Federal labor regulators are trying to force Starbucks to reopen 23 stores, including six in Los Angeles.
The coffee giant closed these stores in 2022 after allegations of suppressing union activity.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) then filed a complaint accusing Starbucks of shuttering stores due to union activity.
Read More: Starbucks plans to resume contract talks in January
The complaint says Starbucks has failed to engage in collective bargaining with unionized stores, eight of which had active unions at the time of closure.
The NLRB demands the reopening all 23 stores, reinstatement of affected employees, compensation for lost earnings and benefits, and redress for job-seeking time.
The complaint adds to concerns raised by Starbucks Workers United in Seattle, alleging ‘persistent resistance to workers’ organizing efforts.
A third-party assessment, prompted by shareholders in March, found no evidence of an “antiunion playbook.”
It attributed missteps to a lack of preparation for organizing and local staff errors.
Looking to boost your online brand? Create your FREE business profile at WhatBiz? here.
Starbucks has until December 27 to respond to the NLRB’s complaint.
A company spokesperson referred to earlier comments by Sara Trilling, Starbucks North America Executive Vice President.
Starbucks says safety concerns and crime were reasons for closure
Ms Trilling said: “Each year as a standard course of business, we evaluate the store portfolio to determine where we can best meet our community and customers’ needs.
“This includes opening new locations, identifying stores in need of investment or renovation, exploring locations where an alternative format is needed and, in some instances, re-evaluating our footprint.”
Need Career Advice? Get employment skills advice at all levels of your career
Former employees of a closed Kansas City Starbucks, also part of the complaint, claimed they received minimal notice of closure, linking it to the store’s unionization efforts.
At the time, Starbucks cited safety concerns and crime in the area as reasons for the closure.
However, police records contradicted these claims.
An administrative hearing for the case is scheduled for August 20, 2024.
