claims made by SBWU officials. As a result the workers remain trapped under union “representation” they oppose.
“The lower court’s decision was wrong in finding that Cortes’ and Karam’s case lacked standing, as both have business before the NLRB right now and also did at the time their lawsuit was filed,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “We’re hopeful that the D.C. Court of Appeals will agree, and sides with these workers who are entitled to have their decertification case adjudicated by a Labor Board whose structure complies with the Constitution.”
“Despite the wishes of Big Labor and the NLRB who appear intent on squashing the rights of workers opposed to unionization and exercising unfettered power, federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the highest law of the land,” added Mix.
Starbucks Baristas Ask Labor Board to Allow Election to Remove SBWU Union to Proceed
Case cited as excuse for blocking workers’ vote recently ended
OKLAHOMA AND UTAH (October 9,2024)– Starbucks employees in Oklahoma City and Salt Lake City filed requests with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), asking the agency to proceed with holding an election at their respective stores to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from the workplace. Both employees, Amy Smith (OK) and Indya Fiessinger (UT), are receiving free legal representation from National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys.
Both employees filed petitions last year asking the NLRB to hold decertification elections so they could vote to remove SBWU from their workplace. However, at SBWU union officials’ request, the NLRB dismissed the petitions “subject to reinstatement” when the unfair labor practice case, Starbucks Corporation (01-CA-305952), was resolved. That case has now been closed and resolved.
With that case now resolved, the Starbucks petitioners ask the NLRB Regional Directors in Region 14 (covering Oklahoma City) and Region 27 (covering Salt Lake City) to reinstate their respective petitions so the NLRB can promptly schedule a secret ballot election to determine whether a majority of workers want to end union officials’ monopoly power at each store.
Smith submitted her decertification petition to the NLRB on October 4, 2023, while Fiessinger requested her vote to remove SBWU officials on July 25, 2023. Both petitions had enough employees’ signatures to meet the 30% necessary to trigger a decertification vote.
Oklahoma and Utah are both Right to Work states, meaning union payments must be voluntary and cannot be required as a condition of employment. However, under federal law, SBWU officials’ monopoly bargaining powers still allow them to impose a union contract on all employees at the store, even those who are not union members and who oppose SBWU’s so-called “representation.” A successful decertification vote would strip union officials of that extraordinary monopoly bargaining power.
The growing movement among Starbucks partners to eject unwanted union officials from their stores is part of a larger trend, with a 40% increase in worker decertification petitions from 2020 to 2023. Already, National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys have assisted Starbucks employees in over a dozen stores seeking votes to remove the SBWU union, however union officials have so far manipulated federal labor law to block any decertification votes from being held.
“These workers have waited over a year to finally have their decertification vote to decide whether or not they want the union in their workplace, and with the blocking charge now fully resolved, the NLRB should promptly schedule these elections,” commented Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Majority support is supposed to be fundamental to federal labor law, otherwise the NLRB is just protecting incumbent union bosses to the detriment of actual rank-and-file workers’ wishes. It is past time for these votes to be allowed to take place.”
Starbucks Employee Takes Case Challenging Federal Labor Board Structure as Unconstitutional to Court of Appeals
NY Starbucks workers are challenging NLRB that refuses to let them hold decertification votes to remove unwanted SBWU union
Washington D.C. (June 10, 2024) – Ariana Cortes and fellow plaintiff Logan Karam, two Starbucks employees from New York, are taking their groundbreaking lawsuit against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuit, initially filed by Cortes, and later joined by Karam, follows NLRB officials’ refusal to process their respective petitions requesting a vote to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace.
The lawsuit, filed with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, argues that the NLRA violates Article II of the Constitution by shielding NLRB Board Members from being removed at the discretion of the President. The appeal challenges the District Court decision that dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiffs lack legal standing. That decision did not address the underlying claim regarding whether the Labor Board’s structure complies with the requirements of the Constitution.
Multiple Starbucks Employees Are Suing the NLRB
On April 28, 2023, Cortes submitted a petition, supported by a majority of her colleagues, asking the NLRB to hold a decertification election at her workplace to remove SBWU union officials’ bargaining powers over workers at the store. However, NLRB Region 3 rejected Cortes’ petition, citing unfair labor practice accusations made by SBWU union officials against Starbucks. Notably, there was no established link between these allegations and the employees’ decertification request.
Similarly, Karam filed a decertification petition seeking a vote to remove the union at his Buffalo-area Starbucks store. Like Cortes’s petition, NLRB officials refuse to allow the vote to take place, citing claims made by SBWU officials. As a result the workers remain trapped under union “representation” they oppose.
