🗞️ Federal Labor Board Issues Dual Rulings Against Starbucks in Pacific Northwest Union Dispute

The National Labor Relations Board issued a pair of rulings against Starbucks Corporation on June 5, 2026, affirming findings that the company violated federal labor law at several stores across Washington and Oregon.

The first decision, stemming from three Seattle-area locations, found that Starbucks managers unlawfully interrogated employees about their intentions to participate in announced strikes during 2022. Supervisors at the 5th & Pike, Westlake Drive-Thru, and 505 Union Station stores contacted workers by phone and text to ask whether they planned to report for their shifts without explaining their purpose or assuring workers they would face no retaliation. Under established NLRB precedent dating to 1979, employers may ask workers about strike plans only if they simultaneously disclose their legitimate staffing rationale and provide explicit non-retaliation guarantees. The Board found Starbucks failed to meet either requirement. The Board ordered the company to post notices at the two remaining open stores and to mail notices to former employees of the Union Station location, which closed in July 2022.

The second decision covered four Portland stores (Jantzen Beach, 23rd & Burnside, 5th & Oak, and Macadam Avenue)and produced a more mixed outcome. The Board upheld findings that Starbucks unlawfully disciplined two employees: barista Trey Hawthorne, whose final written warning was found to be unsupported by the surveillance video cited as its basis, and shift supervisor Chloe Peterson, whose discipline was found inextricably tied to the unsubstantiated case against Hawthorne. The Board also upheld a finding that Starbucks violated its duty to bargain when it began issuing written disciplinary coachings for dress code violations at the Jantzen Beach store without first notifying the union, representing a departure from the store's established practice of verbal-only corrections. Several other allegations, including the discharges of employees Matthew Thornton and Arthur Pratt and claims of selective policy enforcement, were dismissed after the Board found the company had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions.

The rulings arrive during an active period in the broader Starbucks-labor relationship. Workers United, the union affiliated with the Service Employees International Union that represents employees at more than 600 unionized Starbucks locations in the United States, launched what it described as the longest unfair labor practice strike in the company's history in November 2025, with more than 12,000 workers walking off the job across 670 stores. The strike concluded in early 2026, and the two sides have since resumed framework bargaining negotiations, with a third round of sessions scheduled for the week of June 24, 2026. More than 1,100 unfair labor practice charges have been filed against Starbucks with the NLRB since the union organizing wave began in late 2021.

Starbucks has consistently contested the merits of individual NLRB findings and has secured legal wins alongside its losses. In June 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney that the NLRB must satisfy a stricter four-factor test before seeking injunctive relief in federal court, a ruling that raised the legal threshold for one of the agency's key enforcement mechanisms. More recently, the Fifth Circuit vacated an NLRB order finding that Starbucks had violated labor law by subpoenaing pro-union workers, concluding the Board had applied the wrong legal standard.

The two June 2026 decisions were issued by a three-member panel (Chairman James R. Murphy and Members David M. Prouty and Scott A. Mayer) over Starbucks's objections, including its argument that Member Prouty should have recused himself due to perceived ties to Workers United's affiliated union, SEIU. The Board rejected that argument after consultation with the NLRB's designated ethics official. Starbucks also raised a constitutional challenge to statutory removal protections for Board members and administrative law judges; the panel rejected that argument as untimely, noting the company had not raised it before the administrative law judge.

Key Points

• The NLRB found Starbucks unlawfully questioned employees at three Seattle stores about their strike plans in 2022, without disclosing the purpose or providing anti-retaliation assurances, safeguards required under Board precedent since 1979.
• At Portland-area stores, the Board upheld unlawful discipline findings for two employees, including one whose warning was based on surveillance footage the Board found did not support the underlying allegation.
• Starbucks was also found to have violated its bargaining obligation by more strictly enforcing its dress code at the Jantzen Beach store without first notifying the union, a change from its prior practice of verbal-only corrections.
• Several allegations — including the discharges of Matthew Thornton and Arthur Pratt, and claims of selective policy enforcement — were dismissed; the Board found Starbucks had legitimate reasons unrelated to union activity in those instances.
• The rulings are part of a broader enforcement landscape in which administrative law judges have found Starbucks committed over 400 labor law violations since organizing began in late 2021.
• The company and Workers United are currently engaged in framework contract bargaining, with sessions continuing through at least late June 2026.
• Starbucks has secured notable legal victories alongside its losses, including the 2024 Supreme Court ruling raising the legal bar for NLRB injunctive relief requests.

Primary Source Author: Brian D. Gee, Administrative Law Judge (Decision 1); Andrew S. Gollin, Administrative Law Judge (Decision 2); affirmed by Chairman James R. Murphy, Member David M. Prouty, and Member Scott A. Mayer

Primary Source: Starbucks Corporation and Workers United, 374 NLRB No. 128 & No. 130 (June 5, 2026)

Primary Source Links:
374 NLRB No. 128 — Case 19-CA-299573 | 374 NLRB No. 130 — Case 19-CA-295708

Supplemental Sources

• NLRB News & Commentary — OnLabor (June 9, 2026)
• Starbucks ULP Tracker — Law360
• Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339 (2024) — Wikipedia
• Fifth Circuit vacates NLRB subpoena ruling — HCA Magazine (April 2026)
• Starbucks resumes bargaining after historic strike — Atlanta Civic Circle (March 2026)
• Starbucks and Workers United joint statement on framework bargaining — One.Starbucks
• Starbucks barista strike coverage — Lynnwood Times (November 2025)