The Supreme Court Weighs in on Starbucks Union Organizing Dispute

By: Rotimi Adeoye and Lauren Hoye

In a recent landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a crucial question: How should federal courts evaluate requests for injunctions in union-related cases under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)? The case, Starbucks v. McKinney, arose from a unionization effort at a Starbucks store and has significant implications for private sector employers and employees involved in labor disputes.

In January 2022, Starbucks employees announced plans to unionize in a Memphis location. They invited a local news crew to visit the store after-hours to promote their efforts. Starbucks responded by closing the store and firing multiple employees involved in the media event, citing violations of company policy.

The company’s retaliatory discharges prompted the union to allege that Starbucks had unlawfully interfered with the employees’ right to unionize and discriminated against union supporters, in violation of the NLRA. The NLRA protects workers’ rights to organize and engage in collective action.

Upon considering the union’s Charge of Unfair Labor Practices, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal labor law, promptly initiated an administrative complaint against Starbucks for engaging in unfair labor practices.

Because administrative proceedings can take years to resolve, Congress has given the NLRB the power to seek preliminary injunctive relief in federal court while administrative cases are pending. Accordingly, in the Starbucks case, the NLRB decided to seek an injunction under Section 10(j) of the NLRA in federal court, seeking an order that would, among other things, require Starbucks to reinstate the fired employees for the duration of the administrative proceedings. Section 10(j) authorizes a federal district court “to grant . . . such temporary relief . . . as it deems just and proper during the pendency of the [NLRB’s] Board’s administrative proceedings.”

The main issue before the court was which legal standard should be used to assess this injunction request: the McKinney or Winter Test. The McKinney two-part test from McKinney v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, which is the NLRB-favored test, asks whether “there is reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices have occurred” and whether injunctive relief is “just and proper.”

On the other hand, the Winter Test, the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions established in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, requires the petitioner to show that “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, ruled that federal courts must use the traditional Winter test when evaluating the NLRB’s requests for preliminary injunctions under Section 10(j) of the NLRA. Justice Thomas, writing the decision for the court, emphasized that a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary” equitable remedy, and its purpose is to preserve the status quo until a full trial can occur. The justices found that nothing in the language of Section 10(j) overcomes the presumption that traditional criteria from Winter should govern. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

This ruling significantly raises the bar for the NLRB to obtain preliminary injunctions in labor disputes. For unions and workers, the court’s decision may make it more challenging to obtain quick relief in cases of alleged unfair labor practices.

Should you have any questions about this decision, please do not hesitate to contact the labor lawyers at Willig, Williams & Davidson.