On August 8, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) dealt another blow to Starbucks and its efforts to control unionization across its locations.
At the end of 2020 during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Board issued an opinion in Aspirus Keweenaw[1] setting forth five main factors and a sixth catch-all factor the Board should consider in determining whether to permit mail-ballot union elections in the age of COVID-19, stating the presence of at least one of the following factors can trigger a mail-ballot vote:
On July 25, in an effort to prevent a mail-in election at a Washington state location, Starbucks requested that the Board revisit the factors identified in Aspirus Keweenaw.
The crux of Starbucks’ argument was that things have changed since the Aspirus Keweenaw decision. For example, since November 2020, COVID-19 vaccines are widely available and nearly 90% of adults have received at least one dose of a vaccine.[2] Starbucks also argued that a data trend, such as the 14-day trend in new testing positivity rates, “is now understood to be an unreliable and skewed statistic.”[3]
Despite these arguments, the Board decided that the “Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Elections is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.”[4] Nevertheless, two of the three Board members indicated in a footnote that while they believe the decision is correct in light of the majority opinion in Aspirus Keweenaw, the factors set forth in Aspirus Keweenaw need to be revisited in the appropriate proceeding.
While this decision permitted the present mail-in campaign to proceed, it suggests that the Board is prepared to move away from the lenient standards in Aspirus Keweenaw.
This advisory bulletin may be reproduced, in whole or in part, with the prior permission of Thompson Hine LLP and acknowledgment of its source and copyright. This publication is intended to inform clients about legal matters of current interest. It is not intended as legal advice. Readers should not act upon the information contained in it without professional counsel.
This document may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.
© 2022 THOMPSON HINE LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
[1] Aspirus Keweenaw, 370 NLRB No. 45 (2020).
[2] Starbucks Request for Review of D&DE at 18.
[3] Id. at 19.
[4] Starbucks Corp., N.L.R.B., Case 19-RC-297142, 8/8/22.