Their lawsuit is not the only instance where Starbucks employees are challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB with free legal representation by National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. Reed Busler, an employee at the “Military Highway” Starbucks in Shavano Park, TX, brought a similar federal lawsuit against the NLRB in January, contending that the agency’s structure violates the separation of powers. Busler’s petition seeking a vote to remove the SBWU remains pending before the NLRB.
“Workers should never be trapped in union ranks they oppose, and they certainly shouldn’t be trapped on the whims of powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the U.S. Constitution,” stated Mark Mix, President of the National Right to Work Foundation. “Despite the wishes of Big Labor and the NLRB who appear intent on squashing free speech and exercising unfettered power, federal labor law is not exempt from the requirements of the highest law of the land.”
Buffalo Starbucks Barista Counters NLRB’s Move to Trap Workers in Union
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, January/February 2024 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Appeals Court brief defends workers’ right to oppose and decertify union
As Mark Mix explained on Newsmax TV, SBWU officials spent millions to infiltrate Starbucks with covert union agitators. That led to some of the first unionized Starbucks stores in Buffalo, NY, but now Buffalo baristas are trying to oust SBWU.
BUFFALO, NY – Although the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is charged with neutrally enforcing federal labor law, it has a notorious reputation for strengthening union officials’ power while diminishing the rights of workers opposed to union representation. Even with this biased history, the Biden Labor Board has already established itself as the most radically pro-forced unionism board in history.
The NLRB’s ideological bias is most apparent in its massive campaign to impose coercive unionism on Starbucks workers, while repeatedly blocking and undermining Starbucks employees’ attempts to remove unwanted union representation. While agency officials have approved hundreds of petitions for votes to bring the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union in, it has not let any of the roughly 20 worker-backed petitions seeking votes to remove the union advance to an election.
NLRB Cites Workers’ Desire to Oust Union as Reason to Impose Union
The NLRB’s anti-worker tactics have reached a new frontier. The NLRB is now citing a petition to remove the union as a reason why the union should not be removed and should serve as the basis for an injunction against Starbucks. NLRB lawyers are asking the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a District Court ruling and issue an injunction that would force Starbucks to engage in bargaining talks with the union, despite the fact that the decertification petition proves that a majority of employees at a Buffalo, NY, Starbucks want to throw the union out.
The decertification petition in question was collected by Starbucks barista Ariana Cortes. Cortes sought a vote to remove SBWU from her workplace, but the NLRB has refused to conduct the election. National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation staff attorneys represent Cortes and Starbucks employees in nine other locations where workers are seeking votes to remove the SBWU. Now staff attorneys have filed a legal brief for Cortes and fellow Buffalo Starbucks employee Logan Karam in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, countering the NLRB’s latest outrageous maneuver.
Cortes’ brief attacks the NLRB’s strategy as condescending toward workers. It argues the NLRB’s view that Cortes’ decertification must be stopped to protect workers is rooted in the wrongful idea that workers cannot think for themselves and lack independent reasons for wanting to get rid of a union.
Foundation Brief: NLRB Denies Workers’ Agency, Free Choice
“In reality, Cortes collected her petition because of the Union’s anti-employee behavior,” the brief says.
Foundation attorneys also contend in Cortes’ brief that what the NLRB is seeking from the Second Circuit — a 10(j) injunction under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) that will force Starbucks managers into working with SBWU union bosses to craft a monopoly bargaining contract — is extreme. Such injunctions can only be ordered when the harm done to workers in their absence would be “irreparable.” Foundation attorneys argue Cortes’ and other employees’ attempts to decertify do not make any injuries suffered by the union “irreparable.”
Dangerous Precedent Set If Court Grants Injunction That Undermines Right to Remove Unwanted Unions
If the Second Circuit grants the NLRB’s request for an injunction on behalf of SBWU union bosses, it would be the first time that a federal court has ordered a Starbucks store to engage in bargaining with union bosses on the basis of an employee’s decertification petition.
“The NLRB is digging an even deeper grave for employees trying to exercise their rights to remove an unwanted union from their workplace,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Board’s attempt to twist the limited employee rights to throw out a union into a reason to force a union upon employees is a new low.
“Ariana Cortes and Logan Karam are taking a courageous stand to ensure their coworkers aren’t disenfranchised and trapped under a union hierarchy they oppose, and we’re proud to support them,” Mix added.
