373 NLRB No. 44
Starbucks Corporation
373 NLRB No. 44
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 Workers United. Cases
07–CA–293742, 07–CA–293748
April 25, 2024
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN AND MEMBERS PROUTY
AND WILCOX
On February 9, 2023, Administrative Law Judge
Christal J. Key issued the attached decision. The Gen-
eral Counsel and the Respondent each filed exceptions
and supporting briefs, the General Counsel filed an an-
swering brief, and the Respondent filed a reply brief.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.1
The Board has considered the decision and the record
in light of the exceptions2 and briefs and has decided to
affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,3 and conclusions and
1 The Respondent asserts that Members Prouty and Wilcox should
recuse themselves based on their “past, present, and perceived relation-
ships with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), SEIU
Local Unions, and their affiliates, including Charging Party Workers
United.” Members Prouty and Wilcox have determined, in consultation
with the Board’s Designated Agency Ethics Official, that there is no
basis to recuse themselves from the adjudication of this case.
2 No exceptions were filed to the judge’s dismissal of the allegations
that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) by promising to have the sink
and the oven looked at, by creating an impression of surveillance of
employees’ union and protected concerted activities, and by soliciting
grievances from employees at its Zeeb Road store and promising to
remedy them.
3 We affirm, for the reasons stated in her decision, the judge’s find-
ing that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(1) of the Act by soliciting
grievances from employees at its Clinton Township store and promis-
ing to remedy them. In so doing, we decline the General Counsel’s
request to overrule Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 339 NLRB 1187 (2003), as
the facts of this case do not present an occasion to reconsider that prec-
edent.
Member Prouty agrees with his colleagues that Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., supra, is factually distinguishable. In Wal-Mart, the Board majori-
ty found that “the occurrence of soliciting and remedying grievances
during the critical period was substantially consistent with past prac-
tice.” Id. at 1188. Here, in contrast, district manager Gambone met
one-on-one with employee Coakley for an extended period of time
whereas Gambone had only spoken to Coakley in passing before.
Nevertheless, Member Prouty would be open to reconsidering Wal-
Mart Stores in a future appropriate case.
We also affirm the judge’s finding that the Respondent violated Sec.
8(a)(1) when the Respondent’s district manager, Paige Schmehl, threat-
ened employees at its Zeeb Road store with reduced benefits and hours
and the withdrawal of supervisory assistance if they were to select the
Union as their bargaining representative. Because Schmehl’s state-
ments are distinguishable from the lawful statements in Tri-Cast, Inc.,
274 NLRB 377 (1985), we decline the General Counsel’s request to
overrule Tri-Cast in this case. We are willing, however, to reex-
amine Tri-Cast in a future appropriate case.
to adopt the recommended Orders as modified and set
forth in full below.4
Further, in affirming the judge’s finding that the Respondent violat-
ed Sec. 8(a)(1) by discriminatorily removing and prohibiting the post-
ing of union materials on the community board, we observe that no
party contends that the Board’s discrimination standard set forth in
Register Guard, 351 NLRB 1110, 1118 (2007), enfd. in part 571 F.3d
53 (D.C. Cir. 2009), does not apply here.
Member Prouty agrees with his colleagues that the Respondent, by
Schmehl, unlawfully removed union materials from its community
board during and after a Union-organized “sip-in,” at which the Union
encouraged customers to post comments supporting the Union on the
board. The Board has previously found that this incident “supports an
inference of unlawful motivation by the Respondent” in Starbucks
Corp., 372 NLRB No. 122, slip op. at 3 (2023). Moreover, Schmehl
chose to remove only those materials from the bulletin board which
supported the union, despite the fact that no provision of the Respond-
ent’s posting policy prohibited postings of that type. Such obvious
discrimination against the posting of prounion materials is unlawful. In
these circumstances, Member Prouty finds it unnecessary to rely on the
judge’s comparison of union material on the Respondent’s bulletin
boards to those of “book clubs, art fairs and volunteer requests.” While
Member Prouty agrees with his colleagues that the Respondent’s ac-
tions constituted discrimination under the Register Guard standard, he
adheres to his position that the Board should overrule Register Guard
in a future appropriate case. See T-Mobile USA, Inc., 371 NLRB No.
163, slip op. at 4 fn. 8 (2022), enfd. 2023 WL 7272204 (D.C. Cir.
2023).
In affirming the judge’s findings, we do not rely on her citations to
Divi Carina Bay Resort, 356 NLRB 316 (2010), enfd. 451 Fed.Appx
143 (3d Cir. 2011), or Mi Pueblo Foods, 360 NLRB 988 (2014), be-
cause in those cases no exceptions were filed to the judge’s pertinent
findings. In addition, we do not rely on the judge’s inadvertent citation
to the dissent in Mid-Mountain Foods, 332 NLRB 229 (2000), enfd.
269 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
4 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Orders to conform to
the Board’s standard remedial language (including combining the
judge’s separate Orders into a single Order) and in accordance with our
decision in Paragon Systems, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 104 (2022). We
shall substitute new notices to conform to the Order as modified.
The General Counsel excepts to the judge’s refusal to use this case
as an opportunity to modify the Board’s standard remedies. The Gen-
eral Counsel urges the Board to order (1) a notice reading; (2) an ex-
press requirement to post a notice by a text message, a social media
page, and an internal smartphone app; (3) an electronic distribution of a
notice whenever an employer is capable of communicating with its
employees in that manner, not just when an employer “customarily”
communicates by such means; (4) an express Board agent right of
access to the employer’s property to verify notice-posting compliance;
and (5) the Board’s Explanation of Employee Rights posted for at least
1 year. We believe that extant standard remedies are sufficient to ad-
dress the Respondent’s unfair labor practices in this case, and we de-
cline to modify our standard remedies here.
For the reasons stated in his concurrence in CP Anchorage 2 d/b/a
Hilton Anchorage, 371 NLRB No. 151, slip op. at 9–15 (2022), Mem-
ber Prouty would make a reading of the notice to employees at a group
meeting, accompanied by the distribution of the notice at the meeting, a
part of the remedy in this case and a standard remedy for all unfair
labor practices found by the Board. Member Prouty further notes the
insufficiency of the current practice of restricting notice reading to so-
called “serious” or “egregious” violations of the Act. The purpose of
all Board notice remedies is to redress the unfair labor practices the
Board has found by alerting employees to the rights that the Act pro-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2
ORDER
The National Labor Relations Board orders that
A. The Respondent, Starbucks Corporation, Ann Ar-
bor, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Discriminatorily removing or prohibiting the post-
ing of union materials on its community boards.
