But board dismisses union complaint about store closure
The British Columbia Labour Relations Board (BCLRB) has dismissed a complaint alleging that Starbucks Coffee Canada closed a unionized store in Vancouver for anti-union reasons.
However, the board also found that a store manager violated the Labour Relations Code by making statements that discouraged an employee from participating in union activities.
The complaint – filed by United Steelworkers Local 2009 on Nov. 15, 2023 – alleged that Starbucks violated the Labour Relations Code by closing its Dunbar Street store in Vancouver seven months after it was certified as a unionized location.
The union argued that Starbucks had originally intended to renew the store’s lease but changed course after learning about the union drive, suggesting an anti-union motive.
Recently, the BCLRB also dismissed Starbucks Coffee Canada’s request to overturn a decision allowing the union representing some of its employees to expand its bargaining unit
Legitimate business reasons for closure
The BCLRB rejected this claim, ruling that Starbucks had legitimate business reasons for closing the location.
The company’s Regional Vice President testified that the store, which opened in 1994, was too small to accommodate the necessary equipment to meet brand standards. Internal company documents also showed that Starbucks had been searching for a relocation site for several years but had been unable to secure one.
The board accepted that the store closure followed Starbucks’ standard business practice for evaluating lease expirations and that discussions about the potential closure predated the union drive.
“I accept that the Dunbar Store was no longer large enough to meet the employer’s needs, and that well before the Certification Application, it had made the decision to relocate,” vice-chair Carmen Hamilton wrote in the decision.
The board found that while the store’s closure had an impact on employees, Starbucks had offered alternative employment to affected workers and no evidence suggested the decision was motivated by anti-union animus.
Statements at Starbucks ‘anti-union in nature’
However, the board upheld the union’s claim that Starbucks violated the Labour Relations Code when a store manager made statements discouraging an employee, ZemZem Radhi, from participating in union activities.
The board found that Radhi – who was employed as a barista at a unionized Starbucks store – had been approached by her store manager after attending union meetings and wearing a t-shirt supporting the union’s bargaining team.
During a private meeting, the manager told Radhi that she “did not know what she was getting herself into,” that “things could get messy,” and that her involvement “wouldn’t look great” on her in the future.
The board determined that these remarks constituted a threat intended to discourage Radhi from engaging in union activities.
“On their face, the Impugned statements are anti-union in nature, and were made by management, to a direct report, in a private meeting wherein the employee’s union involvement was discussed,” the decision stated.
As a result, the BCLRB ruled that Starbucks violated Sections 6(3)(d) and 9 of the code, which prohibit employer coercion and intimidation related to union activities. The company was ordered to cease such conduct and to post a copy of the decision in two store locations within seven days.
Previously, Starbucks Workers United accused the coffee giant of firing a worker in Buffalo, New York who initiated a unionization movement. The termination came during the same week that former CEO Howard Schultz faced questioning in Congress over the company's labour practices and alleged union-busting.