Foundation Lawsuit: Biden NLRB Structure Violates the U.S. Constitution
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Groundbreaking suit filed for Starbucks employee who was denied vote to oust unwanted union bosses
Starbucks employee Ariana Cortes’ Foundation attorney, Aaron Solem (right), is making a cutting-edge argument targeting the NLRB’s lack of accountability.
WASHINGTON, DC – The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is supposed to protect the right of workers to freely choose whether to associate with a union or not. The NLRB is also charged with holding unions and employers accountable when they violate worker rights. Too often, however, it has simply acted as an agency that generates policies to entrench union bosses’ power over workers while shielding union bosses from any kind of liability.
A new federal lawsuit from a National Right to Work Foundation-backed Starbucks employee, currently pending at the D.C. District Court, could upend the federal agency and result in a ruling that the current Labor Board’s structure violates the Constitution.
Employee Challenges NLRB Bureaucrats’ Protections from Presidential Removal
Ariana Cortes, a worker at the Buffalo, NY, “Del-Chip” Starbucks branch, hit the NLRB with the groundbreaking lawsuit in October, contending that the federal agency’s current structure violates the separation of powers mandated by the Constitution.
Cortes’ suit follows Foundation attorneys’ defense of her and her coworkers’ petition requesting a vote to remove Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union officials from their workplace. Regional NLRB officials dismissed Cortes’ majority-backed petition based on SBWU allegations against Starbucks management that have no proven connection to Cortes and her coworkers’ desire for a union decertification vote.
Cortes’ lawsuit argues that because NLRB members cannot be removed at-will by the President, the NLRB’s structure violates Article II of the Constitution. Under Article II, the lawsuit contends, the President must have the power to remove officials that exercise substantial executive power.
Because the NLRB enforces federal labor law, manages union elections, and can issue legally binding rules and regulations, the lawsuit contends that the agency exercises substantial executive power. Therefore, it falls within the scope of the President’s power to remove officials at will. However, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the law that established the NLRB, restricts the President’s ability to remove Board members except for neglect of duty or malfeasance.
“[T]hese restrictions are impermissible limitations on the President’s ability to remove Board members and violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Thus, the Board, as currently constituted, is unconstitutional,” the complaint states.
Lawsuit: Unconstitutional NLRB Proceedings Must Stop
Cortes’ new federal lawsuit seeks a declaration from the District Court that the structure of the NLRB as it currently exists is unconstitutional.
“For too long the NLRB, especially the current Board, has operated as a union boss-friendly kangaroo court, complete with powerful bureaucrats who exercise unaccountable power in violation of the Constitution,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “The NLRB’s operation outside constitutional norms is easily exploited by Big Labor.”
“But as the story of Ms. Cortes shows, the NLRB’s unchecked power creates real harms for workers’ rights, especially when workers seek to free themselves from the control of union bosses they disagree with,” Messenger added.
Karma Catches Up to SEIU Officials as Philly Coffee Shop Workers Oust Union
The following article is from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s bi-monthly Foundation Action Newsletter, November/December 2023 edition. To view other editions of Foundation Action or to sign up for a free subscription, click here.
Good Karma Café coffee shop employees vote out SEIU officials also opposed by many Starbucks workers
SEIU officials’ aggressive campaign targeting coffee shop employees across the country for union control is fast unravelling, as workers nationwide are now exercising their right to vote unions out, often with Foundation aid.
PHILADELPHIA, PA – Workers United (WU), the same union that runs Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) unions across the country, has been the subject of considerable media attention for its top-down organizing campaign against Starbucks. Little do people know that WU’s puppet masters at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) have expended millions of dollars in hiring union activists to agitate for union control at these shops — including “salts,” paid union agents that pose as normal employees but often quit soon after they’ve achieved their actual goal of installing the union.
However, aggressive and deceptive WU union tactics did not stop Marco Camponeschi and his coworkers at two locations of Good Karma Café in Philadelphia from voting out the union with free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.
Camponeschi submitted a petition in August asking the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 4 in Philadelphia to hold a vote to remove the union. The petition contained signatures from enough of his colleagues to prompt the election, and this September, the Good Karma employees voted to send WU officials packing.
Signs of SEIU “Salt” Tactics in Philly
“After the Workers United union was installed, there was a lot of employee turnover, and we soon found ourselves very short-staffed,” Camponeschi commented before the vote. Employee turnover after a union’s installation often indicates “salts” may have been present.
Pennsylvania, because of its lack of Right to Work protections for its private sector employees, permits union officials to make deals with employers that require workers to pay union dues just to stay employed. So by nixing the union, Camponeschi and his coworkers ended both forced union representation and the threat of forced dues. In states with Right to Work laws, in contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary and the choice of each individual worker.
