By Steven Greenhouse
April 3, 2007
The National Labor Relations Board has accused
Starbucks of breaking the law 30 times in fighting
union activity at four of its coffee shops in
Manhattan.
The labor board’s regional office in Manhattan issued
detailed charges against Starbucks on Friday after
organizers from the [Industrial] Workers of the World
complained that the company had sought to suppress
their efforts to form a union.
In its complaint, the labor board said that Starbucks
managers at the four locations had retaliated against
workers supportive of unionizing by firing two of
them, threatening to terminate others and giving
several workers negative performance evaluations.
The labor board also accused Starbucks management of
illegally interrogating workers about their support of
a union and prohibiting workers from discussing the
union while on breaks.
Valerie O’Neil, a spokeswoman for Starbucks said, “We
believe the allegations are baseless, and we will
vigorously defend ourselves.”
In one of the charges, the labor board said that
Starbucks managers had discriminated improperly
against pro-union workers in enforcing the company’s
dress and jewelry policy.
The labor board accused a total of 11 supervisors of
engaging in illegal activities at four Starbucks: 10
Union Square East, 116 East 57th Street, 200 Madison
Avenue and 145 Second Avenue.
Daniel Gross, one of the union’s main organizers and
one of the Starbucks workers the labor board said was
fired improperly, said the [Industrial] Workers of the
World was pushing for a living wage, asserting that
the $8.75 an hour that some Manhattan coffee clerks,
or baristas, earn was too little to live on.
Mr. Gross said the union wanted Starbucks to change
its scheduling policy in order to guarantee a minimum
of 25 or 30 hours of work a week for many of its
employees.
“The N.L.R.B.’s complaint illustrates that this is a
company with a profound disrespect for workers’
rights,” said Mr. Gross, who had worked as a Starbucks
barista for three years until he was fired last
August. “Any idea that this was just a few bad apples
is belied by the fact that the N.L.R.B. accused more
than 10 Starbucks officials of illegal activities.”
Starbucks, which is based in Seattle, has long
portrayed itself as a model employer, noting that it
was one of the first employers in the United States to
offer comprehensive health benefits to part-time
employees. Moreover, the company boasts that it gives
stock options to many of its “partners,” the term it
uses to describe its employees.
Under labor board procedures, an administrative law
judge is to hold a trial to determine whether
Starbucks is guilty of the unfair labor practices.
In case of a guilty verdict, Starbucks might be
required to reinstate the two fired employees and to
post a notice that it would not engage in illegal,
anti-union activities.
Thirteen months ago, Starbucks reached a settlement
with the [Industrial] Workers of the World, agreeing
to offer jobs back to two workers and to pay nearly
$2,000 to several employees after the labor board
brought a separate set of charges against the company,
accusing it of illegally seeking to quash efforts to unionize.