A union dispute at the Washington, D.C.-based Compass Coffee chain may more precisely delineate employers’ legal boundaries in influencing employee voter pools ahead of elections. The conflict revolves around union organizers questioning approximately 100 ballots from the July 16 vote, alleging that they were cast by illegitimate workers that Compass rapidly hired to dilute union support, bringing accusations of “unit packing.”
Among these hires were notable figures like an Uber corporate manager and executives from Washington-based food service companies. Thomas Lenz, a management-side attorney, noted that while some hiring changes can be justified by pre-existing plans, dramatically altering staff sizes for election advantage could result in legal repercussions. Such tactics, he explained, are typically prohibited under federal labor law during pending union votes (more details here).
Historically, adjusting the pool of eligible voters in union elections is a common strategy by both employers and unions, although it often leads to disputes settled by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). For instance, in a 2021 decision involving Starbucks, an administrative law judge ruled against the company for engaging in what was deemed overstaffing stores to undermine union votes (see case details).
The NLRB has recently updated its framework to expedite the resolution of such disputes, influenced by General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. For example, in the 2023 decision in the Cemex Construction Materials case (case details), the new precedent requires employers to either recognize a union voluntarily or file an election petition when presented with proof of majority support, simplifying remedies for unlawful behaviors.
In the Compass Coffee case, the union has already laid the groundwork for potential legal action by filing an unfair labor practice charge, citing coercive tactics and alterations in employment terms (charge details). Michael Fischl, a labor law professor at the University of Connecticut, opines that the union’s claim of voter interference may push the NLRB to issue a bargaining order.
The coming resolution of this situation may further clarify the limits on “unit packing,” a tactic that both balances and challenges the fairness of the union election process.