Background
Employees at two Starbucks locations in upstate New York began unionizing campaigns in the spring of two thousand twenty-two. The National Labor Relations Board filed a consolidated complaint alleging violations of the National Labor Relations Act. An administrative law judge found that the termination of a shift supervisor at one location did not violate the act, but that increased managerial presence at another location created an unlawful impression of surveillance. The Board agreed regarding the second location but concluded the termination at the first location was unlawful because it was motivated by protected union activity.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence, defined as relevant and sufficient evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The court determined the Board did not adequately consider contradictory evidence. Specifically, the Board failed to address evidence that no other employee had used such extreme profanity targeted at coworkers. The Board also did not properly consider whether earlier disciplinary actions involving profanity indicated an escalating issue. Furthermore, the Board did not grapple with the fact that no other shift supervisors failed to complete closing tasks while on final warning. Finally, the Board gave only cursory attention to evidence that employees generally did not open mail and the employee’s specific belief that the employer would not share contents with employees. Given these deficits, the Board’s decision was vacated and the case remanded.
We are not convinced the Board adequately considered contradictory evidence.
What it means going forward
The National Labor Relations Board’s ruling against Starbucks is set aside, and the matter is sent back to the agency to re-evaluate the evidence regarding the employee’s termination.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download