What managers can and can't say during a union drive, mapped by a federal court
A federal appeals court handed Starbucks a partial win, upholding some union-drive findings against the company while throwing out others as unsupported.
On June 23, 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit weighed in on a case that started with a 2022 union organizing push at a Starbucks store in Sylmar, California. The National Labor Relations Board had found the company broke federal labor law in a handful of ways. The court backed some of those findings and rejected others.
For anyone running an HR function, the ruling reads like a field guide to what managers can and can't say once a union campaign is underway.
The Board's case revolved around two store managers and four employees. It concluded the company made coercive threats, unlawfully questioned one worker about his union views, and then fired him for his union activity. The court didn't take it all or leave it all. It split the difference.
Start with the questioning. The court agreed a manager unlawfully interrogated one employee. As the decision tells it, the manager took the worker aside in the back of the store and asked, "how [he] felt about unionization." It came from his direct supervisor, one on one, with no promise his answer wouldn't be held against him. Sitting next to a comment about benefits, the court found, that crossed the line.
The court also let one benefits threat stand. Telling that same worker his...
A California-based physician was recently arrested after pleading guilty to charges of healthcare fraud. Dr. Sanjoy Banerjee, was a medical director for Fountain Hospice, based in Los Angeles. Two...