The American Dream Mall in the meadowlands has been in a legal dispute for the past two years concerning allegations of two workers' termination over organizing a union. 

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sought a court order to reinstate Jose Teran and Luis Valera, employed by HSA Cleaning, who were reinstated this spring with corresponding back pay.

However, workers may face less favorable outcomes if a comparable legal scenario were to happen presently, as cautioned by labor experts because of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling issued on Thursday, which favored Starbucksin a case where seven employees claimed they were dismissed for unionizing efforts.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The National Labor Relations Board normally turns to court orders when it suspects any company of unlawfully suppressing union organizing efforts.

After Starbucks terminated seven employees at a Tennessee coffee shop, a group later dubbed the Memphis 7 in union circles for breaching company policies, such as allowing a news crew into a closed coffee shop without authorization, the union filed a complaint with the NLRB. However, the NLRB believed Starbucks had likely misbehaved and requested a court to mandate the rehiring of the workers. At the same time, the board conducted an extensive review to reach a final decision. A district judge then ordered Starbucks to reinstate the workers during the review process.

The global coffee giant appealed the case to the Supreme Court, contending that the judge should have applied stricter criteria in making the ruling, such as determining whether there was reasonable cause to believe that Starbucks had engaged in unfair labor practices or whether the temporary relief was deemed just and proper, as outlined in the National Labor Relations Act. In contrast, other courts typically assess such requests using the conventional four-factor test for injunctions unrelated to labor law.

The Justice Department asserted that Congress intended a restricted role for courts to avoid extensive district court intervention in labor disputes. In its decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court mandated using the four-factor test. It directed the district court to reassess its ruling on the Memphis 7 unless Congress provided explicit instructions to the contrary.

READ ALSO: Starbucks Gains US Supreme Court Support on Challenging Federal Courts' Injunction Requests

Implications to The New Jersey Workers

Kevin Brown, the New Jersey director for 32BJ Service Employees International Union, representing the American Dream cleaners, stated that future injunctions would be more challenging to obtain than the process they went through. Both workers were reinstated with back pay following the April order. However, the NLRB contended that firing these workers could potentially deter other cleaners at American Dream from pursuing union organization efforts, which he described as a chilling effect. Brown also expressed that a comparable situation, where workers are terminated and subsequently reinstated due to indications that their dismissals were linked to union activities, would be less probable in future instances.

Harvey Whille, president of the Local 1262 chapter of the grocery store union United Food and Commercial Workers, noted that recent developments have altered the precedent of individuals fired for union activity contesting their dismissal, potentially leading to reinstatement and compensation.

James Cooney, a Rutgers University's labor and employment law professor, pointed out that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which also covers New Jersey, historically used a more lenient "two-factor" test, siding with the NLRB and labor unions to determine if there was reasonable cause for unfair labor practices by employers. However, this precedent may no longer hold following the recent ruling, potentially reducing the likelihood of favorable rulings for the NLRB and labor unions in federal courts in New Jersey. As per Cooney, the recent developments could increase the difficulty for the NLRB in taking action, prompting a more significant challenge for the board seeking injunctions in scenarios where a union seeks to organize and the employer terminates an employee. 

RELATED ARTICLE: Starbucks, Workers United Making Significant Progress, Commit to Working Together Towards Reaching A Collective Bargaining Agreement