The National Labor Relations Board says Starbucks unlawfully interfered with union activity in its store in Peoria's Campustown shopping center.
A three-member panel last month ordered the company to, among other things, stop writing up, sending home early, or more closely scrutinizing the work of employees because they support organizing. The store must also post a notice informing employees of their right to form a union.
The order largely follows the recommendations outlined by an administrative law judge in June 2023.
The Peoria Campustown Starbucks location, 1200 W. Main, was the second in Illinois to organize baristas under the Workers United/SEIU banner. A petition to organize was filed in February 2022, and the NLRB certified the union in May 2022 after workers voted 9-2 to unionize.
"We’re happy to see the NLRB continue to stand up for workers and our legal right to organize," said Michelle Eisen, a Starbucks Workers United bargaining delegate and barista in a statement. "At the same time, we’re focused on the future and are proud to be charting a new path with the company.”
Starbucks also responded with a statement.
"We are reviewing the board’s decision regarding actions at a store in Peoria, Illinois two years ago," the company said. "Our focus continues to be on training and supporting our managers to ensure respect of our partners’ rights to organize and on progressing negotiations towards ratified store contracts this year."
Starbucks and Workers United began negotiating on a national collective bargaining agreement this past February. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks in a labor dispute that could have wider implications for union organizing efforts at large.
Substance of the Peoria complaint
At the Peoria store, administrative law judge Paul Bogas said the district manager made changes after the store unionized.
Employees were required to re-sign an attendance policy, but only at the Campustown store. Barista Jonathan Gill was later written up during the unionizing campaign for breaking that policy, including for a day where he had been legally subpoeneaed to appear before the NLRB. He told his manager he had tried but failed to find a substitute to fill in.
A review found discipline was previously usually only meted out if an employee no-called/no-showed, or repeatedly missed part or all of their shift. Another employee at Campustown violated the attendance and punctuality policy nine times before they were written up.
District manager Lyndsay Griepentrog sat in on that disciplinary meeting with Gill, even though that wasn't standard practice at any of the other 11 stores she oversaw.
Starbucks didn't hold any group meetings discouraging employees against unionizing, but Bogas wrote the store manager at the time, Jeanette Ward, did try to persuade employees individually.
The store manager reportedly spoke to one of the union organizers weekly, warning that “unions would change everything for us in a bad way,” and that “unions would take all our benefits.” Another organizer was told “we wouldn’t have this direct communication with management anymore" if workers proceeded with unionization efforts.
Jennifer Lenz, a shift supervisor who co-led the union organizing efforts was also wrongly issued a final warning for refusing to serve a customer, Bogas found.
Employees went out on a strike on May 16, 2022, but two customers opposed the demonstration. One reportedly revved his motorcycle loudly to drown out the strikers and rode around the parking lot near them to scare the picketers. Both men also told other customers it was okay to cross the picket line, and handed out free coffee to potential customers. They also threw trash at a 14-year-old girl whose parent was demonstrating in support of the union, Bogas wrote.
Bogas said management at the Campustown Starbucks encouraged the anti-union activity by bringing the two customers free coffee. The store manager told Griepentrog the two men were "the best" and "warming our hearts."
Lenz was confronted by the two men while on the job two days later. One of the men told her to "keep the protest outside" and "when she is behind the counter it is her job to get his coffee and that she shouldn’t act like she’s doing him a favor."
She replied that she didn't appreciate their behavior and that she would "ring up their drinks, but that's all."
Bogas said in this situation, the store manager would usually try to defuse the situation by stepping up next to the employee at the counter or allowing the employee to withdraw. Instead, the store manager, Ward, stepped up next to the customers on their side of the counter and told the employee she couldn't talk to them like that.
The report says that Lenz told her manager she deserved to be treated with dignity and respect, but the manager told her to "just take their order." The employee began to cry and ran to the back room.
Ward went to the back room and asked the shift supervisor if she was ok. When she said no, the manager said they needed to talk. When Lenz asked if the conversation could lead to discipline and Ward said it could, Lenz invoked her Weingarten rights.
Employees in a union have the right to have a representative present in situations where management are questioning an employee's conduct or performance. Ward tried to continue the conversation, but Lenz said continuing the conversation would violate labor law. The employee was then sent home.
In a meeting with Lenz, Ward, Gripentrog, and a union steward two days later, Griepentrog said the labor law rights cited were not "a Starbucks term" and said Lenz had used "threatening language" against her store manager by invoking her Weingarten rights, according to the NLRB report.
A final warning was issued to the shift supervisor on June 16. The labor board documents state Lenz told her manager she was going to the bathroom to call her lawyer after Ward said wanted to ask questions during a conversation about the discipline, but denied that the talk going to be "investigative" in nature. The manager replied she wouldn't be paid for that time speaking to an attorney.
After the shift supervisor left the bathroom, Ward reportedly followed Lenz around the store with a notebook, taking notes about her and asking her questions about her performance of routine duties.
The NLRB ruling requires Starbucks to compensate Lenz for any losses after she was sent home early, and remove the written warning from Gill's record.