Coffee Workers Leading Nationwide Charge to Boot Out Unwanted Unions
Since the beginning of this year, Starbucks employees in Manhattan, NY; Buffalo, NY; Pittsburgh, PA; Bloomington, MN; Salt Lake City, UT; Oklahoma City, OK; and Greenville, SC, have all sought free Foundation legal aid in pursuing decertification efforts against Workers United union bosses at the NLRB.
Outside of coffee shops, union decertification efforts are becoming much more common. Currently, the NLRB’s data shows a unionized private sector worker is far more likely to be involved in a decertification effort than their nonunion counterpart is to be involved in a unionization campaign. NLRB statistics also show that the number of worker-filed decertification petitions has increased each of the last three years.
“Workers United union officials seem to have a penchant for trying to expand their control over employees without regard for the employees’ interests,” commented National Right to Work Foundation Vice President and Legal Director William Messenger. “So it’s unsurprising that coffee employees nationwide are banding together to vote Workers United out.
“While we’re glad the Good Karma employees were able to successfully exercise their right to oust the unwanted union, it should be noted that NLRB officials across the country are blocking Starbucks employees from exercising that same right at the behest of Workers United union officials,” Messenger added. “Workers should be allowed to vote out unwanted unions, and the NLRB should not stifle that right based on union officials’ whims. That’s especially important as the Biden NLRB seeks to make several rule changes which will make it harder for workers to vote out union officials.”
Albany Starbucks Employees Seek Vote to Kick Out SBWU Union
“This isn’t what we signed up for” says NY worker who joins Starbucks partners across the country in demanding union ousters
Albany, NY (March 1, 2024) – A partner of the Stuyvesant Plaza Starbucks in Albany has filed a petition with National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Region 3, asking the federal agency to hold a vote at her workplace to remove (or “decertify”) the Starbucks Workers United (SBWU) union. The employee, Rayghan Dowey, received free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation in submitting her petition.
“This isn’t what we signed up for, a new team has started to come in [to the Stuyvesant Plaza Starbucks] and we want to make sure that the voice that was once heard is still being heard two years later,” commented Dowey regarding the union. “We want to bring the inclusivity, community, and culture back. The culture we once had, that we were promised to get back, we never got to see.”
Dowey’s petition contains signatures from enough coworkers at her store to trigger a decertification vote under NLRB rules. Because New York lacks Right to Work protections for its private sector workers, SBWU union bosses can enter into contracts that compel Dowey and her coworkers to pay union dues as a condition of keeping their jobs. In Right to Work states, in contrast, union membership and all union financial support are strictly voluntary.
However, in both Right to Work and non-Right to Work states, union officials in a unionized workplace are empowered by federal law to impose a union contract on all employees in a work unit, including those who oppose the union. A successful decertification vote strips union officials of that power.
Amid Growing Requests to Remove SBWU, Starbucks Workers Also Challenge NLRB Authority
Dowey and her colleagues join Starbucks partners and other coffee company employees across the country in banding together to vote out SBWU union officials. In the past year, Starbucks employees in Manhattan, NY; two Buffalo, NY locations; Pittsburgh, PA; Bloomington, MN; Salt Lake City, UT; Greenville, SC; Oklahoma City, OK; San Antonio, TX; and Philadelphia, PA, have all sought free Foundation legal aid in filing or defending decertification petitions at the NLRB. Foundation attorneys have helped employees at independent Philadelphia coffee shops Good Karma Café and Ultimo Coffee successfully oust Workers United union officials, who are affiliated with SBWU.
Many employees of Starbucks or other coffee establishments are requesting decertification votes from the NLRB roughly one year after union bosses attained power in their workplaces, which is the earliest opportunity afforded by federal law to do so. Starbucks employees in particular were the targets of a multi-year, aggressive unionization campaign by SBWU, in which the union spent millions on paid union agents – including “salts” who obtained jobs at Starbucks locations with the covert mission of installing union power.
However, rather than respect the choice of workers opposed to the union, SBWU union officials are attempting to prevent Starbucks workers nationwide from exercising their right to decertify the union with charges against Starbucks management that are currently holding up the elections. Currently, Foundation staff attorneys are representing workers in about a dozen Starbucks stores seeking decertification votes.
