Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES—NLRB: Starbucks made unlawful statements during captive audience meetings, (Oct 5, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

However, a store manager’s statement that she would leave the store if employees voted to join the union, coupled with her statement about changing the character of the store, were a lawful expression of “views, argument, or opinion” under Section 8(c).

A district manager and a store manager for a Starbucks location in Wisconsin made unlawful statements during captive audience meetings, ruled a three-member panel of the NLRB. The Board found that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by unlawfully soliciting employee grievances and threatening loss of benefits. However, the Board reversed an administrative law judge’s finding that the store manager unlawfully threatened more onerous working conditions when she stated that she would leave the store if employees voted to join the union. Member Prouty filed a separate decision dissenting in part (Starbucks Corporation, 375 N.L.R.B. No. 49 (Sept. 30, 2026)).

The General Counsel’s complaint alleged that Starbucks repeatedly violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA after it learned that employees at its West Allis, Wisconsin store had initiated an organizing campaign with a union. In particular, the General Counsel alleged that a store manager made unlawful threats during conversations on June 23, 2022, with two different employees. The General Counsel also alleged that the store manager and a district manager made unlawful threats and solicited grievances with promises to remedy them during two meetings on July 19 and 20, 2022, with groups of employees.

Store manager comments. On June 23, 2022, a store manager asked to speak with an employee on the outside patio in front of the store. The store manager began the conversation by saying that she was expressing her own opinions and experiences. She then told the employee that she did not understand why employees were trying to form a union, and she spoke of her previous experience with a union. She expressed her view that she thought the union would change the store environment and noted that the energy in the store had shifted since the filing of a union election petition and added that she would leave the store if a union was formed.

During the conversation, the store manager told the employee that, because of the petition, employees would not receive benefits Starbucks had previously promised. The employee replied that she did not believe that was true. The manager then remarked that she felt the employee was being aggressive.

That same day, the store manager spoke to another employee and asked the employee if she had heard about the union. The employee indicated that she had and that she supported it. The store manager told her she used to work for a union and the union ended up firing her, and she expressed her view that a union causes negative things to happen. She added that she would not be able to support employees in the same way because she could not talk to them one-on-one, and that she would leave the store if the employees unionized.

Onerous working conditions. An administrative law judge found that the store manager’s statements to the employees that she would leave the store if employees voted to join the union, coupled with her statements about changing the store for the better and always being supportive of employees, constituted threats of more onerous working conditions in violation of Section 8(a)(1).

The Board reversed the ALJ and found that these statements were a lawful expression of “views, argument, or opinion” under Section 8(c) of the Act. It is well settled that “an employer may criticize, disparage, or denigrate a union without running afoul of Section8(a)(1), provided that its expression of opinion does not threaten employees or otherwise interfere with the Section 7 rights of employees,” observed the Board.

In discussing the union with the first employee, the store manager prefaced the conversation by stating that she was sharing her opinions before re-counting her prior negative experience with a union. Similarly, in her conversation with the second employee, the store manager shared her prior experience with a unionized workplace and stated that she would leave the store if employees voted in favor of unionization.

In these circumstances, the Board found that an employee would reasonably understand the store manager’s comments as mere expressions of personal opinions on unionization and how that would impact her own continued employment, not as a threat of reprisal in the form of more onerous working conditions.

Aggressiveness. The Board also reversed the ALJ’s finding that the store manager’s labeling of an employee as “aggressive” violated Section 8(a)(1). The General Counsel asserted that the store manager’s remark was unlawfully coercive because it indicated that the employer was not tolerant of the employee challenging a store manager and was akin to a warning that the employee should not question the employer in this regard.

For his part, the ALJ found the statement unlawful because it cast the employee’s protected activity in a negative light. The Board disagreed. It observed that the store manager’s passing remark merely reflected her subjective perception of the employee’s demeanor and, without more, would not be perceived as coercive by a reasonable employee. Finding that neither the facts nor any precedent supported finding the violation as alleged, the Board dismissed these allegations.

