Starbucks Workers Union Case

When it came to the case of Starbucks in a New York City case that alleged they wrongly terminated three employees due to their support of the Starbucks Workers Union, it was found that the company was in the wrong. However, only two of the employees were found to have been wrongfully terminated due to their support of the union (Wiley Periodicals, 2010, pp. 4). When it came to this decision the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), could be seen as overstepping their bounds in some ways.
While Starbucks was wrong for terminating two of the employees due to their support of the union, they were wrongfully made to make additional changes to their current workplace attire guidelines. The case stemmed from these employees wearing too much “pro-union flare” and openly discussing the Starbucks Workers Union (Morran, 2012). The NLRB ruled that the company had no, “Compelling business reason to restrict employees to one prounion pin” (Wiley Periodicals, 2010, pp. 4). This meant that employees were ruled by the NLRB and the administrative law judge (ALJ) that employees had no limit to the number of pro-union pins they could wear while in a Starbucks uniform. The judge stated,
“The company failed to prove there were special circumstances showing …show more content…
Since, Starbucks is not part of a union this enables them to set the dress code standards for the company. This is a nationwide dress code that is not meant to detract from the purpose of the company, which is to sell coffee. By the NLRB enforcing a rule that undermined Starbucks initial request, they chose to limit the ability that management and the corporation would have on the way they wished their employees to dress. Based on these facts, I feel that the U.S. appeals court ruling was fair and took into consideration the workers desire to show pro-union support and Starbucks desire to maintain certain dress code