Starbucks can’t sack workers for serving up swearing

Once again, the National Labor Relations Board says it’s OK to swear at your boss – but this time, it was even in front of customers

Starbucks can’t sack workers for serving up swearing

Starbucks was wrong to fire a worker who swore in front of customers twice, the National Labor Relations Board has ruled.

The case echoes a recent decision which shocked HR managers at the end of May. In that case, the NLRB had decided that a car salesman who called his boss a “f---ing crook”, among other things, should not have been fired, because the outburst was in private and related to the terms and conditions of his employment.

You might also like: Sir Richard Branson sent an email so offensive his own company blocked it

However, the Starbucks case marks a new precedent because now, the NLRB is endorsing public outbursts, as the plaintiff had sworn in front of customers.

The first time it happened, it was May 2005, and plaintiff Joseph Agins was angry that a supervisor did not assist immediately at a busy period. Eventually, the assistant manager helped, and Agins told him it was “about damn time”, and that the situation was “bulls--t”. He was suspended for several days, but not fired. But in November, Agins was amongst a group of employees who came to the shop off-duty to protest the company policy of not wearing union pins while working. The situation became a high-strung confrontation, and Agins told the same assistant manager to “go f--k yourself…f--k me up, go ahead”.

You might also like: Swearing at the boss is protected activity, rules NLRB

A few weeks later, Agins was fired for insubordination and threatening the manager – and it also mentioned the union support in his termination. Agins turned to the NLRB, which ruled that he was engaging in protected activity in November and should not have been fired. A 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and turned the case back to the board, and finally this week the it was decided again.

The new ruling again found in Agins’ favor, saying Starbucks had treated other employees differently for similar misconduct, and finding that the firing was motivated in part by his union activity. Starbucks must reinstate Agins and offer him backpay.

You might also like: Can you ban a negative attitude?

Free newsletter

Our daily newsletter is FREE and keeps you up-to-date with the world of HR. Please complete the form below and click on subscribe for daily newsletters from HRD America.

Recent articles & video

Why employee rankings are hurting your team

Beware of this other virus: Coronavirus-themed malware

Fun Friday: The most annoying office email habits

Is presenteeism worse than absenteeism?

Most Read Articles

Coronavirus: HR's role in business continuity plans

Coronavirus: How can HR manage remote staff?

Is this the 'most volatile' HR profession?