A National Labor Relations Board administrative judge has opted not to delve into Starbucks' claims that the agency's structure is unconstitutional, while ruling that the coffee chain committed various labor law violations at a unionized New Orleans store.
Administrative Law Judge Geoffrey Carter in a decision on Friday said he lacks the authority to rule on constitutional issues, and the claims made by Starbucks — along with SpaceX, Amazon, and Trader Joe's in other cases — are "a matter for the federal courts to decide."
"Ruling on the constitutional question here would entail halting (at least in part) the operation of the agency, and such a step would be in tension with my duty to faithfully administer the [National Labor Relations] Act," he wrote.
Carter did not weigh the merits of Starbucks' claims that the NLRB's in-house enforcement proceedings and protections from removal for administrative judges and board members violate the U.S. Constitution.
Starbucks can ask the five-member board to review the decision, and then appeal its ruling to a federal appeals court.
In a statement, the company said: "Our focus continues to be on training and supporting our managers to ensure respect of our partners’ rights to organize and on progressing negotiations towards ratified store contracts this year."
Workers United, the union behind a nationwide campaign to organize Starbucks locations, did not respond to a request for comment.
The ruling is the first by an NLRB judge in a growing number of cases attacking the agency's structure, including by Amazon and Trader Joe's in pending board cases and SpaceX in two separate lawsuits seeking to block the board from hearing complaints against the rocket maker.
The board in case filings has said the claims lack merit and NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo last month argued that the companies bringing the challenges are attempting to distract from their violations of workers' rights to organize and advocate for better working conditions.
Starbucks is facing dozens of complaints accusing it of illegal conduct amid the union campaign, including that it fired union supporters, threatened and interrogated workers and shuttered stores to thwart organizing.
Starbucks has generally denied wrongdoing and said it respects workers' labor rights, and has argued that some workers were properly fired for violating company policies and not for union activity.
Workers United and Starbucks last month began negotiations on what they called a "foundational framework" to guide union organizing and collective bargaining at unionized stores across the country, which could include settling many of the outstanding NLRB cases.
In Friday's ruling, Carter found that Starbucks had committed four violations of the NLRA in the time leading up to a 2022 union election at the New Orleans store. That included firing a pro-union barista who participated in a strike and barring workers from posting union flyers on a communication board, the judge said.
The case is Starbucks Corp and Workers United, National Labor Relations Board, No. 15–CA–296254.
For Starbucks: Emma Chase-Swartz and Charles Powell of Littler Mendelson
For the NLRB General Counsel: Aisleyne Calianos, Andrew Miragliotta, and Veronica Rompelman
For the union: Sarai King Oza of Deats Durst & Owen
Read more:
Amazon joins companies arguing US labor board is unconstitutional
NLRB's Abruzzo hits back at 'low-road' companies challenging agency's structure
Starbucks agrees to US union organizing 'framework'
SpaceX wins temporary block on NLRB case over fired engineers
US Supreme Court leans toward Starbucks in the case of pro-union workers