(b) Threatening employees with the loss of benefits or
hours or the withdrawal of supervisory assistance if they
select the Union as their bargaining representative.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its Zeeb Road store in Ann Arbor, Michi-
gan, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix
A.”5 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Re-
gional Director for Region 7, after being signed by the
Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted
by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
vides to them, and by providing reassurance to them that the respondent
will—and in fact is legally bound to—honor those rights. There is no
reason why employees whose legal rights have been violated “X” times
or in “Y” ways will receive the amplified benefit and assurance of a
notice reading, while employees whose rights have only been violated
“X minus one” times or in “Y minus one” ways will not. The remedial
imperative of ensuring that the notice is effectively conveyed to em-
ployees is present in every case where a respondent has been found to
have violated the Act. Our remedial scheme should provide that notice
reading—which is indisputably a more effective means of communi-
cating with employees than notice posting—be used to remedy all
violations of the Act. Put another way, notice reading has the restora-
tive goal of ensuring that employees protected by the Act are more
effectively informed that their rights have been violated (and that, they
should expect, their rights will not be so violated again). The Board
should seek to achieve this goal in every case, rather than limiting it to
cases where the respondent has behaved really, really, badly.
5 If the Ann Arbor facility involved in these proceedings is open and
staffed by a substantial complement of employees, the notices must be
posted within 14 days after service by the Region. If the facility in-
volved in these proceedings is closed or not staffed by a substantial
complement of employees due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic, the notice must be posted within 14 days after
the facility reopens and a substantial complement of employees have
returned to work. If, while closed or not staffed by a substantial com-
plement of employees due to the pandemic, the Respondent is com-
municating with its employees by electronic means, the notice must
also be posted by such electronic means within 14 days after service by
the Region. If the notice to be physically posted was posted electroni-
cally more than 60 days before physical posting of the notice, the notice
shall state at the bottom that “This notice is the same notice previously
[sent or posted] electronically on [date].” If this Order is enforced by a
judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice
reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall
read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”
days in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. In addition
to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be dis-
tributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an
intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means,
if the Respondent customarily communicates with its
employees by such means. The Respondent shall take
reasonable steps to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. If the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at the facility at any time since March
1, 2022.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 7 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
B. The Respondent, Starbucks Corporation, Clinton
Township, Michigan, its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Soliciting grievances from employees and promis-
ing to remedy them in order to discourage employees
from supporting the Union.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Post at its store in Clinton Township, Michigan,
copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix B.”6
Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 7, after being signed by the Re-
6 If the Clinton Township facility involved in these proceedings is
open and staffed by a substantial complement of employees, the notices
must be posted within 14 days after service by the Region. If the facili-
ty involved in these proceedings is closed or not staffed by a substantial
complement of employees due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic, the notice must be posted within 14 days after
the facility reopens and a substantial complement of employees have
returned to work. If, while closed or not staffed by a substantial com-
plement of employees due to the pandemic, the Respondent is com-
municating with its employees by electronic means, the notice must
also be posted by such electronic means within 14 days after service by
the Region. If the notice to be physically posted was posted electroni-
cally more than 60 days before physical posting of the notice, the notice
shall state at the bottom that “This notice is the same notice previously
[sent or posted] electronically on [date].” If this Order is enforced by a
judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice
reading “Posted by Order of the National Labor Relations Board” shall
read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.”
STARBUCKS CORP.
3
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by
the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. In addition to
physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be dis-
tributed electronically, such as by email, posting on an
intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic means,
if the Respondent customarily communicates with its
employees by such means. The Respondent shall take
reasonable steps to ensure that the notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material. If the Re-
spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility
involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall du-
plicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice
to all current employees and former employees employed
by the Respondent at the facility at any time since Febru-
ary 1, 2022.
(b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file
with the Regional Director for Region 7 a sworn certifi-
cation of a responsible official on a form provided by the
Region attesting to the steps that the Respondent has
taken to comply.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed
insofar as it alleges violations of the Act not specifically
found.
Dated, Washington, D.C. April 25, 2024
______________________________________
Lauren McFerran, Chairman
______________________________________
David M. Prouty, Member
________________________________________
Gwynne A. Wilcox, Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily remove or prohibit the
posting of union materials on our community boards.
WE WILL NOT threaten you with the loss of benefits or
hours or the withdrawal of supervisory assistance if you
select the Union as your bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION
The
Board’s
decision
can
be
found
at
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-293742 or by using
the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy
of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National
Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street S.E., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
APPENDIX B
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we
violated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on
your behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4
WE WILL NOT solicit grievances from you and promise
to remedy them in order to discourage you from support-
ing the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION
The
Board’s
decision
can
be
found
at
https://www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-293742 or by using
the QR code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy
of the decision from the Executive Secretary, National
Labor Relations Board, 1015 Half Street S.E., Washing-
ton, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
Larry A. Smith, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Marilyn Yousif, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Kevin M. Kraham, Esq., for the Respondent.
Alex Frondorf, Esq., for the Respondent.
Laura V. Spector, Esq., for the Respondent.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Christal J. Key, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
tried in Detroit, Michigan on November 7 and 8, 2022. After
Workers United (Union) filed charges, the consolidated com-
plaint in this case was issued on September 13, 2022. It alleges
that Starbucks Corporation (Starbucks or Respondent) violated
Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or
the Act) by its district and store managers making unlawful
statements and removing union literature during organizing
drives at three of its stores1. After the conclusion of the trial,
General Counsel and Respondent filed briefs, which I have
carefully read and considered.
Based on the entire record, including my observation of the
demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the briefs filed
by the General Counsel and Respondent, I make the following:
1 The General Counsel maintains that the Board should overrule its
decisions in Tri-Cast, Inc., 274 NLRB 377 (1985), and Wal-Mart
Stores Inc., 339 NLRB 1187 (2003) (GC Brief pp. 28–32). I am bound
to follow the Board’s current precedent and leave the General Coun-
sel’s request for revisiting that precedent to the Board should this deci-
sion be appealed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Respondent is a nationwide corporation, which operates pub-
lic restaurants selling food and beverages. This case involves
three of its stores known as the Zeeb Road, Main Street, and
Clinton Township stores. Respondent annually derives revenue
in excess of $500,000 from each of these three stores. It annual-
ly purchases and receives at each of these stores goods valued
in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the state of
Michigan. Respondent admits, and I find, that Respondent is
an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Respondent also admits, and I
find, that Workers United has been a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Based on the foregoing,
I find that this dispute affects commerce and that the Board has
jurisdiction of this case, pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Background
1. Respondent’s employees and managers
Respondent groups its stores into districts. This case in-
volves stores in District 366 which covers 10 stores in the Ann
Arbor area, which includes the Zeeb Road and Main Street
stores, and District 305 which covers 11 stores in Metro Detroit
East including the Clinton Township store. Between December
13, 2021, and February 3, 2022, Holly Ayers served as a district
manager for District 366 (Tr. 273, 275). On about February 7,
20222, Paige Schmehl took over as the district manager of Dis-
trict 366. Since 2016, Jennifer Gambone has been the district
manager of District 305 (Tr. 239). In February and March, Erin
Lind served as a dual store manager of the Main Street store as
well as another store within District 366 (Tr. 223-225). In Jan-
uary, Tim Lowery was the store manager of the Zeeb Road
store (Tr. 58–59, 275).
