Starbucks Coffee Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 2010

355 N.L.R.B. 636 (N.L.R.B. 2010)

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
355 NLRB No. 135
636
Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Com-
pany and Local 660, Industrial Workers of the
World. Cases 2–CA–37548, 2–CA–37599, 2–CA–
37606, 2–CA–37688, 2–CA–37689, 2–CA–37798,
2–CA–37821, and 2–CA–38187
August 26, 2010
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN LIEBMAN AND MEMBERS SCHAUMBER
AND HAYES
On October 30, 2009, the two sitting members of the
Board issued a Decision and Order in this proceeding,
which is reported at 354 NLRB No. 99.1 Thereafter, the
Respondent filed a petition for review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir-
cuit, and the General Counsel filed a cross-application
for enforcement. On June 17, 2010, the United States
Supreme Court issued its decision in New Process Steel,
L.P. v. NLRB, 130 S.Ct. 2635, holding that under Section
3(b) of the Act, in order to exercise the delegated author-
ity of the Board, a delegee group of at least three mem-
bers must be maintained. Thereafter, the Board issued an
order setting aside the above-referenced Decision and
Order, and retained this case on its docket for further
action as appropriate.

1 Effective midnight December 28, 2007, Members Liebman,
Schaumber, Kirsanow, and Walsh delegated to Members Liebman,
Schaumber, and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the powers
of the National Labor Relations Board in anticipation of the expiration
of the terms of Members Kirsanow and Walsh on December 31, 2007.
Thereafter, pursuant to this delegation, the two sitting members issued
decisions and orders in unfair labor practice and representation cases.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.2
The Board has considered the judge’s decision and the
record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has de-
cided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings, and conclu-
sions and to adopt the recommended Order to the extent
and for the reasons stated in the decision reported at 354
NLRB No. 99, which has been set aside and which is
incorporated by reference.3

2 Consistent with the Board’s general practice in cases remanded
from the courts of appeals, and for reasons of administrative economy,
the panel includes the members who participated in the original deci-
sion. Furthermore, under the Board’s standard procedures applicable to
all cases assigned to a panel, the Board Members not assigned to the
panel had the opportunity to participate in the adjudication of this case
at any time up to the issuance of this decision.
3 In finding the Respondent’s discharge of Joseph J. Agins Jr. vio-
lated the Act, Member Hayes joins Member Schaumber in adopting the
judge’s analysis under Atlantic Steel, 245 NLRB 814 (1979), and there-
fore does not reach her analysis under Wright Line, 251 NLRB 1083
(1980), enfd. 662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 989
(1982). See 354 NLRB No. 99, slip op. at 1–2 fn. 5. Additionally,
although he finds that the Respondent unlawfully discharged Daniel
Gross under the facts here, Member Hayes agrees with Member
Schaumber that the Act does not give employees license to tell their
coworkers which of their duties to perform. Id.