Council on Labor Relations BC reveals that Starbucks is threatening an employee pro-union

Vancouver – Council for Labor Relations BC She acknowledged that Starbucks mistakenly created “threats of adverse consequences” against the employee for its association, but found that the company has a “legal business cause” to close its single united place in Vancouver.

Local 2009 United Seloowers 2009 filed an unfair work practice against Starbucks Coffee Canada in 2023 for closing Danbar Street store less than a year after its employees were united and for discipline of the employee for “T-shirt wearing”.

The decision of the Council of February 11, says that Starbucks was refused to close the cafe through AntiSunion Animus, as the company had already considered closing when the trade union applied for certification when the rent was over and the building was too small.

The Union argued that the “objective impact” on the closure of the Danbar store “was to distract others from the unification,” but the council rejected this argument, saying that Starbucks had a “legitimate” reason to close it.

The KOFFEE COFFEE COFFIEE COFFEE MARY FRANSSEN press said e -mail that the company was satisfied with the Council that the Council acknowledged that the Dunbar was closed is legal and that the decision was made regardless of the trade union status. ”

“Starbucks uses the same focus to evaluate, change or close, both presented and not allied stores, based on our ability to provide Starbucks experience for both our customers and partners (workers),” the statement said.

The second part of the union’s complaint concerned the employee in Starbucks in Langle, BC.

The complaint claims that the manager said that the employee will be “disorderly” for her if she continues her trade union activity.

The employee argued that the manager warned her that “she did not know what she gets to,” telling her that there is a “bigger picture” and her union “would not look great” before saying “finding a way out of how It will get worse. ”

“On their face … statements are against a union,”-said in the decision of the board, adding that they intended to “force” the employee to stop participating in the Union.

The Council found that Starbucks violated the code, causing threats and using “coercion or intimidation” to try to distract the employee from continuing his union.

The Council stated that Starbucks violated two sections of the Labor Code for the use of coercion or intimidation, as well as the use of penalty threats against the employee regarding its trade union activity.

The Council ordered Starbucks “to stop and refuse to continue any behavior revealed by the code violation” and ordered the company to publish a copy of the decision of the Board “in a noticeable place” in two of its cafes in Langle and Surrey, BC.

The Starbucks Canada statement stated that the Council’s decision “and the company will comply with the requirements of the decision.”

This Canadian press report was first published on February 14, 2025.

Darril Grair, Canadian Press