Starbucks Corporation

373 NLRB No. 48 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, a/w Ser- vice Employees International Union. Case 22– CA–305726 May 2, 2024 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MCFERRAN AND MEMBERS PROUTY AND WILCOX On July 14, 2023, Administrative Law Judge Kenneth W. Chu issued the attached decision. The Respondent filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel and Charging Party filed answering briefs. 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 exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclusions2 and to adopt the recommended Order as modified.3 ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recom- mended Order of the administrative law judge as modified below and orders that the Respondent, Starbucks Corpo- ration, Summit, New Jersey, its officers, agents, succes- sors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Or- der as modified. 1. Substitute the following for paragraph 1(a). “(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Workers United, a/w Service Employees International Union (the Union) by unreasonably delaying in furnishing it with re- quested information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its functions as the collective- 1 The Respondent asserts that Members Prouty and Wilcox should recuse themselves based on their “past, present, and perceived relation- ship with the Service Employees International and Local Unions (SEIU), and their affiliates, including the charging party Workers United.” Mem- bers 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 We agree, for the reasons stated by the judge, that the Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) by unreasonably delaying in furnishing the Union with relevant information requested on September 23, 28, and October 6, 2022. In joining his colleagues, Member Prouty notes that the Re- spondent did not begin fulfilling the Union’s information request until December 13, 2022, nearly 12 weeks after the Union’s first information request and nearly 8 weeks after the Union filed the charge in the instant case. 3 We shall modify the judge’s recommended Order to conform to the Board’s standard remedial language and in accordance with our decision in Paragon Systems, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 104 (2022). We shall substi- tute a new notice to conform to the Order as modified. The Union and General Counsel have asked the Board to modify the judge’s recommended Order by requiring the Respondent to electroni- cally distribute the notice to former employees employed during the pe- riod that the Respondent unreasonably delayed in furnishing requested information. While Member Prouty joins his colleagues in adopting the bargaining representative of the Respondent’s unit em- ployees.” 2. Substitute the following for paragraph 2(a). “(a) Post at its facility in Summit, New Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Re- gion 22, after being signed by the Respondent’s author- ized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus- tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed 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. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If the Respondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former em- ployees employed by the Respondent at any time since September 23, 2022.” 3. Substitute the attached notice for that of the admin- istrative law judge. Dated, Washington, D.C. May 2, 2024 ______________________________________ Lauren McFerran, Chairman David M. Prouty, Member judge’s recommended Order in the instant case, he is open to revisiting, in a future appropriate case, whether the Board should adopt, as a stand- ard remedy, a notice distribution to former employees employed during the pertinent period. 4 If the facility involved in these proceedings is open and staffed by a substantial complement of employees, the notice must be posted within 14 days after service by the Region. If the facility involved in these pro- ceedings is closed or not staffed by a substantial complement of employ- ees due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the no- tice must be posted within 14 days after the facility reopens and a sub- stantial complement of employees have returned to work. If, while closed or not staffed by a substantial complement of employees due to the pandemic, the Respondent is communicating 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 electronically 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 Judg- ment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.” DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2 ________________________________________ Gwynne A. Wilcox, Member (SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX 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 vio- lated 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 ac- tivities. WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Work- ers United, a/w Service Employees International Union (the Union) by unreasonably delaying in furnishing it with requested information that is relevant and necessary to the Union’s performance of its functions as the collective-bar- gaining representative of our unit employees. 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/22-CA-305726 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. Henry J. Powell, Esq., for the General Counsel. Michael Moschel, Esq., of Nashville, Tennessee, and Scott Main- quist, Esq., of Chicago, Illinois, for the Respondent. 1 I have identified the Joint Motion and Stipulation of Facts as Hear- ing Exhibit 1. My order granting the motion has been identified as Hear- ing Exhibit 2. The exhibits for the General Counsel are identified as “GC Cristina Gallo, Esq., of New York, New York, DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE KENNETH W. CHU, Administrative Law Judge. Upon motion on May 4, 2023, all parties to this proceeding jointly moved to waive the evidentiary hearing and provide a stipulated record for my consideration and issuance of a decision pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(9) of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. The joint motion waiving the hearing and acceptance of the stipulated rec- ord was granted in my order dated May 9.1 Pursuant to a charge filed by Workers United, a/w Service Employees International Union (Union) on October 21, 2022, and an amended charge filed on February 1, 2023 (GC Exhs. 1(b) and 1(d); Jt. Exhs. 1 and 2), the Regional Director for Region 22 of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a com- plaint on March 23, 2023 (GC Exh. 1(f); Jt. Exh. 3). Starbucks Corporation (Respondent) timely filed an answer on April 6, 2023, denying the main allegations in the complaint (GC Exh 1(h); Jt. Exh. 4). The complaint alleges the following, Paragraph 7 (a): On September 23, 2022, the Union orally re- quested that Respondent provide it certain information dating from January 2022 to the present regarding its 2 Beechwood Road, Summit, New Jersey location, including: 1. Employees’ schedules and hours worked; 2. Employees’ wage information; and 3. The dates of any unscheduled closings of the store since January 1, 2022. (b) Since about September 28, 2022, the Union, by emailed let- ter, memorialized and supplemented its September 23, 2022, re- quest described in subparagraph (a) by requesting that Respond- ent furnish it with the following information: 1. All schedules showing the planned dates, shifts, and hours to be worked for every employee of the Summit store from Jan- uary 1, 2022, to the present. 