Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, NLRB NEWS—Memo advises Region that charge against Starbucks Corp. should be dismissed, (Jun 2, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

The charge alleged that the employer violated the Act during cross-examination of two witnesses and by issuing overly broad, coercive subpoenas to 17 individuals.

Late last week, the NLRB released an advice memo issued in response to a region’s resubmission of a case for advice regarding overly broad subpoenas issued to employees by Starbucks Corp., the employer, in a Board proceeding.

In May 2022, Region 3 issued a consolidated complaint alleging that the employer committed almost 300 unfair labor practices. In July, a few days ahead of the hearing, the employer served administrative trial subpoenas on 17 current and former employees. During the proceedings, the ALJ quashed nearly all the subpoenas in their entirety because they were overly broad and sought confidential information about Section 7 activities. In January 2023, this charge was filed, alleging that the employer violated the Act during cross-examination of two of the witnesses and by issuing the overly broad, coercive subpoenas to those 17 individuals.

Advice held the case in abeyance, however, until related litigation was resolved, after which it issued a memorandum in November 2024, concluding that a complaint should issue because the cross-examinations encroached on confidential Section 7 activity and, regardless of the ALJ quashing them, the subpoenas still had a reasonable tendency to coerce the employees upon receipt. Therefore, a Board order was deemed necessary to fully remedy these violations.

In December 2024, the Board affirmed and amended the ALJ’s conclusions in the case-in-chief and, along with other remedies, ordered the employer to post a “voluminous notice.” (The memo notes that the employer filed a petition for review in that matter and the Board filed a cross-application for enforcement, which are before the Fifth Circuit.)

New advice sought. Thereafter, the region resubmitted the case for advice and, along with seeking advice related to overly broad subpoenas issued to employees in a Board proceeding, sought advice on whether the charge was mooted by present circumstances. “Based on the current circumstances,” the NLRB stated, “we conclude that pursuing complaint in this matter would not be an effective use of limited Agency resources.”

Non-pursuit advised. First, the advice memo explained that “[t]he coercive cross-examinations occurred in the context of soliciting just-and-proper evidence related to a parallel Section 10(j) proceeding within an administrative hearing—a rare event unlikely to reoccur—and both the underlying administrative case and the Section 10(j) case have concluded.”

Second, regarding the overbroad subpoenas, “nearly all” were quashed within weeks of their issuance, two years ago, and many of the remaining 10 individuals are no longer employed by the employer.

“Lastly,” the advice memo stated, “the Board’s decision in the case-in-chief resolved almost 300 unfair labor practices, including coercively interrogating employees, and resulted in a wide variety of remedies, including a broad cease-and-desist order and notice posting/reading.” With those circumstances in mind, the NLRB concluded that it “would not effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act to issue complaint” and it concluded the charge should be dismissed, absent withdrawal.

News: AgencyNews LaborNews Labor UnfairLaborPractices