NLRB Request for Review: Region Violating Starbucks Workers’ Rights by Blocking Vote
In fact, Foundation attorneys just filed a request for review with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, DC, for Indya Fiessinger, a Starbucks employee at a Salt Lake City-area location who filed a petition for a decertification vote. The brief argues an NLRB Regional Director incorrectly applied federal law to block the decertification election requested by the workers at the store, and refused to even hold a hearing on the matter.
Foundation attorneys are also representing Buffalo, NY, and San Antonio, TX, Starbucks workers in challenging the NLRB as an unconstitutionally-structured federal agency. In two federal lawsuits now at the district court level, Starbucks employees argue that NLRB bureaucrats’ removal protections shield them from accountability in violation of separation of powers doctrines in the Constitution.
“Despite the wave of Starbucks workers who want to exercise their right to free themselves from unwanted union representation, SBWU union officials are twisting the law to trap workers under the union’s influence against their will,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “Federal labor law should protect workers who want to exercise their free choice rights, not power-hungry union bosses, and Foundation attorneys are proud to represent Ms. Dowey and other Starbucks workers who oppose SBWU officials’ coercive reign.”
Right to Work Foundation SCOTUS Brief: Workers Exercising Right to Oppose Unions Isn’t “Harm” to Be Eliminated
In case to be heard by Court, Foundation argues NLRB wrongly asserts that independent-minded opposition to unions can justify injunctions
Washington, DC (February 29, 2024) – The National Right to Work Foundation has filed an amicus brief in Starbucks Corporation v. McKinney, a case set to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court later this term that has major implications for the rights of workers who oppose union power in their workplaces.
In the brief, Foundation staff attorneys argue that federal courts should reject National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) requests for preliminary injunctions when the Labor Board claims employee discontent with a union is a “harm” that should be redressed. These injunctions, called 10(j) injunctions, are frequently used by the NLRB to force employers into certain union-demanded behavior, despite the NLRB not having fully adjudicated the underlying union allegations.
The brief points out that an employee’s decision not to support a union is not a harm that needs to be addressed, but rather a “legitimate choice employees have a right to make” under both the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the First Amendment to the Constitution.
“Only if the NLRB can prove an employee was coerced by an employer to oppose a union against his or her will can that employee’s lack of support for the union be considered any sort of a harm to be redressed,” the brief says. “If the NLRB cannot muster such evidence, then the fact that employees are exercising their statutory and constitutional rights…provides no basis for [an] injunction.”
Foundation: Courts Shouldn’t Accept NLRB’s Assumption that Workers Want to Join Unions
In the Starbucks v. McKinney case, the NLRB sought an injunction at the behest of Starbucks Workers United (SBWU-SEIU) union officials against Starbucks for unfair labor practices the company allegedly committed at a location in Memphis, Tennessee. A major reason cited by the NLRB for the requested injunction was the fact that workers may choose to oppose the union if the injunction isn’t issued.
The case presents the question of what standard courts should use when evaluating whether to grant NLRB-requested injunctions under the NLRA. The Foundation brief opposes the lax standard that the NLRB and union officials are urging courts to use when deciding whether to issue injunctions.
That standard asks only whether alleged unfair labor practices could potentially coerce workers into not supporting a union. Foundation attorneys argue that “the Court must require the NLRB to prove employees were unlawfully coerced not to support a union because, absent such proof, employees have every right to make that choice” (emphasis added).
Foundation-Backed Starbucks Workers Disprove Specious NLRB Theory
Foundation staff attorneys are currently representing Starbucks employees at several locations across the country who seek to vote out (or “decertify”) the SBWU union. In the brief, Foundation attorneys point out that the NLRB in a similar case (Leslie v. Starbucks Corp.) cited a Foundation-backed union decertification case as a reason that an injunction should be issued against the company – despite the fact that the workers themselves say their opposition to the union had nothing to do with the conduct the union was challenging in that case.
“In taking this position, the NLRB has created a self-satisfying ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ dynamic for itself,” the brief reads. “Evidence that employees support a union is taken to mean they want to support the union. Evidence that employees oppose a union is taken to mean their employer must have wrongfully caused the employees not to support the union. All evidence conveniently leads to the conclusion desired by current NLRB leadership: employees should support unions.”
The case is set to be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 23, with a decision expected by the end of the High Court’s term in June.
“The Biden NLRB is working hand in glove with unions to advance a standard that treats worker dissent from unions as a harm to be eradicated, rather than a decision made by competent adults,” commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. “The Supreme Court in Starbucks v. McKinney must reject the idea that NLRB bureaucrats can simply twist evidence of legitimate worker discontent with unions into a tool to aid union bosses in gaining leverage over businesses and employees.”