2. Any document(s) showing the actual dates, shifts, and hours of work performed by every employee of the Summit store from January 1, 2022, to the present. 3. A list of all closings of the Summit store from January 1, 2022, to the present, including the following: a. Date of the closure; b. Duration of the closure (days, hours, etc.); c. Whether such closure was scheduled or unscheduled and if scheduled, whether the closure was announced in advance to employees and how far in advance; d. Whether affected employee(s) were paid for the full duration of the closure and if not, whether employees(s) were paid for any part of the closure. e. Whether, when, and how affected employee(s) were notified that they could work in other stores during the period of closure; and f. Whether any affected employees worked in other stores and, if so, the store location and number of hours each such employee worked during such closure peri- ods. Exh.” The joint exhibits are identified as “Jt. Exh.” The posthearing briefs for the General Counsel and Respondent are identified respectively as “GC Br.” and “R. Br.” STARBUCKS CORP. 3 These are continuing requests for information, and you are re- quested to supplement your response with new or updated in- formation that may become available in the future. (c) Since about October 6, 2022, the Union, by email to Re- spondent, reiterated its September 23 and 28, 2022 information requests described above in subparagraphs (a) and (b). (d) The information requested by the Union, as described above in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collective- bargaining representative of the unit. (e) From about late December 2022 through mid-February 2023, Respondent provided the information requested by the Union de- scribed above in subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c). (f) From about September 23, 2022, to mid-February 2023, Re- spondent unreasonably delayed in furnishing the Union with the information requested by it as described in subparagraph (a). (g) From about September 28, 2022, to mid-February 2023, Re- spondent unreasonably delayed in furnishing the Union with the information requested by it as described in subparagraph (b). Paragraph 8: By the conduct described, the complaint alleges that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act (the Act). Stipulations of Facts2 1. The charge in Case 22–CA–305726, which is attached as Exhibit 1, was filed by the Union on October 21, 2022, and served on Respondent by U.S. mail on October 24, 2022. 2. The amended charge in Case 22–CA–305726, which is at- tached as Exhibit 2, was filed by the Union on February 1, 2023, and served on Respondent by U.S. mail on February 8, 2023. 3. On March 23, 2023, the Regional Director issued a com- plaint and notice of hearing (Complaint) in Case 22–CA– 305276, which is attached as Exhibit 3. 4. On April 6, 2023, Respondent filed a timely answer to the Complaint, which is attached as Exhibit 4, denying that it had violated the Act. 5. At all material times, Respondent, a Washington State cor- poration with headquarters located in Seattle, Washington, and locations throughout the United States, including a facility (Store #7226) located at 2 Beechwood Road, Summit, New Jersey (herein “Summit Store”), has been engaged in the retail opera- tion of coffeeshops. 6. During the preceding twelve months, in the course and con- duct of its business operations described above in paragraph 5, Respondent has derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000. 7. During the preceding 12 months, in the course and conduct of its business operations described above in paragraph 5, Re- spondent purchased and received at its 2 Beechwood Road, Sum- mit, New Jersey facility goods and supplies valued in excess of $5000 directly from points outside the State of New Jersey. 8. At all material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 9. At all material times, the Union has been a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2 The stipulations of facts were copied from the motion verbatim. 10. At all material times, the following individuals held the po- sition set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the act and agents of Respondent within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(13) of the Act: Rhesa Welch — Labor Relations Manager (“Welch”) Scarlett O’Pella — District Manager (“O’Pella”) 11. On May 10, 2022, the National Labor Relations Board certified the Union as the exclusive collective-bargaining repre- sentative of all full-time and regular part-time baristas and shift supervisors employed at the Summit Store.3 12. On September 12, 2022, Respondent counsel emailed Un- ion counsel notifying the Union that there would be a 2-day clo- sure of the Summit Store on September 26–28, 2022. A copy of this email is attached as Exhibit 5. On September 20, 2022, un- ion counsel emailed Respondent counsel a request to bargain over the effects of the planned temporary closure of the Summit Store. A copy of this email is attached as Exhibit 6. 13. On September 21, 2022, Welch emailed union counsel that Respondent was available via Zoom on September 23, 2022, to negotiate with the Union over the effects of the temporary clo- sure of the Summit Store for renovation. That same day, union counsel replied to Welch’s email confirming that the proposed date and time worked. A copy of this email thread is attached as Exhibit 7. 14. On September 23, 2022, Respondent and the Union nego- tiated over the effects of the temporary closure of the Summit Store and reached an Effects Bargaining Agreement (EBA) cov- ering the scheduled renovation of the Summit Store between September 26 and 28, 2022. The parties executed the EBA on September 23, 2022. A copy of the EBA is attached as Exhibit 8. 15. During the negotiation session on September 23, 2022, Yadhira Alvarez (Alvarez), chief of staff for the Union, verbally requested that Respondent provide it information on schedules, hours worked, and unscheduled closing dates and times since January 1, 2022. Alvarez also requested salary information for all bargaining unit employees. The Union also asked for this in- formation in a written proposal emailed on this same day. A copy of the written proposal is attached as Exhibit 9. 16. Respondent did not provide the information at this time, but both Welch and Respondent counsel stated at the September 23 meeting that Respondent would provide relevant information. 17. On September 28, 2022, Union Counsel Cristina Gallo emailed Starbucks counsel a letter memorializing and supple- menting the information request that the Union had communi- cated on September 23, 2022. Specifically, the letter requested: 1. All schedules showing the planned dates, shifts, and hours to be worked for every employee of the Summit store from Jan- uary 1, 2022, to the present. 2. Any document(s) showing the actual dates, shifts, and hours of work performed by every employee of the Summit store from January 1, 2022, to the present. 