The US Supreme Court sided with Starbucks Thursday, determining that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) needs to follow a four-part test to establish unfair labor practices and for the rehiring of unionized employees.
In this case, a group of six Starbucks employees unionized their Memphis store in 2022 and conducted interviews with local news, citing COVID-19 and other safety concerns. Starbucks launched an investigation resulting in the termination of several employees. The employees filed a claim of unfair labor practices with the NLRB to seek rehire, which initially prevailed in federal court.
The legal landscape was divided on the doctrine under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act regarding the enforcement of a preliminary injunction and the rehiring of employees. Certain federal courts apply a two-part test for injunctions, while others adhere to the four-part test articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council: likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of suffering irreparable harm without preliminary relief, balance of equities tipping in favor, and that the injunction is in the public interest.
The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized that the two-part test provides only “temporary injunctive relief” and does not deviate from traditional principles. The higher four-part standard, the Court noted, aligns with well-established federal injunction standards and should be applied to maintain consistency.
The Supreme Court also pointed out that the two-part test underestimates the standard for a preliminary injunction by considering the NLRB’s views of the facts and law since the board initially reviews the case before it proceeds to the court of appeals. The Court opined that maintaining a higher standard is crucial for hearing such complaints.
In response to the ruling, Starbucks Workers United hosted a bargaining session in Atlanta in May 2024 to implement contracts for individual store unions. As of now, Starbucks has not released a statement regarding the Supreme Court decision.
For more information, visit the full article on JURIST.