Starbucks Settles ULP Charges Over Firing At Michigan Store, But Union Refuses to Sign
Submitted on Thu, 02/05/2009 - 5:00pm
Disclaimer - The opinions of the author do not necessarily match those of the IWW. The image pictured to the right did not appear in the original article, we have added it here to provide a visual perspective. This article is reposted in accordance to Fair Use guidelines.
A National Labor Relations Board regional director in Detroit Jan. 16
approved a settlement agreement with Starbucks Corp. resolving allegations of
unfair labor practices by the Starbucks Workers Union (SWU), an affiliate of the
Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), filed with NLRB Region 7 (Starbucks Corp.
d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Co., N.L.R.B. Reg. Dir., No. 7-CA-51190, settlement
approved 1/16/09).
The NLRB regional office in Detroit had found sufficient evidence to
establish an employer violation of the National Labor Relations Act at a
Starbucks store in Grand Rapids, Mich., according to Stephen Glasser, NLRB
regional director for Region 7.
The Grand Rapids Starbucks Workers Union (SWU) filed several charges April
15, one of which NLRB found to be a possible violation of the act. On behalf of
fired worker Cole Dorsey, SWU claimed Starbucks illegally fired a worker who had
been involved in union activities.
Glasser said NLRB concluded there was sufficient evidence to establish
Dorsey was fired for his union activities and support for the union. "We thought
we could prove that," he told BNA Jan. 9. Starbucks had said it fired Dorsey for
attendance issues, Glasser said.
Reinstatement Not Required.
Under the settlement, reached one day before a trial was to be held,
Starbucks will expunge record of the termination from the employee's personnel
file and will post a notice for 60 days at the Grand Rapids, Mich., store
outlining employees' rights under the NLRA.
Under the settlement, Starbucks is not required to reinstate the employee
or issue back pay. Although the union had sought Dorsey's reinstatement, NLRB
determined that it would not be appropriate, Glasser said.
NLRB would not agree to allow a denial of company wrongdoing in the
settlement, but that does not mean Starbucks admits to wrongdoing, Glasser told
BNA Jan. 21.
The union issued a statement Jan. 13 saying it is pleased the board found
that ?Starbucks violated federal labor law by firing? Dorsey. However, "since
the SWU prefers open trials to settlements and because Mr. Dorsey was not
awarded the full array of remedies we believe he is entitled to, the union will
not be joining the agreement between Starbucks and the NLRB."
SWU said Dorsey is "an outspoken union member working with his co-workers
to achieve secure work hours and fairness on the job."
Glasser approved the settlement without a signature of a union
representative after the union declined to sign the settlement.
The union does not intend to appeal the settlement to the NLRB office in
Washington, D.C., Daniel Gross, an IWW organizer and former Starbucks employee,
said Jan. 21.
Among the charges SWU filed in April, the union also claimed Starbucks had
violated an earlier settlement agreement of unfair labor practice charges
reached in October 2007 (195 DLR A-5, 10/10/07). In that settlement agreement,
the employer said it will not interrogate employees about union activities or
restrain, coerce, or interfere with employee rights under the NLRA.
Dorsey told BNA Jan. 9 that if the case had gone to trial, the union would
have been able to raise other issues as evidence. Dorsey maintained that he was
fired for filing a safety report with the Michigan Occupational Safety and
Health Administration about employees' hazardous mold concerns as the result of
an air conditioner leak at the store. Dorsey said Starbucks lawyers had
interrogated him about a meeting with MIOSHA.
In a Jan. 21 statement, Starbucks said, "We feel vindicated as the
agreement does not require reinstatement of or back pay to a partner whose
termination we believe was appropriate."
Earlier Developments.
The settlement in Grand Rapids is the latest incident involving SWU claims
of anti-union practices at Starbucks.
In December, an NLRB administrative law judge found Starbucks had violated
workers' rights by restricting activity on behalf of SWU and by firing three
workers because of their support for the labor organization (249 DLR A-1,
12/30/08). Gross was one of the three workers the ALJ found was fired for his
union support.
In October, Starbucks settled NLRB charges of unfair labor practices by
reinstating an employee in Minneapolis, providing back pay, and removing record
of the discipline from his personnel records (195 DLR A-9, 10/8/08). The alleged
unfair labor practice allegations in Minneapolis that NLRB determined to be
meritorious were related to concerted, protected activities, but not to union
activities.
In March 2006, Starbucks and IWW Industrial Union 660 reached a settlement
in New York of unfair labor practice charges alleging that two workers were
discharged for engaging in protected union activity (47 DLR A-2, 3/10/06).
© 2009, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.