3. A list of all closings of the Summit store from January 1, 2022, to the present, including the following: a. Date of the closure; 3 All full-time and regular part-time baristas and shift supervisors em- ployed by Respondent at its Store #7226 located at 2 Beechwood Road, Summit, New Jersey. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 b. Duration of the closure (days, hours, etc.); c. Whether such closure was scheduled or unscheduled and if scheduled, whether the closure was announced in advance to employees and how far in advance; d. Whether affected employee(s) were paid for the full dura- tion of the closure and if not, whether employees(s) were paid for any part of the closure; e. Whether, when, and how affected employee(s) were notified that they could work in other stores during the period of clo- sure; and f. Whether any affected employees worked in other stores and, if so, the store location and number of hours each such em- ployee worked during such closure periods. A copy of this September 28, 2022 email and letter are attached as Exhibit 10. 18. The information requested by the Union, is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the ex- clusive collective-bargaining representative of the bargaining unit employees at the Summit Store. 19. Also on September 28, 2022, Respondent, via email, re- ceived a second, separate request for information from Union Representative Alvarez. Respondent replied to this second re- quest by email on October 7, 2022, when Welch sent Alvarez and union counsel information responsive to Alvarez’ request and indicated that Respondent would “be in touch with addi- tional responses to your information requests as the information you have requested becomes available to” Respondent. A copy of this email thread is attached as Exhibit 11. 20. The September 28, 2022 request for information dis- cussed in paragraph 19 is not subject to the instant Complaint. 21. On October 6, 2022, union counsel forwarded Respondent counsel the September 28 email and attached request (Exh. 10), and she requested an update on the status of Respondent’s re- sponses to the Union’s pending information request. A copy of the October 6, 2022, email is attached as Exhibit 12. Respond- ent’s counsel did not respond to this email. 22. On October 21, 2022, the Union filed the unfair labor practice charge attached as Exhibit 1 alleging that Respondent had violated the Act by failing to provide information initially requested on September 23, 2022. 23. On November 18, 2022, Welch emailed Alvarez and un- ion counsel. The email in part stated that Respondent was “con- tinuing its efforts to collect information responsive to your pre- vious information request, which sought a significant amount of historical information relating to the Summit Store” and it would provide that information once the bargaining team had custody of it. This was the first response by Respondent to the Union’s September 23 and 28, 2022 information requests (Exhs. 9 and 10) and its October 6, 2022 email reiterating those requests (Exh. 12). A copy of this November 18, 2022 email is attached as Ex- hibit 13. 24. On December 13, 2022, Welch asked the district manager for the Summit Store’s district, Scarlett O’Pella, to assist with Respondent’s responses to the Union’s September 23 and 28, 2022 information requests. As a result, District Manager O’Pella became the individual responsible for preparing the information responsive to information request Number 3 contained in the Un- ion’s September 28, 2022 letter attached as Exhibit 10, and reit- erated in the October 6, 2022 email attached as Exhibit 12. 25. On December 14, 2022, Respondent filed a position state- ment with Region 22 for the NLRB in which it disputed that it was in violation of the Act, informed the Region that it was in the process of collecting the information that the Union had ini- tially requested on September 23, 2022, and set forth a schedule under which it expected to provide the Union with the requested information. Specifically, Respondent committed to the Region that it would provide: (1) documents responsive to information requests Numbers 1 and 2 by December 23, 2022; (2) documents responsive to information request Number 3 for the time period June 2022 through December 2022 by December 31, 2022; and (3) documents responsive to information request Number 3 for the time period January 2022 through May 2022 by January 13, 2023. Respondent’s December 14, 2022, Position Statement is attached as Exhibit 14, and incorporated herein by reference. 26. On December 15, 2022, Respondent Counsel Jedd Men- delson spoke to Union Counsel Cristina Gallo over the phone and during that conversation Mendelson informed Gallo that Re- spondent intended to provide information in a rolling production in the coming weeks. 27. On December 22, 2022, Respondent counsel emailed un- ion counsel a spreadsheet providing information responsive to information request Numbers 1 and 2. A copy of the December 22, 2022 email and the spreadsheet are attached as Exhibits 15 and 16, respectively. 28. On December 30, 2022, Respondent counsel emailed un- ion counsel a document that contained information, prepared by District Manager O’Pella, that was partially responsive to the September 28, 2022 information request Number 3 for the period June 2022 through December 2022, which was reiterated on Oc- tober 6, 2022. The email also stated that District Manager O’Pella would send supporting records that same day and/or on January 2, 2023. A copy of the December 30, 2022, email is attached as Exhibit 17. 29. On December 30, 2022, District Manager O’Pella emailed union counsel supporting records with information partially re- sponsive to information request Number 3 for the period: June 2022 through December 2022. A copy of District Manager O’Pella’s December 30, 2022, email is attached as Exhibit 18. 30. On January 13, 2023, Respondent counsel emailed union counsel a document with information, prepared by District Man- ager O’Pella, that was partially responsive to information request Number 3 for the period: January 1 through May 31, 2022. The email also indicated that Respondent counsel would confer with District Manager O’Pella about whether she would follow-up with supporting records, and that Respondent intended to follow- up with additional information for certain dates for which it was still trying to obtain access to supporting records, but that it would be in touch with any supplemental information. A copy of the January 13, 2023 email is attached as Exhibit 19. 31. On January 23, 2023, District Manager O’Pella, via email, forwarded supporting records to union counsel. A copy of the January 23 2023, email is attached as Exhibit 20. 32. On January 24, 2023, Respondent counsel emailed union counsel a document containing supplemental information, pre- pared by District Manager O’Pella, that was partially responsive to information request Number 3 for the period: January 1through May 31, 2022. A copy of the January 24, 2023 email is attached as Exhibit 21. 