Captive audience meetings. Employees at the store can be scheduled by managers for “non-coverage” time. Employees are paid for their non-coverage time. On July 19 and 20, employees at the store were scheduled for two hours of non-coverage time to attend a meeting run by the district manager and store manager concerning the union election petition. Neither supervisor informed the employees that their attendance at the meetings was voluntary.

The store manager advised employees that the purpose of the July meeting was to discuss the Starbucks’s “union position” and provide facts concerning the upcoming union vote. The district manager explained that, if employees voted to unionize, Starbucks and the union would negotiate a contract addressing pay and benefits. Also, the employees were told that on average, it takes 415 days to reach a first contract after employees voted a union in, and that Starbucks already planned a $6 per hour increase. On July 20, the managers met with another group of employees. They followed a similar script from the prior day’s meeting.

The union’s charge alleged that Starbucks violated Section 8(a)(1) within the past six months by: (1) forcing employees to convene on paid time to listen to the employer’s position regarding union activity; (2) prohibiting employees from engaging in speech protected by Section 7 of the Act; and (3) threatening or impliedly threatening adverse consequences if the employees supported a union, engaged in union activity, or selected a union to represent them.

Thereafter, the General Counsel amended the complaint to add allegations regarding the July 19 meeting, including that the meeting itself was an unlawful captive audience meeting; and that the district manager (1) repeatedly threatened loss of benefits because of the employees’ union organizational activity or future represented status; (2) by repeatedly soliciting employee complaints and grievances, promised its employees increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment if they refrained from union organizational activity; (3) impliedly threatened that employees would lose their direct relationship with management if they selected the union as their representative; and (4) played a video that impliedly threatened that employees would lose their direct relationship with management if they selected the union as their bargaining representative.

The ALJ concluded, and the Board agreed, that allegations of unlawful conduct by the supervisors at the July 19 and 20 meetings were proper. The managers repeatedly solicited employee complaints and grievances, thereby promising them increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of employment if they refrained from union organizational activity. As a result, the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by soliciting grievances and promising to remedy them.

Additionally, the managers repeatedly threatened employees with the loss of benefits because of their union organizational activity or future represented status. Specifically, the supervisors threatened employees with the loss of abortion benefits, the ability to work in other stores, and the ability to participate in partner surveys concerning their working conditions. Further, the store manager attributed the lack of a benefit implementation solely to the union petition being filed. Thus, the employer unlawfully threatened a loss of benefits.

Partial dissent. In an opinion dissenting in part, Member Prouty argued that the Board failed to apply the applicable standard for determining an 8(a)(1) violation. The dissent pointed out that the standard requires the Board to consider whether, under the “totality of the circumstances,” the statement has a reasonable tendency to coerce or interfere with employees’ Section 7 rights. According to Prouty, the Board ignored several critical circumstances surrounding the store manager’s comments that created a coercive environment. The conversation with the first employee was the first interaction since both employees had signed a letter to Starbucks’ CEO requesting voluntary recognition of the union. The first conversation occurred on the patio away from other employees. Further, the store manager was the employee’s immediate supervisor and the highest-ranking official in the store. During that conversation, it was also threatened that employees would lose promised benefits if they unionized.

The slip opinion is 375 NLRB No. 49.

Attorneys: Tabitha E. Boerschinger for General Counsel. Nina Neff (Littler Mendelson) for Starbucks Corporation. Elizabeth Rowe (Dowd, Bloch, Bennett, Cervone, Auerbach & Yokich) for Chicago and Midwest Regional Joint Board, Workers United/SEIU.

Companies: Starbucks Corporation; Chicago and Midwest Regional Joint Board, Workers United/SEIU

MainStory: TopStory Labor UnfairLaborPractices OrganizingElections AgencyNews GCNNews