The statements at issue in this case were allegedly made to
shift supervisors Bennett Proegler and Alyssa Coakley.3 Re-
spondent refers to its employees as “partners.” Respondent
hired Bennett Proegler as a barista in August 2020 and promot-
ed him to a shift supervisor in May of 2021. Respondent hired
Alyssa Coakley as a barista in May 2016 and promoted her to a
shift supervisor in October 2018 (Tr. 135–136).
2. Union organizing campaign at the Zeeb Road, Main Street
and Clinton Township stores
In October 2021, Proegler began organizing baristas and
shift supervisors at three stores within District 366, Zeeb Road,
South University and Church, and State and Liberty (Tr. 55).
His organizing activities continued for several months (Tr. 55).
On January 28, Proegler gave Tim Lowrey, the store manager
of the Zeeb Road store, a copy of a letter addressed to then
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Kevin Johnson (Tr. 59). The
letter asked Respondent to recognize the Union and contained
2 All dates hereinafter are 2022, unless otherwise stated.
3 “Shift supervisors” were included in the petitioned-for unit and in
the directed bargaining unit, and there is no dispute that they are em-
ployees protected by the Act. (GC Exhs. 3, 5 p. 34).
STARBUCKS CORP.
5
Proegler’s name along with the names of 10 other Zeeb Road
partners (GC Exh. 9). When Proegler gave Lowrey the letter,
Lowrey asked him how long the union organizing had been
going on (Tr. 61). Proegler responded it had been going on for
months (Tr. 61). The same day, Proegler sent CEO Johnson the
same letter via email (Tr. 56, GC Exh. 9). On January 28, every
partner at the Zeeb Road store wore a prounion button to work
(Tr. 58). On February 8, the Union filed a petition seeking to
represent full-time and regular part-time baristas and shift su-
pervisors at the Zeeb Road and Main Street stores (GC Exhs. 3
and 4). In February, the Union also filed petitions seeking to
represent employees at the South University and Church, and
State and Liberty locations where Proegler had organized em-
ployees (Tr. 34, GC Exh 5). 4
In January, Alyssa Coakley started organizing for the Union.
She talked to her coworkers, formed an organizing committee
with partners at the Clinton Township store, organized union
meetings and posted union information (Tr. 137). On January
29, Coakley sent then CEO Johnson a letter from employees at
the Clinton Township store (GC Exh. 8, Tr. 138–139). The
letter stated that over 75 percent of the partners at the Clinton
Township store supported the Union and asked Respondent to
voluntarily recognize the Union (GC Exh. 8). Coakley and
eight other employees signed the letter along with “other part-
ners who wish to stay anonymous.” On January 31, the Union
filed a petition seeking to represent all full-time and regular
part-time baristas and shift supervisors at the Clinton Township
store (GC Exh. 2).
Mail ballot elections were conducted in May and June (GC
Exh. 5). The Union won the elections at the Zeeb Road, Main
Street, and Clinton Township stores (Tr. 108, 256).
From August 1 to 4, Judge Geoffrey Carter held a hearing
involving and allegation that Respondent had discharged an
employee, who worked in District 366, at the Main Street store,
in violation of Sections 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act. On October
7, he issued a decision finding that on April 11, Respondent
violated 8(a)(3) and (4) of the Act by discharging and employee
Starbucks Corp., 2022 NLRB LEXIS 468 (2022).
B. Facts Relevant to the 8(a)(1) Allegations
1. Gambone’s meetings with partners at the Clinton Township
store
In early February, a few days after Coakley sent a letter to
then CEO Johnson and the Union filed its petition, Gambone
visited the Clinton Township store (Tr. 141). During her visit,
Gambone spoke to Coakley in a one-on-one conversation in the
lobby of the store (Tr. 141). Gambone said she wanted to get to
know partners that she doesn’t see that often better (Tr. 142).
They talked about what Coakley likes to do in her free time and
Gambone talked about her son (Tr. 142). Gambone then asked
Coakley what she wanted fixed at the store (Tr. 142). Coakley
responded that she wanted social distancing stickers on the
floor and a sign on the door asking customers to wear masks
(Tr. 142). Gambone responded that she would do that for Coak-
4 In the Decision and Direction of election the three stores are re-
ferred to as Zeeb Road, 222 South State, and 1214 South University
(GC Exh. 5).
ley (Tr. 142). Coakley also told Gambone that a sink in their
bar area had been broken for about 2 years and an oven was
broken (Tr. 143). Gambone said she would have them looked
at (Tr. 143). While Gambone was at the store she talked to
everyone who was working that day (Tr. 144).
I credit Coakley’s testimony about the meeting. I found
Coakley to be a credible witness based on her calm demeanor,
her clear recollection, and the fact that as a current employee
she was testifying against her economic interest. I note that
Coakley had a much clearer recollection of the conversation
than Gambone. Gambone did not contradict Coakley’s testi-
mony. Gambone testified that she did speak to Coakley but
could not recall for certain what they discussed (Tr 252, 253,
255, 258). Gambone recalled that someone raised an issue
regarding the sink and that she contacted Respondent’s facili-
ties manager, Scott Pelkey who advised her that a vendor had
previously been sent to fix it and he would look into the matter
(Tr. 255).
Gambone visits each store within her district at least 16
times per year, six for planning visits, six for promotional set-
ups and four for performance conversations with the store man-
agers (Tr. 242–243).5 When Gambone visited the Clinton
Township store, she typically met with the store manager and
assistant manager (Tr. 140). When Gambone visited stores in
her district, she also attempted to connect with partners by visit-
ing with them and asking about their interests, such as writing
screen plays, playing video games and attending college (Tr.