33. On January 24, 2023, union counsel emailed Respondent counsel indicating that Starbucks had failed to provide infor- mation with respect to Summit Store closures after May 31, 2022. A copy of union counsel’s January 24, 2023, email is at- tached as Exhibit 22. STARBUCKS CORP. 5 34. On January 26, 2023, union counsel acknowledged that on December 30, 2022, it had received Respondent’s email con- taining information about Summit Store closures after May 31, 2022, but had not realized it. 35. On February 8, 2023, Respondent counsel provided union counsel with supplemental information that was prepared by District Manager O’Pella. A copy of this email is attached as Ex- hibit 23. 36. As of February 8, 2023, Respondent fully responded to the Union’s September 23, and September 28, 2022 requests for information, which were reiterated on October 6, 2022. 37. On February 17, 2023, Respondent filed a position state- ment with Region 22 in which it stated in detail its reasons for the delay of its collection and production of the information re- quested by the Union. Respondent’s February 17, 2023, Position Statement is attached as Exhibit 24, and is incorporated herein by reference. 38. O’Pella assumed a temporary role of district manager for the Summit Store district from May 9, 2022 to January 25, 2023. Prior to May 9, 2022, O’Pella was the store manager for the Re- spondent’s facility located at 120 Cedar Grove Lane, Cedar Grove, New Jersey. O’Pella did not have personal knowledge of the information requested by the Union concerning January 1 through May 9, 2022. 39. Liz Colonna, the Summit Store manager, was out on a leave of absence from December 3through 28, 2022. III. ISSUES The following issues are presented in the complaint, --1. Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by unreasonably delaying furnishing the Union with the information requested by its September 23, 2022 verbal and email request? Whether Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by unreasonably delaying furnishing the Union with the infor- mation requested by its September 28, 2022 written request and as reiterated in its October 6 email? IV. THE POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES As part of the joint motion of the parties to waive the hearing and stand to on the stipulated record, the parties also included their positions in the motion.4 The following are the respective positions of the parties (Jt. Exh. 1 at 7–12), A. General Counsel’s Position Counsel for the General Counsel alleges in Case 22–CA– 305726 that the Respondent, Starbucks Corporation (Respond- ent) has violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing and refusing to timely provide Workers United (Union) with relevant information it requested as the collective-bargaining representa- tive of certain employees of Respondent’s Summit, New Jersey store. It is undisputed that on September 23, 2022, the Union and Respondent met to bargain over the effects of a temporary clos- ing of the store scheduled for September 26–28, 2022. During this meeting, the Union verbally, and in a written proposal given to Respondent that same day, requested that Respondent provide it with information concerning past closings of the store. On Sep- tember 28, 2022, counsel for the Union sent a letter to 4 The written positions of the parties had been copied from the motion in their entirely without any grammatical or typographical corrections. Respondent memorializing its oral September 23, 2022, request in writing. The letter specifically requested: 1. All schedules showing the planned dates, shifts, and hours to be worked for every employee of the Summit store from Jan- uary 1, 2022, to the present. 2. Any document(s) showing the actual dates, shifts, and hours of work performed by every employee of the Summit store from January 1, 2022, to the present. 3. A list of all closings of the Summit store from January 1, 2022, to the present, including the following: a. Date of the closure; b. Duration of the closure (days, hours, etc.); c. Whether such closure was scheduled or unscheduled and if scheduled, whether the closure was announced in advance to employees and how far in advance; d. Whether affected employee(s) were paid for the full duration of the closure and if not, whether employees(s) were paid for any part of the closure; e. Whether, when, and how affected employee(s) were notified that they could work in other stores during the period of clo- sure; and f. Whether any affected employees worked in other stores and, if so, the store location and number of hours each such em- ployee worked during such closure periods. While Respondent stated at the September 23, 2022 meeting that it would provide the Union the information promptly, it took Respondent another 2 months after the Union reiterated its re- quest yet again on October 6, 2022, and filed the instant charge on October 21, 2022, to start providing the requested infor- mation. Despite the Union’s attempts to get Respondent to act on its September 23 and 28, 2022, information requests, Re- spondent unduly delayed furnishing the information and never provided the Union with an explanation for its delay. In fact, it was not until sometime between mid-December 2022 and mid- February 2023 that Respondent commenced the piecemeal pro- vision of the requested information to the Union, unilaterally pri- oritizing which information it would provide first without con- sulting with the Union. By mid-February 2023, approximately 5 months after the Union’s initial request, Respondent finally satisfied its obligation to provide the presumptively relevant and material information. It is well-settled Board law that employers must provide rele- vant information as promptly as possible. Any delay in provid- ing requested information must be reasonable. Pennco, Inc., 212 NLRB 677 (1974), Postal Service, 371 NLRB No. 7 (2021). Here, Respondent may claim that its 5- month long delay in providing the Union information is reasonable and should be ex- cused. Contrary to Respondent’s anticipated defense, the stipu- lated facts establish that Respondent’s delay was unreasonable as it was caused by its months-long failure to assign an individual to oversee the processing and provision of the requested infor- mation; by its unilateral prioritization of other requests over the instant one; and, by its December 2022 assignment of processing the majority of the request to an individual unfamiliar with the information requested. Thus, Respondent’s anticipated conten- tions as to what caused its delay do not support a conclusion of reasonableness and do not obviate Respondent’s obligations The parties submitted post-stipulated briefs in addition to their written positions. DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 6 under the Act to timely provide relevant requested information. See Alcoa Corp., 370 NLRB No. 107 (2021). Based on all the foregoing, it is clear that Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by delaying the provision of relevant information to the Union from September 2022 to Feb- ruary 2023. B. Union’s Position On September 23, 2022, in its efforts to represent the bargain- ing unit employees at the Summit store, Workers United (the Un- ion) made an information request to Starbucks (Respondent or Employer) across the bargaining table. (Stip., ¶ 15.) The request was made directly to Respondent’s Labor Relations Manager and counsel, both verbally and in