Posted on 06/18/2014 4:03:28 AM PDT by markomalley
Starbucks cannot fire a union activist employee who cursed at a manager in front of customers, the National Labor Relations Board has ruled for the second time.
Joseph Agins was active in trying to unionize four Manhattan Starbucks coffee shops between 2004 and 2007. According to the NLRB ruling, he twice cursed during arguments with managers.
The first time, on May 14, 2005, Agins was angry that an assistant manager did not come to help him right away when the shop got busy. When the manager did come to help, Agins said it was "about damn time," noisily shoved a blender in the sink, said "this is (BS)" and told the manager to "do everything your damn self." Agins was suspended for several days and Starbucks wrote a warning, which Agins said he never received.
Then, on Nov. 21, Agins and several other employees came to the shop while off duty to protest a prohibition on wearing union pins while at work. While there, an off-duty assistant manager from another Starbucks asked Agins about the protest in a way that an NLRB judge deemed was "meant to be confrontational."
Agins believed the assistant manager had previously made derogatory remarks to Agins' father about the father's support for the union. The confrontation escalated, and Agins told the assistant manager: "You can go ... yourself, if you want to ... me up, go ahead, I'm here."
The assistant manager on duty (the same one Agins had cursed at before) admonished Agins, but did not call the police or ask him to leave. On Dec. 12, Starbucks fired Agins, saying he "was insubordinate and threatened the store manager" while also mentioning his union support.
The NLRB initially ruled that Agins was engaging in protected activity on Nov. 21, 2005, and his conduct in the confrontation was not bad enough to override those protections.
But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the board "improperly disregarded the entirely legitimate concern of an employer not to tolerate employee outbursts containing obscenities in the presence of customers," rather than on a factory floor or in a backroom office. It sent the case back to the board.
In the new ruling, a three-member panel representing the full NLBR relied on a different precent, which says a company cannot fire an employee if the firing was motivated in part by union activity and the company does not prove it would have fired the employee even without the union activity.
The panel said Starbucks treated other employees more leniently for "similar or worse misconduct" in the presence of customers, and noted there was no evidence that the off-duty assistant manager who provoked Agins received any discipline for the incident. It added that Starbucks could not even say who decided to fire Agins and "presented an exaggerated version of Agins' actions on Nov. 21," and noted that the NLRB judge in the case credited Agins' testimony that he never received a warning regarding the May 14 incident (meaning it couldn't be considered in evaluating the firing).
The board ordered Starbucks to offer Agins his old job or a substantially equivalent position, compensate him for any loss of earnings and other benefits, and remove from its files any references to the unlawful firing.
Responding to the ruling Tuesday Starbucks spokesman Zack Hutson said: "We've received the board's decision and we're evaluating it to determine next steps. We aim to create a welcoming environment in our stores, and we do not tolerate partners cursing in the presence of customers, whether or not they are affiliated with a union"
They don’t condone partners cursing in the presence of customers? Partners? That’s what clerks are called now? A partner is an owner.
If the manager did not document it in official discipline papers at the time, it did not happen. I know because I have had about a dozen-and-a-half EEOC complaints lodged against me. I have never lost.
what if all SB employees started acting this way?
Comical, yet a sad reflection of the "change" that has come to Amerika.
Businesses don't have idle people standing around with the time to do all this…..and they shouldn't have to.
yeah, in that way, like the Duke lacrosse case - liberal on liberal crime so to speak.
Maybe, if Starbucks sends him to college..........
Agreed but if you’re up against the NLRB and a politicized Dept. of Labor you have to take extraordinary measures.
Well yes, I guess I never look at a story like this as a “what to do about THIS situation” story - to me, this is just ironically karmic and fraught with schadenfreude in the macro - a far left lib company being bitten on the ass by other far left libs.
They reap what they have sewn. Glad they’re stuck with the guy,
And then the record is going to be checked for what was done for everybody else... and you get slammed for “a pattern of anti union hostility.”
Maybe bribing him to go would be the best thing.
Another reason to love and respect unions and the NLRB.
I used to wonder why so much of our annual evaluations were based on playing well with others, until we did contract work for a government agency.
it was the war of all against all. No one wanted to be the chump who did work, so everyone did what they had to do to avoid it. Petty grudges and vendettas made the place run.
Worst of all, the worst of the worst were promoted out. I saw that twice.
I was briefly in the belly of such a “beast.” A state Medicaid office.
I was too eager... they looked for excuses and ultimately canned me. And they might have terrorized the guy who recommended they hire me because I have not been able to get a peep out of him since, even privately. Poor fellow, he wanted excellence... I was offering it. Nope, does not fly!
If I ran that Starbucks, I would be cutting back employee hours. I wouldn’t fire the thug for union activity, for insubordination, for embarrassing the company in front of customers, or for any other reason. I’d simply cut back his hours to my peak hour each day - purely because I needed fewer workers. If he quit on his own, I’d be okay with that. If he did his job and scrubbed the restrooms to my satisfaction for his hour, I’d be okay with that too.
Why is it that Union members are more often than not a mirror image of State Penitentiary members?
They reap what they have sewn. Glad they’re stuck with the guy,
Excellent points.
The “partner” line struck me also. Who the heck is making up this new english vocabulary? My wife and my son are “partners” in our business. The other employees are employees. No more, no less. If they do a good job and we make money they get extra because they earned it.
You misspelled buck.
Union or not (and I’ll take not every day of the week) any employee that acts like that can expect to be fired.
I used to wonder why so much of our annual evaluations were based on playing well with others, until we did contract work for a government agency.
it was the war of all against all. No one wanted to be the chump who did work, so everyone did what they had to do to avoid it. Petty grudges and vendettas made the place run.
Worst of all, the worst of the worst were promoted out. I saw that twice.
Put him on the schedule—split shifts, low hours, only the rush, and let him quit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.