![](\"http:\/\/squarehr.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/agency-finds-starbucks-illegally-fired-union-organizers.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
![](\"http:\/\/squarehr.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/agency-finds-starbucks-illegally-fired-union-organizers-1.jpg\")
<\/div>\n?Starbucks illegally fired two workers and interfered with union organizing at two stores in Philadelphia, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) panel recently concluded.<\/p>\n
In its Feb. 13 ruling, the board found that managers of the coffee shop chain violated the law by:<\/p>\n
The board ordered the company to reinstate the two workers who had been fired, give them back pay, and cover their search-for-work and interim employment expenses. It rejected the company’s argument that it would have disciplined and fired the employees regardless of their union activity.<\/p>\n
If an employer claims that an unlawfully discharged employee is not entitled to reinstatement, the employer must prove that the employee engaged in misconduct and that the employer would have disqualified any similarly situated employee from continued employment based on a pre-existing, lawfully applied company policy.<\/p>\n
Starbucks said the workers violated company policy and Pennsylvania law when they recorded managers in the stores. Most states permit one-party rather than all-party consent for recordings. One-party states require only the consent of one participant to the communication. So, if the person recording is consenting and part of the communication, that is enough. Pennsylvania is an all-party state<\/a>. The NLRB concluded that the company knew about the workers’ recordings but didn’t discharge them for that reason.<\/p>\n In recent years, Starbucks has faced allegations of unfair labor practices at other locations<\/a> around the country. The allegations included unlawfully denying raises<\/a> to unionized workers. The NLRB said the company refused to collectively bargain<\/a> in Seattle and Portland, Ore.<\/p>\n The company did not respond to a request for comment.<\/p>\n Audio and Video Recordings<\/p>\n The NLRB’s ruling noted that an employee who makes an audio or video recording in the workplace may be engaged in legally protected activity, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. According to the NLRB, such recordings can be legally protected activity if they are made to:<\/p>\n The Starbucks employees said they recorded meetings with managers to preserve evidence and because they were concerned managers would retaliate against them because of their union activity. <\/p>\n Lessons for Employers<\/p>\n\n