246–247). During their meeting in early February, Gambone
spoke to Coakley for about 20 minutes (Tr. 141). During prior
visits to the Clinton Township store, Gambone had only spoken
to Coakley in passing (Tr. 140).
Within a few days after Gambone and Coakley’s meeting,
Gambone and the Regional Director Bridgette Jackson came to
the Clinton Township store and put a sign on the door asking
customers to wear masks, someone came and fixed the sink that
had very little hot water coming out of it for 2 years, and some-
one also came and attempted to fix the oven that had not been
cooking food all the way through for a few months (Tr. 142-
145, 155).
2. Lind’s conversation with a partner at the Main Street store
In February, Erin Lind was the interim manager of the Main
Street store. Proegler visited the store to pick up some product
(Tr 64). While at the store, he had a conversation with Lind
next to the pastry case near the entrance to the back of the
store6 (Tr 65, 226–227, 229–230, 232). Partners Hannah Whit-
5 Coakley testified that Gambone visited the Clinton Township store
once every month or 2 for about 1 hour. I do not discredit Coakley’s
testimony regarding the number of times Gambone visited the store in a
year. I attribute the difference in testimony to the fact that Coakley was
clearly not scheduled to work at all times the store was open and thus
she was not at the store during all of Gambone’s visits.
6 During the hearing, Respondent’s attorneys repeatedly made hear-
say objections to General Counsel’s questions to Proegler and Coakley
regarding statements supervisors made to them which are alleged to
have violated 8(a)(1). I overruled each objection. Under Rule 801(d)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the statements were not hearsay,
because they were made by persons that Respondent admitted were
supervisors and agents, they were made within the scope of their em-
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6
beck and Scott Crews were nearby, but were having their own
conversation (Tr. 65). Proegler and Lind exchanged pleasant-
ries about their personal lives and Lind laughed and said,
“we’ve been told to watch out for you” (Tr. 65–67). Lind testi-
fied that on February 11, she and Proegler had a conversation
by the pastry case in the Main Street store that lasted less than a
minute (Tr. 232). She testified all she could remember about
the conversation was asking Proegler how his day was going
and telling him it was nice to see him (Tr. 227, 232). Lind
denied telling Proegler that she had been told to watch out for
him (Tr. 228). I credit Proegler’s testimony that Lind said,
“we’ve been told to watch out for you.” I base my credibility
determination on his demeanor, the fact that his testimony re-
mained consistent under intense cross examination. Further, as
a former employee who resigned on good terms, he had no
economic motive to provide false testimony. Finally, I found
him credible because he willingly acknowledged occasions
when he could not recall certain relevant information.
3. Ayers conversation with a partner at the Zeeb Road store
Between December 13, 2021, and February 3, 2022, Holly
Ayers served as a district manager for District 366 which in-
cluded the Zeeb Road store (Tr. 273, 275). On February 7,
Paige Schmehl took over as the manager for District 366 (Tr.
179). Proegler testified that he had a conversation with Ayers,
he wasn’t certain of the date, but he thought it was at the end of
February (Tr. 68). He placed the conversation on the Thursday
prior to Paige Schmehl taking over as district manager (Tr. 68).
Based on all the evidence, I find the conversation took place on
February 3, which was the Thursday before Schmehl took over.
Proegler initially testified that the conversation began by Proeg-
ler telling Ayers that he had trouble with Tim Lowrey’s style of
leadership, and he told Ayers it was not “the Starbucks way”
(Tr. 70). Ayers responded that she would pass the concerns
along to Paige Schmehl and they would work with Lowrey
before Ayers left (Tr. 70). Next, Proegler testified that Ayers
asked Proegler if there were any problems within the store that
she could help fix or pass along to the new district manager (Tr.
69). Proegler said none that he could think of. (Tr. 69-70).
Next, General Counsel asked Proegler “what you said about
[the] store manager Tim if anything.” Proegler responded, “I
recall having issues with his style of leadership and it not being,
in quotes, the Starbucks way, but I don’t recall exactly what I
told her that date” (Tr 70). Ayers testified that she recalled
having a few conversations with Proegler (Tr. 280). She testi-
fied the last conversation took place in January, but she could
not recall the exact date (Tr. 280). Ayers said as best she could
recall, she asked him how he liked working at Starbucks and he
responded, “I like it, it’s great.” She then asked if there was
anything else he wanted to share with her and he responded no
ployment and offered against Respondent (GC Exh. 1(o)). Ferguson
Enterprises, Inc., 355 NLRB 1121 fn. 2 (2010), citing U.S. Ecology
Corp., 331 NLRB 223, 225 (2000), enfd. mem. 26 Fed.Appx. 435 (6th
Cir. 2001). Further, the statements were not offered for the truth of the
matter asserted, because General Counsel does not need to establish
that alleged statements are true in order to prove they violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act Oklahoma Installation Co., 309 NLRB 776, 779
(1992), citing Woody’s Truck Stops, 258 NLRB 705, 706 (1981).
everything is great here (Tr. 281).
General Counsel carries the burden of proving the unfair la-
bor practices alleged in the consolidated complaint. Evaluating
Proegler and Ayers testimony as a whole, I do not find that
General Counsel proved that during the conversation, which
took place on about February 3, that Proegler and Ayers dis-
cussed Proegler’s complaints about Tim Lowrey’s management
style. Proegler could not recall when it was discussed (Tr. 70).
While I credit Proegler’s testimony, I find all that General
Counsel proved was discussed during the February 3 conversa-
tion, is that Ayers asked Proegler if there were any problems
within the store that she could help fix or pass along to the new
district manager (Tr. 69). Proegler responded, none that he
could think of. (Tr. 69–70). Further, Proegler’s testimony is
essentially consistent with Ayers version of the conversation
which I also credit. Proegler’s inability to recall when he and
Ayers discussed Proegler’s displeasure with Lowrey is im-
portant for two reasons. First, because the evidence does not
establish whether Ayers and Proegler discussed it in the same
conversation when Ayers asked if there were any problems in
the store she could help fix. Second, prior to January 28, there
is no evidence to establish that Respondent knew about the
union organizing among employees at the Zeeb Road store.
Ayers last day at the Zeeb Road store was February 3, thus if
the conversation regarding Lowrey did not take place between
those dates there is no evidence that the promise to address
Proegler’s concerns were related to union organizing.
