Starbucks Accused of Illegally Not Reporting Anti-Union Activity

The Service Employees International Union is asking the US Department of Labor to probe whether Starbucks Corp. illegally failed to report the full scope and cost of its anti-union activity nationwide by not disclosing work performed by Littler Mendelson PC attorneys representing the coffee chain.

The complaint filed Tuesday with the DOL’s Office of Labor-Management Standards alleges that through Littler Mendelson lawyers, Starbucks “intimidated” and “attempted to collect sensitive information on their organizing efforts” through overly broad subpoenas, according to an SEIU press release.

The agency already has been investigating whether Starbucks violated the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act’s reporting requirements with respect to the company’s response to a union campaign in Buffalo, N.Y. The law requires employers and unions to annually report certain financial information, like spending on activity meant to persuade a worker about whether or not to join a union.

A federal judge in October ordered the coffee chain to hand over to OLMS financial documents related to the Buffalo case.

The OLMS complaint is the latest move in a sprawling legal fight between Starbucks and the union over alleged illegal anti-union activity. A nationwide unionization wave that started in 2021 has led to hundreds of shops being organized.

The US Supreme Court also recently agreed to take up a petition from Starbucks over a federal judge’s order to rehire union activists in Memphis, Tenn., who were fired after discussing their organizing effort on the local news.

Tuesday’s request, filed on behalf of SEIU affiliate Starbucks Workers United, points to separate National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge rulings involving shops in Buffalo, N.Y. and La Quinta, Calif., that found that subpoenas that Littler attorneys served on Starbucks’ behalf illegally chilled union organizing.

“The overly broad and abusive nature of the document requests for information, which adjudicators found to be irrelevant and/or unlawful, indicate that Starbucks’ purpose is not to gather information for administrative or judicial proceedings,” the OLMS complaint says. Instead, “it is to collect sensitive information about the organizing activity itself in order to chill union activity and gain information about employees’ protected activity,” the SEIU said.

In response to the complaint, Starbucks argued that the SEIU is trying to use the DOL to interfere with court proceedings, where the company is fighting unfair labor practice allegations lodged by the union.

The company also said it rejects the union’s assertion that it should disclose the activity of Littler’s attorneys on its behalf to the DOL, maintaining that they served as legal counsel and not as campaign consultants.

“The SEIU’s baseless Complaint is simply an attempt to use the Department of Labor to rewrite the rules Congress and courts have established for federal litigation,” Rachel Wall, director of corporate communications at Starbucks, said in an emailed statement.