A second U.S. union is accusing Starbucks of refusing to fairly negotiate, undermining the company’s recent efforts to prove it’s the one trying to get contracts completed.
The Teamsters union, which represents workers at a location in Greensburg, Penn., filed a complaint to the U.S. National Labor Relations Board on Nov. 17, which Bloomberg News obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.
It accuses the coffee chain of engaging in “a protracted campaign of bad faith and surface bargaining” — a term for going through the motions of negotiations without sincerely trying to resolve issues. According to the complaint, “no meaningful progress has been made” over a dozen negotiating sessions held since employees unionized in June 2022.
While the Teamsters represents only one cafe, its claims could help reinforce those of Workers United, the labor group locked in a long-running conflict with Starbucks over which side is preventing progress at the bargaining table. The company took a conciliatory tone last week when it said it wants to end an impasse and ratify contracts in 2024. However, “Starbucks has no intention or desire to bargain in good faith with the union much less reach an agreement,” the Teamsters said in its November complaint.
The company has offered a very different take on the state of talks. Last month, as Workers United was preparing for a strike involving hundreds of cafes and accusing the company of refusing to fairly negotiate, Starbucks brought up the Teamsters as a positive contrast. It reiterated on Tuesday that talks with the Teamsters are advancing.
“Starbucks representatives have met with the Teamsters bargaining committee in-person 14 times since Nov. 2022 and have reached tentative agreements for nearly 30 sections for inclusion in a collective bargaining agreement,” a spokesperson said in an email. “Despite a recent charge filed by the union, parties continue to schedule and meet for additional bargaining sessions to progress negotiations.”
In a letter to the Teamsters on Dec. 8, Starbucks told the Teamsters it had an “earnest desire” to finish negotiating a contract next year.
The Teamsters didn’t immediately provide comment to Bloomberg about its complaint to the NLRB.
Over 360 of Starbucks’ more than 9,500 corporate-run U.S. cafes have voted to join Workers United over the past two years, but none have come close to reaching a collective bargaining agreement with the company. Regional directors of the NLRB have accused the company of illegal anti-union tactics including retaliating against activists and refusing to fairly negotiate.
At the first two stores to unionize, the agency alleged the company “bargained with no intention of reaching agreement.” The agency’s general counsel also concluded the coffee chain violated labor law by refusing to participate in collective bargaining sessions if some workers were present via videoconference, an agency spokesperson said earlier this year.
Starbucks has said Workers United is the one refusing to negotiate and last month alleged that it had been months since the union agreed to hold contract talks. In its Dec. 8 letter to Workers United’s president, the company urged the union to agree to hold in-person-only talks. Workers United said last week it has not refused talks and was reviewing the letter.
In last month’s complaint, the Teamsters accused the company of obstruction and disrespect. “Starbucks will insist on repeatedly discussing the same proposal without changing its position whatsoever,” the union’s filing states. “Starbucks negotiators show up to meetings an average of 45 minutes late.” It also alleges the company’s representatives “mockingly belittled, demeaned and antagonized” union members and accused them of lying when they raised safety concerns.
In the recent letter, Starbucks Chief Partner Officer Sara Kelly said the company will “refrain from any disparaging, profane, threatening, discriminatory, or abusive language, gestures, or conduct.”
Complaints filed with the NLRB are investigated by regional officials, who can choose to dismiss them or, absent a settlement, prosecute them before agency judges, whose rulings can be appealed to NLRB members in Washington and from there to federal court. The agency lacks authority to issue punitive damages or hold executives personally liable for wrongdoing.
— With assistance from Daniela Sirtori-Cortina.