4. Schmehl’s meetings with partners at the Zeeb Road store
In mid-March, Schmehl visited the Zeeb Road store. Proeg-
ler testified Schmehl told the partners she wanted to have a
conversation with each of them before they left (Tr. 81). Pro-
egler and barista Faith Watkins were leaving work at the same
time, so they spoke to Schmehl together in the back of the store
near the storage area (Tr. 81–82). Schmehl referenced a flyer
that was posted on the refrigerator. Proegler testified Schmehl
told them during the election period the company is required to
maintain the status quo (Tr. 123). She further said if a union
were voted in, Starbucks and the Union would be obligated
under the NLRA to bargain in good faith on any terms and
conditions of employment (Tr. 123–124). Proegler further
testified, that Schmehl told them that their insurance would
probably get worse, they would likely not be able to accrue any
more paid time off, it would be unlikely they would be able to
pick up shifts at other locations and it would be unlikely that
store managers would be allowed to help partners on the floor
in times that they were short staffed if we chose to vote yes on
a union (Tr. 82, 124, 125, 126–127).
Schmehl testified that on about March 7 or 8, she spoke to
Proegler. She testified, that during their meeting, she would
have reviewed the Notice of Petition (Tr. 206–207, 210). She
testified that she would have let partners know that during the
union process it was status quo so benefits could not be in-
creased or reduced, but they would need to stay the same (Tr.
207). If employees were to vote in the union, there would be a
collective-bargaining process during which all the terms and
conditions of employment would be negotiated (Tr. 207). Ne-
gotiations could include benefits, how they interact on the floor
STARBUCKS CORP.
7
with their manager, whether or not they are able to transfer in
and out of the store, pick up shifts, but it would all have to be
determined based on the collective-bargaining process (Tr 207,
214) Schmehl testified she told Proegler that during the collec-
tive-bargaining process things like taking out the trash might be
regulated to a barista job description and a store manager may
or may not be allowed to do such tasks because that is consid-
ered part of the barista’s job (Tr. 213). Schmehl testified that
she told Proegler that during the collective bargaining process
things can get better, get worse or stay the same (Tr. 211).
I credit Proegler’s testimony regarding this conversation and
discredit Schmehl’s testimony. As discussed earlier in this
decision, I found Proegler to be a credible witness, he willingly
acknowledged occasions when he could not recall some rele-
vant facts. However, regarding this conversation, Respondent’s
attorney repeatedly questioned Proegler about his memory of
the conversation. Proegler remained consistent and repeatedly
testified that Schmehl said benefits would likely get worse dur-
ing negotiations, it would be unlikely employees could pickups
shifts at other stores and that managers likely would not be able
to help employees (Tr. 82, 124–127). In response to leading
questions seeking a negative response, Schmehl denied, for
example, threatening employees that management would no
longer be able to help employees if they supported or voted for
a union (Tr. 207, 212). Further, during her testimony, Schmehl
repeatedly testified about a general recollection about what she
would have said to partners as opposed to what she did say to
Proegler. For example, Schmehl testified, “I would have re-
viewed the Notice of Petition” and “I would have . . . let part-
ners know that during the union process that it’s status quo. . . ”
(Tr. 206–207, 210). Thus, based on demeanor, Proegler’s
stronger recollection, Schmehl’s vague testimony about what
she would have said to partners and her denials in response to
leading questions, I credit Proegler’s testimony regarding the
conversation over Schmehl’s testimony.
5. Schmehl’s removal of union notes from the Zeeb Road
community board
There is a community chalkboard located in the café area of
the Zeeb Road store. The public is allowed to post information
on the community board (Tr. 41–42). Typically, but not al-
ways, the information is posted after a store manager approves
the material (Tr. 42).
As part of its organizing campaign, the Union held an event
called a “sip-in” at the Zeeb Road store on March 20, between
12 p.m. and 3 p.m. (Tr. 43–44).
Using posters displayed
around Ann Arbor, and postings on Twitter, the Union encour-
aged customers to visit the Zeeb Road store and support the
Union by ordering a “Union strong” coffee, wearing union
attire, and leaving notes on the community board (GC Exhs. 13
and 14). The Union’s advertisements said, “We need your help
to show both Management and our Partners that the community
has our backs!”
Proegler worked at the Zeeb Road store on the day of the sip
in. At the beginning of the sip in, a union organizer by the
name of Will, wore a sign around his neck showing he was with
Starbucks Workers United and a union pin. He set up materials
inside the Zeeb Road store (Tr. 76, 198). Store Manager Shae
Shafer told the organizer to pick up his materials and leave the
store (Tr. 76). The Union organizer moved outside (Tr. 76).
Schmehl was present during most of the time that the Zeeb
Road sip in was taking place (Tr. 44). When customers ap-
proached the Union organizer, he handed them sticky notes
with supportive union messages written on them, such as Union
Strong (Tr. 76, 115). Some customers took the notes from the
organizer and put them up on the community board inside the
store (Tr. 47, 76). Schmehl admitted at the beginning of the
sip-in, and again after it concluded, she removed all the pro-
union notes that customers had posted on the community board
(Tr. 48, 77). Included in the notes that Schmehl removed was a
customer note that read Starbucks Workers United and “Union
Strong” and a letter of support from the EPA Local 8907 (Tr.
115–116). The content of the other notes that customers posted
is not visible in the photograph introduced by the General
Counsel (GC Exh. 15).
Sometime prior to March 20, someone had posted a flyer, on
the Zeeb Road community board, advertising an art exposition
for Michigan prisoners (Tr. 50). On March 20, when Schmehl
took down the pro-union notes posted by customers, she left the
art exposition flyer posted on the community board (Tr. 50).
She testified that she left the flyer up because it was related to
the University of Michigan’s Art School which is a non-profit
organization (Tr. 194). Schmehl testified that the purpose of the
community board is to provide a space for non-profit events
and local Starbucks events to be posted for its customers and
employees (Tr. 185). Schmehl testified Respondent’s policy
allows customers to post content for nonprofit neighborhood
community programs and initiatives, such as volunteer re-
quests, or announcements about community events, including,
art fairs and book clubs (Tr. 187, 194, R. Exh. 2). She testified
that Respondent’s operations manual contains a policy regard-
ing what is an is not allowed on Respondent’s community
boards (Tr. 189, R. Exh. 2). The policy states:
There are three categories of content that may be displayed on
Starbucks Community Boards
Starbucks enterprise community programs and initia-
tives—post information about nonprofit organizations
and community events sponsored by Starbucks or disas-
ter response initiatives at a national level.
Starbucks local community programs and initiatives –
post photos and other materials that demonstrate how we
make a difference in local neighborhoods.
Neighborhood community programs and initiatives –
post events shared by customers regarding upcoming
community programs.
