US Supreme Court leans towards Starbucks in workers’ case

WASHINGTON, D.C.: This week, U.S. Supreme Court justices indicated support for Starbucks’ legal challenge to a judicial order requiring it to re-hire seven Memphis branch employees who were fired while pursuing unionization.

The justices heard arguments in the Seattle-based company’s appeal of a lower court’s approval of an injunction sought by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordering reinstatement of the workers.

The case could make it more difficult to rapidly stop labor practices challenged as unfair under federal law the NLRB is resolving the complaint.

The dispute is centered on the legal standard that federal courts must use to issue a preliminary injunction requested by the NLRB under a federal law known as the National Labor Relations Act.

Such interim orders aim to end unfair labor practices while the board is hearing a case.

A court can grant an injunction if it is deemed "just and proper" under that law’s section 10(j).

The judge who granted the injunction should have used a stringent four-factor test to decide on the injunction, as courts usually do in non-labor disputes, the Seattle-based coffee chain argued.

Some Supreme Court justices agree that courts, not the NLRB, should determine the likelihood of success in a case before issuing an injunction.

Across the U.S., around 400 Starbucks branches with more than 10,000 employees have unionized.

Hundreds of complaints have been filed with the NLRB accusing Starbucks of unlawful labor practices, such as firing union supporters, spying on workers, and closing stores during labor campaigns.

Starbucks has denied any wrongdoing, claiming that it respects the right of workers to decide whether to unionize.