Starbucks Corporation, (2023)

• Date: 27 October 2023

JD(SF)–33–23

Mill Valley & West Roseville, CA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

DIVISION OF JUDGES

STARBUCKS CORPORATION

and Cases 20–CA–298631

20–CA–298634

20–CA–309341

WORKERS UNITED

Matthew Peterson, Esq.,

for the General Counsel.

Michael Pedhirney, Esq.,

Matthew D. Lerner, Esq.,

Shelia Hanley, Esq.,

Littler Mendelson P.C.,

for the Respondent.

Marina Multhap, Esq.,

for the Charging Party.

DECISION

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

ELEANOR LAWS, Administrative Law Judge. This case was tried in San Francisco,

California, and Sacramento, California, on June 27-28, July 10,and July 25, 2023.1Workers

United (the Charging Party or Union) filed various chargesbetween June 30, 2022, and

December 21, 2022.2After issuing individual complaints in each of the above case numbers, the

General Counsel issued an order consolidating the complaints on May 12, 2023.Starbucks

1Testimony was completed on July 10. The record remained open because of some problems related

to the production of electronically stored information (ESI), which are detailed on the record. I heard

argument about the ESI matter, admitted exhibits, and closed the record via Zoom on July 25. No witness

testimony occurred via video, and therefore the requirements of Rule 102.35(c) were not implicated.

2All dates are in 2022 unless otherwise indicated.

JD(SF)–33–23

Corporation (the Respondent or Starbucks) timely answered each complaint, denying all material

allegations and setting forth its defenses.

The complaints involve two Starbucks stores, one in Mill Valley, California, and another

in West Roseville, California. The first Mill Valley complaint (Mill Valley 1, 20-CA-298634), 5

issued on October 14, 2022, alleges the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National

Labor Relations Act (the Act), by creating the impression it was surveilling its employees during

a union organizing campaign, instructing an employee to come to the store manager directly with

any issues about materials the Respondent posted at the store or enforcement of its policies about

such postings, requiring the employees to attend captive-audience meetings where the store 10

manager interrogated employees about their union support,3telling employees that the

Respondent had begun to enforce a policyregarding postings and that the Respondent would

start to enforce another policy, removing pro-union materials from the store’s community board,

instructing an employee that she expected not to hear reports that she had been discussing the

Union, and disparately applying its rule regarding solicitation and distribution of materials. The 15

Mill Valley 1 complaint further alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of

the Act by failing and refusing to offer employee Ella Clark a position as a barista trainer.

The second Mill Valley Complaint (Mill Valley 2, 20-CA-309341), issued on March 2,

2023, alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3), (4) and (1) of the Act by issuing a 20

corrective action to Clark.

The West Roseville complaint (20-CA-298631), issued on October 7, 2022, alleges the

Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by soliciting employee grievances and impliedly

promising to remedy them and creating an impression that their union activities were under 25

surveillance. Alternatively, the complaint alleges the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1)

by increasing its supervision of employees.

On the entire record, including my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, and

after considering the briefs filed by the General Counsel, the Respondent, and the Charging 30

Party, I make the following

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. JURISDICTION35

The Respondent is a Washington State corporation with facilities located in Mill Valley,

California, and Roseville, California. At all relevant times, the Respondent annually derived

3The alleged interrogation was added to the complaint pursuant to an amendment. (GC Exh. 2; Tr. 9–

16.) The amendment also changed paragraph 10 to cure the original complaint’s failure to allege all of the

allegations in paragraph 7 violated Section 8(a)(1).

Abbreviations used in this decision are as follows: “Tr.” for transcript; “R Exh.” for Respondent’s

exhibit; “GC Exh.” for General Counsel’s exhibit; “U Exh.” for Union exhibit; “GC Br.” for General

Counsel’s brief; and “R Br.” for the Respondent’s brief, and “U Br.” for the Union’s brief. Although I

have included several citations to the record to highlight particular testimony or exhibits, I emphasize that

my findings and conclusions are based not solely on the evidence specifically cited but rather are based

my review and consideration of the entire record.

JD(SF)–33–23

3

gross revenues in excess of $500,000 and purchased and received goods valued at more than

$5,000 from points outside the State of California. The Respondent admits, and I find, that it is

an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act

and that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

5

II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES

A. Background

Starbucks is a household name at this point, operating over 9,000 retail stores selling 10

beverages and food. Organizationally, each Starbucks store is part of a district, which in turn is

part of a larger area. Relevant here, Starbucks’ organizational hierarchy includes area directors,

district managers, store managers, assistant store managers, shift supervisors, and baristas, some

of whom serve as barista trainers.

15

Starbuck’s mission is to “inspire and nurture the human spirit—one person, one cup, and

one neighborhood at a time.” (GC Exh. 12 p. 3; Tr. 375.) Its values include:

Creating a culture of warmth and belonging where everyone is welcome.

Acting with courage challenging the status quo and finding new ways to grow our 20

company and each other.

Being present, connecting with transparency, dignity and respect.

Delivering our best in all we do, holding ourselves accountable for results.

(Id.)25

1. Discipline

When Starbucks employees, referred to as “partners,” commit infractions, they are

subject to varying degrees of discipline depending on the nature and frequency of the behavior at 30

issue. Generally, before any written discipline issues,for non-egregious breaches of procedure or

actions inconsistent with a partner’s job responsibilities, the store manager has coaching

conversations with the partner. In these conversations, the manager pullsthe partner aside and

coaches them about how their actions are not in line with Starbucks’ expectations. (Tr. 441.)

35

For written discipline, Starbucks uses a document called a “Corrective Action Form”

which has boxes to check for the level of discipline being issued. The first is a “Documented

Coaching,” the second is a “Written Warning,” and the third and final box is a “Final Written

Warning.” (GC Exh. 12.) If corrective actions do not correct the behavior, or if an employee

commits an infraction warranting termination, they may be separated with a “Separation Form.”40

(Tr. 475.) A documented coaching is issued after a pattern of behavior continues despiteprevious

coaching conversations with the partner. It is an escalation of accountability that occurs when the

behavior has not been corrected or when the employee commits a more serious offense. The next

level of discipline is a written warning, then a final written warning. The severity of the behavior

and whether a pattern persists are both considered when escalating the level of discipline.45

Managers use a tool called “virtual coach”to determine the level of discipline,and also seek