writing. (Id., ¶ 15, Exh. 9.) It sought relevant information concerning unscheduled closures of a single store in Summit, New Jersey, for the preceding nine months. (Id., ¶ 15, Exh. 9.) The following week, on September 28, 2022, union counsel memorialized and supplemented that request and sent it to Re- spondent counsel by email. (Id., ¶ 17, Exh. 10.) The request re- quested a response in 5 days. (Id., Exh. 10.) Having received no response, the following week, on October 6, 2022, union counsel again forwarded the request to Respondent counsel. (Id., ¶ 21, Exh. 12.) Still, Respondent provided no response. In late Octo- ber, the Union filed a charge alleging a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act). (Id., ¶ 22, Exh. 1.) It took more than 3 months for Respondent to provide even a partial response to the Union’s requests, which finally arrived on December 22, 2022. (Id., ¶ 27, Exhs. 15–16.) In fact, Respondent did not even acknowledge the requests until November 18, 2022, almost 2 months after they were first made, when Respondent’s labor relations manager made an oblique reference to the Un- ion’s “previous request” in an email. (Id., ¶ 23, Exh. 13.) It took Respondent an additional 7 weeks thereafter to satisfy the full requests. (Id., ¶ 36.) In total, it took Respondent 138 days to satisfy the Union’s requests. Following the Employer’s tardy re- sponse, the Union amended the charge to allege that the Em- ployer unlawfully delayed in providing relevant information in violation of Section 8(a)(5). (Id., ¶ 2, Exh. 2.) The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has found that “an unreasonable delay in furnishing [] information is as much of a violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act as a refusal to furnish the information at all.” Monmouth Care Center, 354 NLRB 11, 51 (2009), reaffirmed, 356 NLRB 152 (2010), enfd. 672 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). The NLRB has re- peatedly found multi-month delays in the furnishing of such in- formation to violate the Act. See Alcoa Corp., 370 NLRB No. 107 (2021) (2–1/2-month delay unreasonable); see also Mon- mouth Care Center, 354 NLRB at 41 (collecting cases); Postal Service Case 28–CA–230940, 2019 WL 6112851 (Nov. 15, 2019) (collecting cases). In fact, a delay of as little as 4 to 6 weeks has been found unreasonable where the information was not “complex or difficult to retrieve.” Monmouth Care Center, 354 NLRB at 41; see, e.g., Postal Service, 308 NLRB 547, 551 (1992) (1-month delay unreasonable); Bundy Corp., 292 NLRB 671, 672 (1989) (6-week delay unreasonable). Here, under these circumstances, the delay was unreasonable and unwarranted. As a threshold matter, the Summit, New Jer- sey, store is small with approximately 16 employees. (Id., ¶ Exh. 1.) The request sought relevant data, some of which—like schedule and time clock data—is now customarily electronically maintained by employers. (Id., ¶ 18 (“The information requested by the Union, is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s per- formance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining rep- resentative of the bargaining unit employees at the Summit store.”).) The time period covered by the requests at the time they were made was a mere 9 months. Respondent offered several excuses for the delay in respond- ing in its mid-February 2023 position statement to Region 22. All are without merit. The first, that the delay in providing infor- mation was on account of a “crossed signals” between its counsel and Welch and did not result from “animus” is unavailing. (Stip., ¶ 37, Exh. 24.) The General Counsel is not required to show intentional wrongdoing on the part of the employer in order to establish a violation of the Act. See Alcoa Corp., 370 NLRB No. 107 (“unintentional” “oversight” did not justify delay of 2-1/2 months). The Employer’s admittedly negligent failure to begin responding to the requests for more than 3 months after it was made—which was more than 2 months after a charge was filed against it—is more than sufficient to establish liability for a vio- lation of Section 8(a)(5). Respondent’s second excuse involves the information re- quested. Respondent claims that the request was “voluminous” and complex, and thus the delay was reasonable. (Stip., Exh. 24.) This excuse also unavailing. While complexity can render delay reasonable, such an explanation should be rejected here because it is being offered post hoc in attempts to justify the delay that, in fact, transpired. To the point, no such excuse was offered until the February 17, 2023 position statement— almost 5 months af- ter the requests. (Id., Exh. 24.) More to the point, Respondent waited almost 2 months from the date they were made to acknowledge the existence of the requests. (Id., ¶ 23, Exh. 13.) And there is no evidence that Respondent began preparing a re- sponse prior to mid-December 2022, almost 3 months after the initial request. (Id., ¶ 24.) It was only at that time that Ms. O’Pella was asked to respond to the requests and that Respond- ent deigned to provide a timeline pursuant to which information would be provided.1 Cf. In re W. Penn Power Co, 339 NLRB 585, 587 (2003) (noting that the employer “periodically” advised the union of its response). Thus, it was pure negligence that caused any delay prior to mid-December—not the nature of the information request. In fact, it only took Respondent about 7 weeks to fulfill the requests thereafter, which belies any claim that it was prohibitively complex to prepare the response. Be- cause it took more than 4-1/2 months for Respondent to fully satisfy the requests originally made in late September 2022, Re- spondent violated Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. _______________________________ 1) Because, by mid-December, almost three months had passed since the initial requests, the Em- ployer’s reliance on the December leave of absence of the Summit store manager as basis for further, una- voidable delay is unavailing. (Stip., ¶ 39.) ). The cases that Respondent cited in its position statement (Exh. 24), do not compel a different conclusion. In ACF Industries LLC, the union’s request was made after months of negotiations on the very subject underlying the request and after the employer declared impasse. Id., 347 NLRB 1040, 1042–1043 (2006). In that case, the administrative law judge found, and the NLRB agreed, that the union’s request “was submitted solely for pur- poses of delay.” Id., 347 NLRB at 1043. As a result, because the employer in ACF Industries “had a legitimate doubt as to whether the [u]nion was truly interested in the information for purposes other than forestalling the lawful implementation,” the NLRB found that a 3-month delay was not unlawful. Id., 347 STARBUCKS CORP. 7 NLRB at 1043, 1046. Of course, there is no such ulterior motive at issue here that would justify doubt on the part of Respondent. The facts in Albertson’s Inc., 351 NLRB 254, 255–256 (2007), also cited by Respondent, are readily distinguishable. The Board reversed one 8(a)(5) violation due to a pleading defect in the complaint; the second, because the record did not show that the information sought existed prior to a certain date so the employer had not thusly delayed thereafter in providing it; the third, because the