In a groundbreaking ruling that could reshape employer-employee relations, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned nearly a 40-year-old precedent by unanimously ruling that employers cannot categorically tell workers that unionization will harm their relationship with management. The decision, handed down November 8, 2024, came in a case involving Starbucks, which had been accused of unlawfully discouraging workers from unionizing at its Seattle Roastery location.

The finding of the NLRB significantly deviates from a 1985 decision in Tri-Cast Inc., in which it was at the discretion of employers to tell workers that unionization would change their relationship with management without legal consequence. Such statements, prior to that decision, were generally viewed as lawful, even if they suggested that unionization would adversely affect workers' direct communications with their employer. However, the current NLRB majority, sympathetic to Democratic Party policy, felt that the above-mentioned Tri-Cast precedent had been flawed and gave employers too free a rein in discouraging unionization with imprecise, yet arguably coercive, statements.

The complaint against Starbucks focused on activity related to a unionizing effort at the chain's Seattle Roastery, where workers were seeking to organize. The NLRB said Starbucks managers issued a stream of unlawful threats, including informing employees that joining a union would serve no useful purpose and result in a diminishment or loss of benefits. Other managers allegedly informed workers that if they wanted to have a direct relationship with the company leadership, they should vote "no" on unionizing. While the Democratic majority of the NLRB agreed that such statements ran afoul of labor law, it parted ways with the more expansive view that the merest hint of a changed relationship with management amounted to an unlawful threat.

The lead part of the decision held that statements like Starbucks', implying that unionizing might hurt employees' access to managers, no longer enjoyed the protection afforded by Tri-Cast. The latter shift reveals the more articulated approach taken by the courts in weighing the legality of employer statements in union contexts. The NLRB ruling also comes after earlier decisions against Starbucks in a series of ongoing cases related to unionization at over 500 of its cafes in the United States-a flashpoint in the greater debate over union rights and employer tactics. The decision also comes as Starbucks and unions continue to negotiate a framework for bargaining at the company's unionized locations.

The decision marks a major win for advocates of labor, who say subtle threats are among the most common ways employers deter workers and suppress efforts toward unionizing.

NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo-a vocal proponent of increased worker protections-called the decision a notable rebuke of such tactics. She also added that any "reasonable employee" reading such statements from Starbucks managers would believe they'd lose their protected right under federal labor law to engage in direct communication with management. This decision is noteworthy also because it may be one of the final major actions from the current NLRB before a possible change in leadership.

When former President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, the composition of the NLRB most probably would have changed, with the obvious question being whether this decision would then be overturned by a new, Republican-majority board. For now, however, the decision stands as a major step to protect workers' rights in organizing free from retaliation or interference by employers. In a nutshell, a decision by the NLRB on November 8 in the case of Starbucks could redefine the ways employers are able to communicate with employees regarding unionization-a shift toward greater worker protection in their efforts at workplace organization.