Contents should be refreshed at least on a weekly basis. Store
managers are empowered to remove items that are not part of
the Approved Content List. Items under Unapproved content
list are examples of things that can be removed by the store
manager, but it is not a complete or comprehensive list.
APPROVED CONTENT
Starbucks content
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
8
Starbucks may provide details on community programs and
initiatives with promotional signage as indicated in the Siren's
Eye or through specific Action Items, such as disaster re-
sponse posters
Store-specific content
Details about community programs and initiatives, including
photos from service projects; thank you letters from nonprofit
organizations with whom your store has partnered; awards
and recognition from the community or details about upcom-
ing community events can be communicated on the commu-
nity board.
Neighborhood content
Information about nonprofit neighborhood community pro-
grams and initiatives, such as notices for needed volunteers or
announcements about community events can be shared.
UNAPPROVED CONTENT
The Community Board may not be used to post the following
(including but not limited to):
• For Rent or For Sale notices
• Advertisements
• Business Cards
• Personal Ads
• Notices or Announcements that are political or reli-
gious in nature
• Notices that disparage Starbucks
• Any material that could be deemed offensive, in-
sulting, or derogatory
• Regulatory signage such as hand-washing notices or
“no smoking” signs (Tr. 189, R. Exh. 2).
Schmehl testified that she has applied the company’s policy
since she began working for Starbucks in 2014. She removes
offending postings on the community board “very often, almost
every time I’m inside the location” (Tr. 217). It is not entirely
clear which location or locations Schmehl was talking about,
however, I understood her to say that almost every time she
visits one of the stores in her District, she removes unapproved
content from the community boards. General Counsel did not
present any testimony to contradict Schmehl’s testimony.
III. ANALYSIS
Paragraph 8 of the complaint alleges, that during a February
meeting with and employee, Gambone violated 8(a)(1) of the
Act by impliedly promising its employees increased benefits
and improved terms and conditions of employment by solicit-
ing employee complaints and grievances.
The record shows that Gambone met with Coakley at the
Clinton Township store in early February. The meeting took
place about a week after Coakley sent a January 29 letter to
Johnson, seeking union recognition and the Union filed its Jan-
uary 31 petition, seeking to represent employees at the Clinton
Township store (GC Exhs. 2, 8, Tr. 138–139). Gambone’s visit
was unusual because she normally spent her time in the store
meeting with the store manager and assistant manager, but
during this visit she met with every partner and spoke to Coak-
ley one on one for 20 minutes (Tr. 140, 142, 144, 242–243).
Prior to this conversation, Gambone and Coakley had only
engaged in brief conversations in passing during the 5 plus
years Coakley had worked for Respondent (Tr. 140). During
the conversation, Gambone asked Coakley what she wanted
fixed at the store (Tr. 142). Coakley responded she wanted
social distancing stickers on the floor and a sign on the door
asking customers to wear masks (Tr. 142). Gambone responded
that she would do that for Coakley (Tr. 142). Coakley also told
Gambone that a sink in their bar area had been broken for about
2 years and an oven was broken (Tr. 143). Gambone said she
would have them looked at (Tr. 143). Following the conversa-
tion, Gambone and the regional director Bridgette Jackson
came to the Clinton Township store and put a sign on the door
asking customers to wear masks, someone came and fixed the
sink, and attempted to fix the oven (Tr. 142–145, 155).
Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice
for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees
in the exercise of their rights to engage in protected union and
concerted activity. Where a solicitation of grievances is alleged
as a promise of benefit, the ultimate question is whether there
has been a promise of benefits in order to influence employees
to vote against a union MacDonald Machinery Co., 335 NLRB
319, 320 (2001). The Board applies the objective standard of
whether the remark would reasonably tend to interfere with the
free exercise of employee NLRA rights, and does not look at
the motivation behind the remark, or rely on the success or
failure of such coercion. Midwest Terminals of Toledo, 365
NLRB No. 158, slip op. at 21 (2017), enfd. 783 Fed.Appx. 1
(D.C. Cir. 2019); Divi Carina Bay Resort, 356 NLRB 316, 320
(2010), enfd. 451 Fed. Appx. 143 (3d Cir. 2011); Joy Recovery
Technology Corp., 320 NLRB 356, 365 (1995), enfd. 134 F.3d
1307 (7th Cir. 1998); Miami Systems Corp., 320 NLRB 71, 71
fn. 4 (1995), affd. in relevant part 111 F.3d 1284 (6th Cir.
1997). When applying this standard, the Board considers the
totality of the relevant circumstances. Mediplex of Danbury,
314 NLRB 470, 471 (1994).
I conclude that during the early February meeting with Coak-
ley, Gambone unlawfully solicited and promised to remedy
Coakley’s grievances in order to discourage union activity.
The conversation took place close in time to the employees’
union activities. While Gambone had previously attempted to
connect with partners while visiting stores in her district, such
conversations had previously focused on talking to them about
their interests outside of work (Tr. 246–247). Conversely, dur-
ing this conversation, Gambone solicited Coakley’s grievances
and promised to remedy them. The impact of COVID-19 was
one of the reasons employees sought union representation and
Gambone knew employees were concerned about COVID-19
(Tr. 154, 257). Given the nature of the health risks Respond-
ent’s employees faced in January and February, related to
COVID-19, working in a confined space in close proximity to
each other and customers, Gambone’s promise to put up a sign
asking customers to wear masks would reasonably be viewed as
a promise of benefit to discourage union activity.
Conversely, the promise to have the sink and the oven
looked at did not violate Section 8(a)(1) because it was not a
promise of a benefit calculated to impact the outcome of the
election. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 352 NLRB 815, 834 (2008),
STARBUCKS CORP.
9
citing United Airlines Services Corp., 290 NLRB 954 (1988).
Respondent had previously sent someone to fix the sink and
attempted to fix the oven (Tr. 155). Thus, the totality of the
evidence establishes Respondent promised to have the oven and
the sink looked at or repaired as part of its routine process in
operating a food service outlet. Further, objectively employees
would not view the repair or maintenance of a sink and an oven
as a "benefit" Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra.
I conclude that Gambone, during her early February meeting
with Coakley, solicited and promised to remedy Coakley’s
grievances for the purpose of discouraging union support in
violation of Section 8(a)(1).
In paragraph nine of the complaint, General Counsel alleges
that during a February 13, conversation, Lind violated 8(a)(1)
of the Act by creating an impression among its employees that
their union and protected concerted activities were under sur-
veillance.