request, which was limited to one grievant, was “isolated and de minimis” where the employer turned it over promptly after the filing of the unfair labor practice charge and less than a month after the original request. Id., 351 NLRB at 255–256. Here, the complaint adequately states delay; second, the Employer has not asserted—nor could it, having provided it—that the information did not exist going back to January 1, 2022; and finally, of course, there was protracted delay on the part of Respondent following the Union’s requests. Finally, Respondent argues that the Union suffered no preju- dice from Respondent’s delay in providing the requested and rel- evant information to the Union. (Stip., Exh. 24.) Respondent as- serts, without basis, that the Union’s requests were not “mani- festly time-sensitive” because they concerned “historical events.” (Id., Exh. 24.) This is another post hoc justification: it is unclear how Respondent could have any position on the time sensitivity of the requests having failed to communicate with the Union in any way, shape, or form about them until mid-Novem- ber, and further, having failed to ask the Union whether the re- quests were, in fact, time-sensitive. (Id., ¶ 23.) The Union further notes that the September 28, 2022 request requested a response within 5 days, which would suggest time sensitivity. Notwith- standing the foregoing, the Union is not required to demonstrate that it suffered prejudice or harm in an 8(a)(5) case involving delay.2 See Twin Rivers Pine Bluff LLC & United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Work- ers, Loc. 13-935, No. 15–CA–268541, 2021 WL 4845350 (Oct. 15, 2021) (“Board precedent does not require a showing of prej- udice or harm to the Union.”) (citing Alcoa Corp., 370 NLRB No. 107).3 _______________________________ 2) Even if the Union is not required to show harm, it is inherently harmful for the Union to be unable to obtain information that is necessary for representing members and addressing their concerns. Respond- ent’s assertion inappropriately minimizes the potential for harm in the collective bargaining relationship when a union is unable to redress members’ issues. See, e.g., United States Postal Serv. & S. New York Area, Am. Postal Workers Union, Loc. 522, AFL–CIO, No. 2–CA–35623, 2004 WL 1149360 (May 19, 2004) (union was prejudiced by delay because “[h]ad it received the documents when requested, it could have timely and knowledgably investigated” grievances). Respondent’s self-serving claims of lack of prej- udice should be summarily rejected.) 3) To the extent that Respondent persists in the argument that it did not violate the Act here because it responded with more alacrity to a separate request that it unilaterally deemed more urgent, that defense should also be rejected. (Stip., Exh. 24 (asserting that “the Company was immediately responsive in provid- ing information that was genuinely time-sensitive”).) The September effects bargaining and information requested attendant to implementation of the effects bargaining agreement is not at issue here. (Stip., ¶¶ 14, 19–20.) Respondent cannot escape liability for its multi-month delay here by citing its efforts to satisfy a different request months earlier). By failing to provide the relevant information in a timely fash- ion, the Employer violated the Act. C. Respondent’s Position Starbucks denies that it unlawfully delayed in responding to the union information requests. Under well-established Board precedent, “the duty to furnish requested information cannot be defined in terms of a per se rule.” West Penn Power Co., 339 NLRB 585, 587 (2003), enfd. 394 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2005). “In determining whether an employer has unlawfully delayed re- sponding to an information request, the Board considers the to- tality of the circumstances surrounding the incident.” Id. Specif- ically, the Board has considered “the nature of the information sought (including whether the requested information is time sen- sitive); the difficulty in obtaining it (including the complexity and extent of the requested information); the amount of time the party takes to provide it; the reasons for the delay in providing it; and whether the party contemporaneously communicates these reasons to the requesting party.” Gen. Drivers, Warehouse- men & Helpers, 365 NLRB No. 115 (2017). Here, in late September 2021, the Union requested historical information spanning an approximately 12-month period. The requests were not time-sensitive, and Respondent communicated with the Union that it was continuing its efforts to collect and prepare the requested information. Despite diligent efforts, gath- ering accurate responsive information took considerable time be- cause of the amount of information that needed to be analyzed. Additionally, responding to the request required personal knowledge of the Summit Store manager who was unable to as- sist from December 3 through 28, 2022 because she was absent on leave. Given the totality of the circumstances, the General Counsel cannot establish that Starbucks unreasonably delayed furnishing the Union information requested on September 23 and 28, 2022. Discussion and Analysis The complaint’s allegations of 8(a)(5) and (1) violations arise from two distinct information requests that the Union made on September 23 and 28, 2022 during a bargaining session over the effects of a temporary closing of the store for renovation sched- uled for September 26–28, 2022. During the negotiation session on September 23, 2022, Yadhira Alvarez (Alvarez), chief of staff for the Union, verbally requested that Respondent provide it in- formation on schedules, hours worked, and unscheduled closing dates and times since January 1, 2022. Alvarez also requested salary information for all bargaining unit employees. The Union also asked for this information in a written proposal emailed on this same day (Stip. 14; Jt. Exh. 9). On September 28, 2022, Cristina Gallo (Gallo), counsel for the Union, sent an email to Respondent memorializing its oral September 23, 2022 information request in writing attached to the email (Jt. Exh. 10). The letter requested historical store clo- sure information, specifically, 1. All schedules showing the planned dates, shifts, and hours to be worked for every employee of the Summit store from Janu- ary 1, 2022, to the present. 2. Any document(s) showing the actual dates, shifts, and hours of work performed by every employee of the Summit store from January 1, 2022, to the present. 