Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—NLRB: Starbucks didn’t threaten to bar unionized employees from ‘borrowing’ shifts at nonunion stores, (Aug 6, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The record here did not indicate any effort by Starbucks to restrict employees from borrowing shifts.

A divided three-member panel of the NLRB ruled that Starbucks did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by threatening to bar employees at unionized stores from “borrowing” shifts at nonunion stores, and vice versa. The violation allegedly occurred when a barista had a conversation with a store manager, who confirmed that area managers had been advised that unionized stores could not borrow shifts at nonunion stores. However, the Board pointed out that the manager was equivocal in her comments and that the barista from a unionized store continued to borrow shifts at a nonunion store. Thus, the Board found that the manager’s comments did not have a reasonable tendency to coerce employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights. Member Prouty filed a separate dissenting opinion (Starbucks Corporation, 375 N.L.R.B. No. 28 (Aug. 5, 2026)).

Shift borrowing. Starbucks operates a large number of stores around the country. Each employee has a designated “home store.” Because employees are typically scheduled for fewer than 40 hours per week at their home store, Starbucks has permitted them to “borrow” (i.e., pick up) shifts at other of its stores to augment their hours and income.

Borrowing hours is an employee-driven process, and store managers may not reject or deny a borrowed partner in their store except due to local scheduling laws. Employees can learn that specific shifts are available to be borrowed through managerial solicitation, word-of-mouth, email, or a Starbucks Facebook page where borrowable shifts are posted. Additionally, in January 2022, Starbucks created “Shift Marketplace,” a platform enabling employees to borrow shifts online.

At the time of the rollout of the Shift Marketplace, neither a Quick Reference Guide for employees nor a Launch Guide given to managers contained any limitation on borrowing based on the unionized status of an employee’s home store.

A barista who worked at multiple stores in the Seattle area borrowed extra shifts at other Starbucks locations to supplement her income. She worked between 12 hours and 18 hours per week at her home store. She then began borrowing shifts at another store. She would usually work one or two shifts per week at that store.

Election petition. On February 24, a union filed a petition for an election to represent employees at the home store. On April 29, employees at the home location voted in favor of unionization and a certification of representation was issued on May 9. The store where the barista had been borrowing shifts was not unionized.

Borrowing restriction. On or about May 15, the barista borrowed a shift at the second location and had a conversation there with several coworkers. No supervisors or managers were present. The coworkers told the barista that they were sad that she would no longer be able to borrow hours at their store. They explained that because her home store was unionized, she would not be able to keep borrowing shifts at a nonunionized location.

After finishing her shift, the barista had a conversation with the store manager, who confirmed that area managers had been advised that unionized stores could not borrow at nonunionized stores, and vice versa.

Thereafter, the barista continued freely borrowing shifts at the nonunion store while her home store was unionized. The record also established that employees from nonunion home stores continued to borrow shifts at unionized home stores. At no point did Starbucks update any guidance document to restrict unionized employees from borrowing shifts at unrepresented stores or to restrict unrepresented employees from borrowing shifts at unionized stores.

The complaint in this case alleged that Starbucks interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) by communicating to them that, if they worked at a store where the union was certified as their collective-bargaining representative, they would not be permitted to pick up shifts at other Starbucks stores where the union was not the employees certified representative, and vice versa.

An administrative law judge found that the General Counsel satisfied her burden of proving that Starbucks unlawfully coerced its employees. The ALJ found that Starbucks had violated Section 8(a)(1) because a reasonable employee would understand a store manager’s unrefuted comments to the barista about limitations on borrowing partners based on union status as a threat to lose an existing benefit.

The Board found, contrary to the ALJ, that the manager did not threaten to eliminate an existing benefit based on employees’ union activities and that the manager’s comments did not have a reasonable tendency to coerce employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights.

Here, the record did not indicate any effort by Starbucks to restrict employees from borrowing shifts. Rather, Starbucks created “Shift Marketplace” as a tool to assist employees in borrowing shifts at other stores and provided employees and managers with training and guidance materials on the tool. Those training materials do not limit shift borrowing based on the unionized status of an employee’s home store. Moreover, the record amply demonstrated that Starbucks permitted shift borrowing between the union and nonunion store both before and after the barista’s home store unionized.

The manager’s allegedly unlawful remarks occurred shortly after the barista’s home store was unionized. In response to the barista’s inquiry about her coworker’s claim about the restriction on shift borrowing, the manager did not announce the implementation (or impending implementation) of a new prohibition on unionized employees borrowing shifts at nonunion stores or vice versa. Rather, the manager equivocally described a statement that she had heard at a managers’ meeting that “unionized stores could not borrow at nonunionized stores, and vice versa,” but acknowledged that “she didn’t know exactly what was true.”

In a subsequent text message exchange, the manager reiterated that she did not “truly know” if any shift borrowing restrictions were in place and assured the barista about her ability to borrow shifts at the nonunion store. The barista continued to pick up shifts at the nonunion store, and Starbucks subsequently approved her transfer from the union store to the nonunion store.

Dissent. Member Prouty would affirm the ALJ’s finding that Starbucks acted unlawfully by threatening employees when the store manager at a nonunion store told a barista from a unionized store that managers had been informed that employees from unionized stores would not be able to “borrow” shifts extra shifts at nonunionized stores and vice versa. The dissent pointed out that the Board has already found that Starbucks violated the Act on multiple occasions, at multiple locations during this very same time period, by threatening to limit employee borrowing opportunities.

The slip opinion is 375 NLRB No. 28.

Attorneys: Alice J. Garfield for General Counsel. Nina Stroescu (Littler Mendelson) for Starbucks Corporation. Ben Berger (Barnard, Iglitzin & Lavitt) for Workers United Labor Union International aw Service Employees International Union.

Companies: Starbucks Corporation; Workers United Labor Union International aw Service Employees International Union

Cases: Labor UnfairLaborPractices OrganizingElections AgencyNews