Seven employees from Tennessee said they were fired because they supported a union. A US judge told Starbucks to give them their jobs back.
It’s a win for the people who sued Starbucks over the firings, saying that putting the workers back to work was the only way to stop more labor violations.
Starbucks disputed accusations of retribution and announced it would challenge the ruling.
Judge Sheryl Lipman said that the regulators had shown enough evidence to suggest that labor laws had been broken.
While the claims were being processed via the court system, which can take years, she said the reinstatement was “fair and proper.”
In February, seven Memphis-based Starbucks employees were let go.
Since then, organizers for the union Starbucks Workers United have said that Starbucks has fired more than 75 pro-union employees across the country as part of a larger crackdown meant to stop their campaign.
After looking into what happened, the National Labor Relations Board filed a lawsuit against Starbucks in May. The lawsuit was about the firings in Memphis.
The employees were let go by Starbucks, according to the firm, for violating corporate policies, which included allowing customers in after it had closed. In this case, it was said that staff members had let reporters into the cafe so that a TV interview about the union initiative could be done there.
The business declared that it would contest Judge Lipman’s ruling, which might prevent any rehiring.
Starbucks said that it “strongly disagrees” with the judge’s decision in a statement.
Starbucks claims that these people broke a number of rules, failed to uphold safety standards, and breached other rules. “Interest in a union does not stop partners from following policies that are in place to protect partners, our customers, and the communities we serve,” the letter said.
Since the union campaign started last year, workers at over 220 Starbucks locations across the US have chosen to join. This gives them the right to bargain as a group for pay, benefits, and other working conditions.
Starbucks, which has almost 9,000 stores in the US that are run under license, says it would rather have problems between customers and employees solved directly than by a “third party.”
Starbucks sacks staff for latecoming
A surprising amount of progress has been made at the well-known chain of coffee shops, as the staff at about 220 Starbucks locations across the US have decided to unionize. But as the economy falters and business begins a retaliatory offensive, the movement is in a vulnerable position.
Read Also: Starbucks CEO approves closure of 16 outlets in the US
Joselyn Chuquillanqui had worked at Starbucks for almost seven years before she was let go last month.
She had been waiting for the choice. Although the 28-year-old enjoyed her position as a barista, which allowed her to work from home and care for her young niece, she tried to convince her coworkers in New York this winter to form a union after becoming dissatisfied with the employer’s policy on sick leave during the pandemic.
Soon after, according to her, her manager began punishing her for offenses that others might have missed, including showing up a few minutes late for her 5:30 a.m. shift.
When she lost her store key in July, it could have been the final straw for her, but she quickly informed her manager.Finally, the interior of the shop held the key.
In its notice of separation, Starbucks mentioned a history of being late as well as the crucial occurrence.
Joselyn, a shift supervisor who had been employed by Starbucks since 2015 and made more than $22 per hour, claims: “Unquestionably, it was a form of revenge. I’ve never seen anyone get fired for being less than five minutes late. According to union activists, Joselyn’s altercation was a part of a national crackdown in which more than 75 union activists were fired and some stores were shuttered as the business, which has marketed itself as a progressive workplace, tries to stop the labor movement from upsetting its ranks.
Starbucks, which has almost 9,000 locations under license in the US and owns close to 9,000 of them, disputes that it has been punished. According to the company, it respects the freedom of employees to organize and shut down outlets based on their safety records.
That it perceives the union as a danger is, nevertheless, beyond question.