In determining whether an employer has violated 8(a)(1) of
the Act by creating an impression of surveillance, the Board
looks at whether employees would reasonably assume from the
statement in question that their union activities have been place
under surveillance. Waste Stream Management Inc., 315
NLRB 1099, 1124 (1994), citing United Charter Service, 306
NLRB 150 (1992); South Shore Hospital, 229 NLRB 363
(1977); and Schrementi Bros., 179 NLRB 853 (1969).
The record does not support the allegation that Lind created
an impression that Respondent was engaging in surveillance of
Proegler’s union activities. On about February 11, Proegler
visited the Main Street store to pick up some product (Tr 64).
While at the store, he had a conversation with Lind. The two
exchanged pleasantries about their personal lives and Lind
laughed and said, “we’ve been told to watch out for you” (Tr.
65-67). Based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable
employee would not have assumed Lind’s statement created the
impression that Proegler’s union activities were under surveil-
lance. Lind was not Proegler’s direct supervisor. Proegler
worked at the Zeeb Road store and at the time of the conversa-
tion Lind was the dual manager of the Main Street and South
University stores. Neither Lind nor Proegler testified that the
issue of the union was discussed in any manner during their
conversation. Lind and Proegler described their relationship as
a friendly and joking relationship (Tr. 102, 228-229). When
asked what conclusion he drew from the conversation, Proegler
testified, “I really didn’t make too many conclusions based off
that singular conversation” (Tr. 103). Further, Respondent had
no need to engage in surveillance of Proegler’s union activities
because prior to the conversation, Proegler had been very open
about his union activities. For example, on January 28, Proeg-
ler wore a union button, handed his store manager, Tim Lowrey
a letter addressed to then CEO Johnson asking Respondent to
recognize the Union. Proegler emailed Johnson the same letter
(Tr. 59, GC Exh. 9).
General Counsel argues that Lind’s statement is unlawful
when combined with the fact that the first time Proegler ever
met his new district manager Paige Schmehl, she said to him
she had heard a lot about him. General Counsel did not allege
Schmehl’s statement as unlawful. I find Schmehl’s comment so
vague that a reasonable person would not attribute the comment
as related to Proegler’s union activities. Thus, even considering
Lind and Schmehl’s comments to Proegler in combination, no
reasonable employee would assume that Respondent was en-
gaged in surveillance of Proegler’s union activities or that Re-
spondent was watching Proegler more carefully because of his
union activities.
I conclude that Lind, during her February 11, conversation
with Proegler did not create an impression among its employees
that their union or protected concerted activities were under
surveillance in violation of Section 8(a)(1).
In paragraph 10 of the complaint, General Counsel alleges
that during a February 14 meeting, Ayers violated 8(a)(1) of the
Act by impliedly promising its employees increased benefits
and improved terms and conditions of employment by solicit-
ing employee complaints and grievances.
The record shows on about February 3, Ayers met with Pro-
egler in the lobby of the Zeeb Road store (Tr. 68). Ayers asked
Proegler if there were any problems within the store that she
could help fix or pass along to the new district manager (Tr.
69). Proegler responded, none that he could think of (Tr. 69-
70). Where Proegler failed to raise any issues related to em-
ployees’ terms or conditions of employment, I find General
Counsel failed to establish that Ayers promised employees
increased benefits and improved terms and conditions of em-
ployment in order to influence employees to vote against a
union MacDonald Machinery Co., 335 NLRB 319, 320 (2001).
I recognize that the conversation took place just a few days
after January 28, when Proegler provided store manager Low-
rey and CEO Johnson a letter seeking union recognition (Tr.
59-61). However, considering all the circumstances, Ayers
statement would not reasonably tend to interfere with the free
exercise of employee NLRA rights Midwest Terminals of Tole-
do, supra.
I conclude that Ayers, during her February 3, meeting with
Proegler did not solicit and promise to remedy Proegler’s
grievances for the purpose of discouraging union support in
violation of Section 8(a)(1).
In paragraph 11 of the complaint, General Counsel alleges
that during a March 22, meeting, Schmehl violated 8(a)(1) of
the Act by threatening to reduce benefits for employees and
threatening that management would no longer be able to help
employees if they supported or voted for a Union.
In mid-March, Schmehl visited the Zeeb Road store and told
everyone working that she wanted to have a conversation with
them before they left (Tr. 81). Schmehl met with Proegler and
Faith Watkins, a barista (Tr. 81–82). Schmehl referenced a
flyer that was posted on the refrigerator and said during the
election period the company was required to maintain the status
quo (Tr. 123). She further said if a union were voted in, Star-
bucks and the Union would be obligated under the NLRA to
bargain in good faith on any terms and conditions of employ-
ment (Tr. 123–124). Schmehl told them if they chose to vote
yes on a union that their insurance would probably get worse,
they would likely not be able to accrue any more paid time off,
it would be unlikely they would be able to pick up shifts at
other locations and it would be unlikely that store managers
would be able to help them on the floor in times that they were
short staffed (Tr. 82, 124, 125–127).
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
10
Respondent argues Schmehl’s comments were not unlawful
because Proegler only testified that “our insurance would prob-
ably get worse, we would likely not be able to accrue any more
paid time off as well as it would be unlikely for us to be able to
pick up shifts at other locations…” and “[i]t would be unlikely
that store managers would be willing—would be able to help
on the floor if need be” (R. Br. p. 17). However, the Board has
regularly found such comments to violate the Act where they
are not based on any reasonably calculated objective facts. Mi
Pueblo Foods, 360 NLRB 988, 992 (2014). In Mi Pueblo, the
Board found an 8(a)(1) violation where the employer said an
employee would likely not be promoted if the Union came in
because of the Union's seniority standards. Id. See also Presi-
dential Riverboat Casinos, 329 NLRB 77 (1999) (statements
that wages might possibly be decreased if the union were elect-
ed would reasonably be understood as a threat that the employ-
er might retaliate by reducing wages); Ed Chandler Ford, 254
NLRB 851, 852, 858 (1981), enfd. in pertinent part 718 F.2d
892 (9th Cir. 1983) (statements that collective bargaining
would probably result in loss of bonuses, not based on objective
fact, constituted a threat of loss of bonuses if the union won
election).
I conclude that Schmehl, during a mid-March, meeting with
Proegler violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening em-
ployees with reduced benefits and hours and the withdrawal of
supervisory assistance, for the purpose of inducing employees
not to vote for the Union.
In paragraph 12 of the complaint, General Counsel alleges
that on March 20, Schmehl, violated 8(a)(1) of the Act by re-
moving union information from a blackboard in the Zeeb Road
store while leaving non-union information posted.
