Supreme Court’s anti-union Starbucks ruling lands a blow to workers rights

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks in a union dispute on Thursday, significantly scaling back the National Labor Relations Board’s power to step in and protect workers from companies under fire for alleged union busting.

In an 8-1 ruling, justices said the NLRB should have to satisfy a stricter, four-part test when asking a court to intervene on behalf of workers who allege they have been retaliated against for unionization efforts.

The case was based on a dispute between Starbucks employees in Memphis and the coffeehouse giant. A group of employees attempted to unionize and faced retaliation after Starbucks claimed they broke company policy by reopening their store after closing time and inviting non-employees inside.

The termination of the seven workers had a somewhat chilling effect on employees who felt nervous about attempting to unionize at other locations.

Eventually, the union filed a lawsuit against Starbucks alleging unfair labor practices. The NLRB intervened, securing a temporary injunction to reinstate the terminated employees as the legal case worked its way through the courts, after satisfying an initial test to show “reasonable cause” that employers engaged in unfair practices.

Seeking temporary injunctions is a powerful tool used to stop employers from suppressing union activity. The one disputed in the Memphis 7 incident was the 12th the NLRB has sought against Starbucks in the last two years alone.

Starbucks disputed the intervention, claiming the NLRB should have used a four-part test that requires proof of “irreparable harm” and “likelihood of winning”  to secure the preliminary injunction.

Previously, the NLRB used a two-part test to secure injunctions to stop employers from engaging in