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 existing tuition and health benefits would be "withheld during the time of negotiations" was unlawful, the court agreed, because an employer can't freeze benefits people already have just to cool union interest.
Then came the distinction HR pros will want to underline. The court refused to enforce a separate threat claim built on new perks that had only been announced in a company letter, not yet put in place. The Board, it said, never showed those promised increases were part of an "established wage or compensation system." Freezing a benefit workers already rely on is unlawful; holding off on an increase that hasn't kicked in is a different question.
A second manager's comment survived too. She told a worker weighing the union that "there are other jobs that do offer better pay." Set against earlier conversations critical of the union, the court said, a reasonable employee could take that as a threat to her job, not friendly career advice.
Starbucks's biggest win was the firing. The court rejected the conclusion that the company let the worker go for organizing. Starbucks said he was dismissed for showing up late, vaping in the store, and skipping closing duties after repeated warnings. The Board leaned on timing, noting the firing came "four days after he met with the Congressman." The court wasn't convinced. Timing alone doesn't prove much, it said, and the coworkers the Board held up as comparisons had different records and different problems.
That comparison piece is the practical takeaway. Discipline handed out during an organizing drive gets stress-tested against how similar employees were treated - and it only holds up if the files genuinely match.
The court also dismissed a fight over a second election, saying it couldn't review that order yet.
