Howard Schultz broke labor law by telling employee, ‘If you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can go work for another company’

Starbucks’ Howard Schultz, then interim CEO, violated federal labor law in 2022 by telling a California barista who raised concerns about unionization that “if you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can go work for another company.” ”

A National Labor Relations Board decision Wednesday said Schultz’s statement was an unlawful coercive threat.

The decision underscores the troubled relationship Starbucks has had with organized labor as more and more workers at its stores join unions.

In 2022, while serving as interim CEO, Schultz attended a corporate event in Long Beach, California, to address and improve working conditions in Starbucks stores. According to the NLRB, Barista Madison Hall attempted to highlight what they described as the benefits of unionization and Starbucks’ alleged history of unfair labor practices.

Schultz asked them, “Why are you guys mad at Starbucks?” He said the event was not the place to discuss union issues and then made the comment about working elsewhere. According to the administrative decision, he had “an angry expression on his face.” The NLRB decision affirms an administrative law judge’s decision from October 2023.

In a statement, Starbucks said it disagrees with the board’s decision. “Our focus remains on training and supporting our managers to ensure our partners’ rights to organize are respected and to continue to make progress in our conversations with Workers United,” a company spokesperson said Thursday in a statement.

Although Schultz stepped down in March 2023 after serving his third time as CEO, he remains associated with the company. When he retired from Starbucks’ board of directors last September, the company gave him the title of “lifetime chairman emeritus.”

“We note that the judge has classified defendant’s top official, Interim CEO Schultz, as a ‘legendary leader,’ a status that would exacerbate the coercive nature of Schultz’s statement,” the board’s decision said. management.

Since the first Starbucks location in Buffalo, New York, became unionized in 2021, the coffee chain has been involved in hundreds of labor disputes over its alleged union-busting tactics. One case, Starbucks v. McKinney, reached the Supreme Court in June over seven employees who were fired after trying to unionize. The Supreme Court sided with Starbucks.

An NLRB administrative law judge previously said Starbucks had shown “egregious and widespread misconduct” in dealing with employees involved in efforts to unionize Buffalo stores, including the first unionized location. Starbucks repeatedly sent high-level executives to Buffalo-area stores in a “ruthless” effort, the judge wrote, which “likely had a lasting impact on the importance of voting against representation.”

The story continues

Starbucks said in a statement at the time that it is “considering all options to obtain further legal review,” adding that “we believe the decision and remedies imposed are inappropriate given the record of this case.”

According to the union, on October 1, the 500th Starbucks location in Washington state voted to unionize.

The NLRB on Wednesday ordered Starbucks to stop threatening to fire workers for union activity and said it must post a notice of workers’ rights in all its Long Beach stores.

“We are pleased to see that the NLRB continues to stand up for workers and our legal right to organize. At the same time, we are focused on the future and proud to be taking the company in a new direction,” Michelle Eisen, co-chair of the Starbucks Workers United national organizing committee and bargaining delegate, said in a statement to CNN on Thursday.

Danielle Wiener-Bronner contributed to this report.

For more CNN news and newsletters, create an account at CNN.com