3. A list of all closings of the Summit store from January 1, 2022, to the present, including the following: a. Date of the closure; b. Duration of the closure (days, hours, etc.); c. Whether such closure was scheduled or unscheduled and if scheduled, whether the closure was announced in advance to employees and how far in advance; d. Whether affected employee(s) were paid for the full duration of the closure and if not, whether employees(s) were paid for any part of the closure; e. Whether, when, and how affected employee(s) were notified DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 8 that they could work in other stores during the period of clo- sure; and f. Whether any affected employees worked in other stores and, if so, the store location and number of hours each such em- ployee worked during such closure periods. Gallo requested a response from the Respondent within 5 days of her email. It is undisputed, and so stipulated by the parties, that the information requested by the Union, is necessary for, and relevant to, the Union’s performance of its duties as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the bargaining unit em- ployees at the Summit Store (Stip. 18). Gallo had made a second request on September 28 (Stip. 19; Jt. Exh. 11), but the second September request is not subject to the instant complaint (Stip. 20). On October 6, 2022, Gallo forwarded Respondent counsel the September 28 email and attached the Union’s information re- quest (Stip. 21; Jt. Exh. 10), and she requested an update on the status of Respondent’s responses to the Union’s pending infor- mation request (Jt. Exh. 12). Respondent’s counsel did not re- spond to this email. On October 21, 2022, the Union filed the unfair labor practice charge alleging that Respondent had vio- lated the Act by failing to provide information initially requested on September 23, 2022 (Stip. 22; Jt. Exh. 1). On November 18, 2022, Rhesa Welch, labor relations man- ager, emailed Alvarez and union counsel. The email in part stated that Respondent was “continuing its efforts to collect in- formation responsive to your previous information request, which sought a significant amount of historical information re- lating to the Summit Store” and it would provide that infor- mation once the bargaining team had custody of it (Jt. Exh. 13). This was the first response by Respondent to the Union’s Sep- tember 23and September 28, 2022 information requests (Stipu- lation 23; Jt. Exhs. 9 and 10). It is undisputed and repeatedly held by the Board that employ- ers must promptly furnish unions with relevant requested infor- mation. Pennco, Inc., 212 NLRB 677 (1964). Absent evidence of justification, an unreasonable delay in furnishing relevant in- formation is as much a violation of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act as a refusal to furnish the information at all. PAE Aviation & Tech- nical Services, LLC, 366 NLRB No. 95, slip op. at 3 (2018). It is an employer’s duty to furnish relevant information as promptly as possible, given the circumstances, as a union is entitled to the information at the time the information request is made. Id. In determining whether a party has failed to produce information in a timely manner, “the Board considers a variety of factors, in- cluding the nature of the information sought (including whether the requested information is time sensitive); the difficulty in ob- taining it (including the complexity and extent of the requested information); the amount of time the party takes to provide it; the reasons for the delay in providing it; and whether the party con- temporaneously communicates these reasons to the requesting party.” General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 89, 365 NLRB No. 115, slip op. at 2 (2017). The analysis is an objective one, focusing not on whether the employer delayed in bad faith, but rather on whether it supplied the requested in- formation in a reasonable time. Management & Training Corp., 366 NLRB No. 134, slip op. at 3 (2018). The counsel for the General Counsel is not required to show animus on the part of the Respondent’s delay in providing the information requested. Alcoa Corp., 370 NLRB No. 107 (2021). I find that the Respondent’s delay in providing the information requested was unreasonable and violated the Act. Here, the Union requested relevant information on September 23 regard- ing the closing of Respondent’s store. The Union sought histor- ical data on the store’s closure dates, information on the workers’ shifts, salary, hours and whether they were redeployed to other stores during the closure. The information requested spanned approximately 9 months. The Respondent counsel and Welch agreed at the September 23 bargaining session to provide infor- mation that was relevant. This request was reduced to writing and made to the Respondent on September 28. Gallo requested a response within 5 days of her email. No response or follow-up was made by the Respondent. Gallo sent out another email on October 6 as to the status of the Union’s September 23 infor- mation request. There was no response from the Respondent. I find, to some extent, the historical data on the store’s closure from January until September 2022 was time-sensitive since the information would have been beneficial to the Union in its bar- gaining over the effects of the store’s closure. The Respondent did not respond to Gallo’s September 28 and October 6 emails until after the Union filed its charge on October 21. The first time the Respondent responded after the September 23 bargaining session was on November 18, 2022, when Welch acknowledged that the Respondent was working on the infor- mation requested. The first set of information requested was not provided to the Union until December 22. Similar to the lack of communication from the Respondent to the Union from Septem- ber 23 through November 18, there was no communication the Union that there were any problems in providing the information after November 18. The Board has found delays in providing information of less than 3 months or less to be unreasonable and violative of the Act. Dodge of Naperville Jeep/Dodge, 357 NLRB 2252, 2253 fn. 5 (2012) (2 months); Woodland Clinic, 331 NLRB 735, 737 (2000) (7 weeks); Bundy Corp., 292 NLRB 671, 672 (1989) (6 weeks). Given the Union’s specific request for historical information on the store’s prior closures and data on the workers’ shifts, salaries, hours of work during and after the store’s closure, I find that Welch was fully knowledgeable of the urgency of the request. I find that her failure to even respond to Gallo’s email until No- vember 18 and after the Union filed a charge was unreasonable and violated the Act. Further, I would also note that there was no indication that the Respondent even started to gather the in- formation before Welch’s November 18 email to Gallo. The Re- spondent could have informed Gallo and Alverez as to the com- plexity or time-consuming nature in collecting voluminous in- formation before November 18. The Respondent could have in- formed the Union the reasons for any delays in providing the in- formation between September 23 and November 18. The Re- spondent could have worked with the Union to gather the infor- mation or to streamline the request prior to November 18. If the Respondent was not certain or needed a clarification as to the purpose of the information, it was obligated to request the Union to clarify the purpose or relevancy of the request, which the Re- spondent never did. It is well established that “. . . an employer may not simply refuse to comply with an ambiguous and/or over- broad information request, but must request clarification and/or comply with the request to the extent it encompasses necessary and relevant information” Azabu USA (Kona) Co., 298 NLRB 702 (1990). Gallo’s request for the Respondent to respond within 5 days went unheeded by Welch and Respondent’s counsel. The Re- spondent could have informed the Union that a second request took precedence over the request to gather historical store STARBUCKS