In a legal showdown that echoes the high-stakes battles of the labor movement, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge ruled that Starbucks violated federal labor law once during a contentious union drive in Missouri. However, the breach was not significant enough to warrant the union’s demand for a bargaining order, according to the ruling issued Monday.

A Close Call in a High-Stakes Union Battle

Judge Andrew S. Gollin determined that Starbucks store manager Vicky Ledwon illegally told employee Storm Victor to stop recording their union-related conversation in December 2023. Yet, despite this violation, the judge found that it did not play a decisive role in Workers United’s narrow loss during the January 2024 election at the Saint Ann, Missouri, Starbucks location.

Had the violation been deemed severe enough, Starbucks could have been forced to negotiate with the union, bypassing another vote. Instead, the coffee giant will be required to post a notice at the store for 60 days affirming employees' rights to unionize and clarifying that they cannot be prohibited from recording discussions related to union efforts.

The Fight Over Union Flyers

The dispute traces back to allegations from the Chicago and Midwest Regional Joint Board of Workers United, which claimed that between December 7, 2023, and the January 22, 2024, election, Starbucks engaged in multiple unfair labor practices designed to stifle the unionization effort.

However, Judge Gollin dismissed most of these claims. Notably, he ruled that Ledwon was within her rights to remove union flyers from a backroom area, as employees had not previously been allowed to post nonwork-related materials there.

“The board has held that there is no statutory right of employees or a union to use an employer’s bulletin board. But if an employer allows its employees to post nonwork-related items, it cannot legally prohibit union postings,” Judge Gollin explained in his decision. “Here, there is no evidence that employees previously posted nonwork-related materials.”

The judge also rejected the notion that Ledwon had made vague threats of retaliation when she told Victor that she would continue to remove the flyers if workers put them back up.

The Threshold for a Bargaining Order

The heart of the legal battle centered on whether Starbucks’ actions were severe enough to have influenced the outcome of the election. Under NLRB precedent, even a single violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in the lead-up to a union vote can justify a bargaining order—but only if it is deemed substantial enough to have impacted the election.

Judge Gollin concluded that Ledwon’s directive for Victor to stop recording was an “isolated and minimal” violation.

“This was a single, nonsevere violation, which occurred during a one-on-one conversation between the store manager and a vocal union supporter. There is no evidence that this conversation was shared with other employees in the three weeks prior to the election,” Gollin wrote.

While acknowledging that the vote—an 11-8 loss for Workers United—was close, Gollin found no basis for claiming that the violation had materially swayed the results.

What’s Next for Starbucks and the Union?

For now, Starbucks must comply with the judge’s order to display the workplace notice about employee rights. However, the ruling does not prevent Workers United from continuing its efforts to organize the store, nor does it preclude further legal action if additional violations are found.

Representatives for all parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Legal Representation:

• NLRB General Counsel: Abby Schneider and William Komos (in-house representation)
• Starbucks Corp.: Michael Gotzler and Jason Hartzell (Littler Mendelson PC)
• Workers United: Alex M. Tillet-Saks (Dowd Bloch Bennett Cervone Auerbach & Yokich LLP)