STARBUCKS CORPORATION

373 NLRB No. 20 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can be included in the bound volumes. Starbucks Corporation and Chicago Midwest Re- gional Joint Board, an Affiliate of Workers United SEIU. Case 09–CA–300652 February 14, 2024 ORDER1 BY CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN AND MEMBERS KAPLAN AND PROUTY On November 27, 2023, counsel for the Respondent filed with the Board a request for special permission to appeal from Administrative Law Judge Melissa M. Oli- vero’s November 20, 2023 Order. Specifically, counsel seeks review of that portion of the judge’s Order in which she commented on the Respondent’s past noncompliance with her evidentiary rulings and cautioned that “[f]urther disregard of duly issued orders and instructions in this case may result in a recommendation to the Board to admonish or reprimand counsel.” We find that there is no need for interlocutory relief. The hearing resumed on November 28, 2023, and closed the following day. Thus, the Respondent’s request for special permission to appeal is denied. This denial is with- out prejudice to the Respondent’s right to renew its objec- tions before the Board on any exceptions that may be filed to the judge’s decision, if appropriate.2 Dated, Washington, D.C. February 14, 2024 ______________________________________ Lauren McFerran, Chairman ______________________________________ Marvin E. Kaplan, Member ________________________________________ David M. Prouty, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1 The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. 2 Member Kaplan agrees with his colleagues to deny the special ap- peal without prejudice. In doing so, he believes that, when judges threaten to refer counsel for misconduct, they should be as specific as possible when describing the purported misconduct and their reasoning for doing so. Such specificity will ensure that counsel knows precisely what conduct the judge finds improper without unduly infringing on counsel’s duty to represent his or her client, and it will also greatly aid the Board if it is called upon to review the matter.