As part of its organizing campaign, the Union asked custom-
ers to come to the Zeeb Road store during a March 20, sip in
and leave notes on the community board “. . .to show both
Management and our Partners that the community has our
backs!” (GC Exh. 13).
The community board is in the public area of the Zeeb Road
store (Tr 41). During and after a March 20 sip-in, Schmehl
removed union content consisting of numerous sticky notes
with messages supportive of the union posted by customers,
while leaving a flyer advertising an art exhibition at the Univer-
sity of Michigan’s Art School (Tr 50, 77, 190–191, 194, GC
Exh. 15) Respondent’s policy allows customers to post content
regarding neighborhood community programs and initiatives,
such as volunteer requests, or announcements about community
events, such as, art fairs, art exhibitions, or book clubs (Tr. 187,
194, R. Exh. 2). Schmehl regularly removes unapproved con-
tent from the community boards in her district, but she leaves
approved content (Tr. 194–195, 217).
The Board has held that "it is not unlawful for an employ-
er to reserve to itself the exclusive use of its bulletin boards and
to bar any postings by employees” Mid-Mountain Foods, Inc.,
332 NLRB 229, 233 (2000), quoting Sprint/United Manage-
ment Co., 326 NLRB 397, 399 (1998) (emphasis added). How-
ever, where Respondent has ceded its community board space
to the public to use for posting notices of a similar nature to the
union content, i.e., book clubs, art fairs and volunteer requests,
it cannot discriminate against the use of its board for posting
union content. Id. and Mek Arden, LLC d/b/a Arden Post Acute
Rehab, 365 NLRB No. 109, slip op. 1, fn. 3 (2017) enfd. 755
Fed.Appx 12 (D.C. Cir. 2018). While the case law regarding
bulletin boards has generally focused on what employees or
their union representatives can post, the rationale for prohibit-
ing discrimination of union content posted by employees is
equally applicable to prohibiting discrimination of union con-
tent posted by customers.
I conclude that on March 20, Schmehl violated Section
8(a)(1) of the Act by discriminatorily removing union content
from the community board in the Zeeb Road store.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent by Jennifer Gambone violated Section 8(a)(1)
by soliciting employee complaints and grievances and promis-
ing better conditions of employment in order to discourage
employees from supporting a union.
4. Respondent by Paige Schmehl violated Section 8(a)(1) by
threatening employees with reduced benefits and hours and the
withdrawal of supervisory assistance, for the purpose of induc-
ing employees not to vote for or support the Union.
5. Respondent by Paige Schmehl violated Section 8(a)(1) by
discriminatorily removing and prohibiting the posting of union
materials on a community board.
6. The unfair labor practices stated in conclusions of law 3–
5, above, affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative actions designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act. 7
ORDER (ZEEB ROAD STORE)
Respondent, Starbucks Corporation its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from
7 General Counsel argues that the Board should use this case as an
opportunity to update its standard notice remedies. First, it urges the
Board to adopt a notice-reading requirement as a standard remedy in all
cases. Second, it asks the Board to modernize its approach to remedial
notice postings by expressly including text messaging, posting on a
social media page, and distribution through an internal smartphone app
used by employees, as standard forms of electronic notice distribution.
Third, it states the Board should amend its standard remedial language
by explicitly requiring respondents to grant Board agents reasonable
access to its property to verify compliance with the Board’s order.
Fourth, it contends the Board should expand Explanation of Rights
postings beyond cases involving egregious and pervasive unfair labor
practices and supplement the ordinary remedial notice with a broader
Explanation of Rights. Finally, it argues the Board should not limit the
posting period for such to 60 days, but instead should require the Ex-
planation of Rights to be posted for at least 1 year or longer. As I am
bound by the Board’s current remedies, I will leave the General Coun-
sel to make these arguments to the Board.
STARBUCKS CORP.
11
a. Discriminatorily removing or prohibiting the posting of
union materials on our community boards.
b. Threatening employees with the loss of benefits or hours,
or the withdrawal of supervisory assistance if you choose to be
represented by or support a union.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
a. Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
Zeeb Road store in Ann Arbor, Michigan, a copy of the at-
tached notice marked “Appendix A.”8 Copies of the notice, on
forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after
being signed by Respondent’s authorized representative, shall
be posted by Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive
days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical post-
ing of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electroni-
cally, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if Respondent customarily
communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, Respond-
ent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by Respondent at the facility at
any time since March 1, 2022.
b. Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 7 a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
ORDER (CLINTON TOWNSHIP STORE)
Respondent, Starbucks Corporation its officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from
Soliciting employee grievances and promising better condi-
tions of employment in order to discourage employees from
supporting a union.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
a. Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its
store in Clinton Township, Michigan a copy of the attached
notice marked “Appendix B.”9 Copies of the notice, on forms
provided by the Regional Director for Region 7, after being
signed by Respondent’s authorized representative, shall be
posted by Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days
in conspicuous places including all places where notices to
8 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
9 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board.”
employees are customarily posted. In addition to physical post-
ing of paper notices, the notices shall be distributed electroni-
cally, such as by email, posting on an intranet or an internet
site, and/or other electronic means, if Respondent customarily
communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable
steps shall be taken by Respondent to ensure that the notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. In the
event that, during the pendency of these proceedings, Respond-
ent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in
these proceedings, Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its
own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and
former employees employed by Respondent at the facility at
any time since February 1, 2022.
b. Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director for Region 7 a sworn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting to
the steps that the Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C., February 9, 2023.
APPENDIX A (TO BE POSTED AT THE ZEEB ROAD
STORE)
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
SECTION 7 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, A FEDERAL LAW, GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO:
Form, join, or assist a union;
Choose a representative to bargain with us on your be-
half;
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection;
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the ex-
ercise of the above rights.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily remove or prohibit the posting
of union materials on our community boards.
WE WILL NOT threaten employees with the loss of benefits or
hours, or the withdrawal of supervisory assistance if they
choose to be represented by or support a union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with
your rights under Section 7 of the Act.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-293742 or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273-1940.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
12
APPENDIX B (TO BE POSTED AT THE CLINTON
TOWNSHIP STORE)
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
SECTION 7 OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
ACT, A FEDERAL LAW, GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO:
Form, join, or assist a union;
Choose a representative to bargain with us on your be-
half;
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection;
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the
exercise of the above rights.
WE WILL NOT solicit employee grievances and promise bet-
ter conditions of employment in order to discourage employees
from supporting a union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with
your rights under Section 7 of the Act.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/07-CA-293742
or by using the QR code
below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision
from the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board,
1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling
(202) 273-1940.