The US Supreme Court seemed to support Starbucks on Tuesday in a case that might make it more challenging for the federal government to request injunctions if it believes a company is disrupting unionization efforts.
During oral arguments, the Justices pointed out that Congress mandates the National Labor Relations Board to pursue these injunctions in federal court, granting courts the responsibility to weigh various factors, including the likelihood of the board's success in its administrative case against a company.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that the district court acted as an independent check and suggested that it should simply fulfill its designated role, given the authority it has been granted. However, the NLRB argues that since 1947, the National Labor Relations Act, the law overseeing the agency, has permitted courts to issue temporary injunctions if they deem the request just and proper, and contends that the law does not mandate proof of additional factors and restrict the courts' involvement.
NLRB's Court Order for Starbucks' Workers Termination
The case before the high court originated in February 2022 when Starbucks terminated seven employees organizing a union at their Tennessee store. The NLRB secured a court order mandating the company to reinstate the workers. At the same time, the case progressed through the agency's administrative procedures, whose proceedings can last up to two years.
READ ALSO : Starbucks Anti-Union Tactics Not True, Calling It Pure Propaganda Amidst Employee Relations Controversy
In August 2022, a district court judge sided with the NLRB and issued a temporary injunction directing Starbucks to reinstate the workers. Following the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals' affirmation of this decision, Starbucks appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.
According to Workers United, the union organizing Starbucks workers, five out of the seven workers are still employed at the Memphis store, which voted to unionize in June 2022, while the other two continue to be engaged in the unionizing effort.
The Supreme Court's Intervention
Starbucks requested the Supreme Court's intervention, asserting that federal appeals courts lack consensus on the criteria the NLRB must satisfy when seeking a temporary injunction against a company.
In examining the events at the Starbucks store in Memphis, the Sixth Circuit demanded two conditions from the NLRB: demonstrating reasonable cause to suspect unfair labor practices and showing that a restraining order would be an appropriate remedy. However, other federal appeals courts have imposed a more stringent four-factor test on the NLRB, which is being used when other federal agencies seek restraining orders. This test includes demonstrating the likelihood of success in the administrative case and proving that employees would endure irreparable harm without an injunction.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed to align with the NLRB's argument that Congress intended the agency to operate under a different standard. She observed that the NLRB typically determines its likelihood of success in a case before seeking an injunction. She also highlighted the rarity of injunctions, noting that in the NLRB's 2023 fiscal year, it received 19,869 charges of unfair labor practices but pursued just 14 cases seeking temporary injunctions.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor doubted whether the Supreme Court's decision would still be relevant since the injunction might have already lapsed, and an NLRB judge could have issued a ruling in the Starbucks case by the time the court's decision was announced. However, she also concurs that the courts should have a more defined role in NLRB cases.
The oral arguments occurred amid a diminishing hostility between Workers United and Starbucks. Both parties announced in February their intention to resume discussions to reach contract agreements this year. Starbucks and union representatives scheduled their first bargaining session in almost a year for Wednesday.
According to the NLRB, employees at 424 company-owned US Starbucks stores have voted to unionize since late 2021, but none has managed to finalize a labor agreement with Starbucks.