CORP. 9 closure information (see, R. Br. at 13). The fact that the Re- spondent makes the arguments of the complexity, the extent of the request, and the precedence of another request as a priority only after November 18 is simply disingenuous (See, GC Br. at 9). As noted in the Respondent’s position, citing to Gen. Driv- ers, Warehousemen & Helpers, above, it failed and never con- temporaneously communicate these reasons for the delay to the requesting party. Accommodations could have been sought and negotiated with the Union if there was difficulty in obtaining the information. However, the Respondent was totally silent to the September 23 request (aside from the fact that it agreed to pro- vide information that was relevant) until November 18.5 Even then, the Respondent did not provide a time schedule to furnish the information to the Union until December 14, 2022 (Stip. 25). The Respondent could have provided such a timetable on Sep- tember 28 and worked with the Union to furnish the information despite the second information request that it deemed should take precedence. Accordingly, I find that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by unreasonably delaying furnishing the Union with the information requested by its September 23, 2022 verbal and email request of September 28, 2022 and as re- iterated in its October 6 email.6 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. Workers United, affiliated with Service Employees Interna- tional Union, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. 3. By unreasonably delaying in furnishing the Union with rel- evant information as requested on September 23, 28 and October 22, 2022, the Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act. 4. The unfair labor practices committed by Respondent affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un- fair labor practices, I shall order it to cease and desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommended7 ORDER Respondent, Starbucks Corporation, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist (a) From unreasonably delaying to furnish the Union, Work- ers United, affiliated with Service Employees International 5 Because I find that the Respondent unreasonably failed to furnish information requested by the Union from the initial request on September 23 through November 18 in violation of the Act, it is not necessary to address whether the Respondent continued to unreasonably delay to fur- nish the relevant information to the Union until February 8, 2023. Nev- ertheless, the finding that the Respondent did not provide a timeframe for submission of the information of the data until December 14 is indic- ative of its dilatory tactics. 6 The Respondent alleges several affirmative defenses in its answer to the complaint (GC Exh. 1(h)). I agree with the General Counsel that these affirmative defenses were forfeited when not included in the Union, with requested information that is relevant and necessary to the performance of its function as the exclusive collective-bar- gaining representative of Respondent’s employees in the follow- ing appropriate bargaining unit: All full-time and regular part-time baristas and shift supervisors employed by Respondent at its Store #7226 located at 2 Bee- chwood Road, Summit, New Jersey. (b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees of the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectu- ate the policies of the Act. (a) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa- cility in 2 Beechwood Road, Summit, New Jersey, copies of the attached notice marked “Appendix.”8 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 22, after be- ing signed by the Respondent’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 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 the Respondent customarily communicates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the 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, the Re- spondent has gone out of business or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the notice to all current employees and former employees employed by the Respondent at any time since September 23, 2022. (b) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the Regional Director for Region 22, a sworn certification of a re- sponsible official on a form provided by the Region attesting tothe steps that the Respondent has taken to comply. Dated, Washington, D.C. July 14, 2023 APPENDIX 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. parties’ joint motion and not argued or neglected to argue in the stipu- lated record or post-stipulated briefs by the Respondent (see, GC Br. at fn. 6). 7 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Or- der shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes. 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 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.” DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 10 FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO Form, join, or assist a union Choose representatives 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, upon request, fail and refuse to bargain collec- tively and in good faith with Workers United, affiliated with Ser- vice Employees International Union as the designated servicing representative of the exclusive collective-bargaining representa- tive of employees in the following appropriate bargaining unit: All full-time and regular part-time baristas and shift supervisors employed by Respondent at its Store #7226 located at 2 Bee- chwood Road, Summit, New Jersey. by unreasonably delaying in providing, the Union with requested information that is relevant and necessary to its role as the des- ignated exclusive collective-bargaining representative of unit employees. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re- strain, or coerce you in the exercise of your rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act. WE HAVE furnished the Union with the following information it requested on September 23, 2022 : 1. All schedules showing the planned dates, shifts, and hours to be worked for every employee of the Summit store from Jan- uary 1, 2022, to the present. 2. Any document(s) showing the actual dates, shifts, and hours of work performed by every employee of the Summit store from January 1, 2022, to the present. 3. A list of all closings of the Summit store from January 1, 2022, to the present, including the following: a. Date of the closure; b. Duration of the closure (days, hours, etc.); c. Whether such closure was scheduled or unscheduled and if scheduled, whether the closure was announced in advance to em- ployees and how far in advance; d. Whether affected employee(s) were paid for the full dura- tion of the closure and if not, whether employees(s) were paid for any part of the closure; e. Whether, when, and how affected employee(s) were noti- fied that they could work in other stores during the period of clo- sure; and f. Whether any affected employees worked in other stores and, if so, the store location and number of hours each such employee worked during such closure periods. STARBUCK CORPORATION The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at https://www.nlrb.gov/case/22-CA-305726 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.