Supreme Court’s anti-union Starbucks ruling lands a blow to workers rights

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks in a union dispute on Thursday, significantly scaling back the National Labor Relations Board’s power to step in and protect workers from companies under fire for alleged union busting.

In an 8-1 ruling, justices said the NLRB should have to satisfy a stricter, four-part test when asking a court to intervene on behalf of workers who allege they have been retaliated against for unionization efforts.

The case was based on a dispute between Starbucks employees in Memphis and the coffeehouse giant. A group of employees attempted to unionize and faced retaliation after Starbucks claimed they broke company policy by reopening their store after closing time and inviting non-employees inside.

The termination of the seven workers had a somewhat chilling effect among other employees who then felt nervous about attempting to unionize at other locations.

Eventually, the union filed a lawsuit against Starbucks alleging unfair labor practices. The NLRB intervened, securing a temporary injunction to reinstate the terminated employees as the legal case worked its way through the courts, after satisfying an initial test to show “reasonable cause” that employers engaged in unfair practices.

The temporary injunction was the 12th the NLRB has sought against Starbucks in the last two years alone.

Starbucks disputed the intervention, claiming the NLRB should have used a four-part test to secure the preliminary injunction.

Previously, the NLRB used a two-part test to secure injunctions to stop employers from engaging in potentially harmful behavior while legal proceedings unfold. After Thursday’s ruling, the board must adhere to the stricter test.

“A preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary’ equitable remedy that is ‘never awarded as of right,’” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. He said that the four-part test, otherwise known as the Winter test, was “relevant” and had “equitable principles.”

Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The opinion is unsurprising, during oral arguments in April, it seemed certain the court would side with Starbucks.

Starbucks Corp v McKinney was a labor law administrative case that had implications for unionization protections.