Decisions and Verdicts

More stories

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Labor Board, Reversing Trump-Era Ruling, Widens Definition of Employee

    by

    The National Labor Relations Board, with a Democratic majority, restored a standard that counts more workers as employees rather than contractors.Labor regulators issued a ruling on Tuesday that makes it more likely for workers to be considered employees rather than contractors under federal law.Overturning a ruling issued when the board was under Republican control, the decision effectively increases the number of workers — like drivers, construction workers or janitors — who have a federally protected right to unionize or take other collective action, such as protesting unsafe working conditions.The ruling ensures that “workers who seek to organize or exercise their rights under the National Labor Relations Act are not improperly excluded from its protections,” said a statement by Lauren McFerran, the Democratic chairman of the labor board, which voted 3 to 1 along party lines to broaden the standard.Determining whether a worker is an employee or a contractor has long depended on several variables, including the potential employer’s control over the work and provision of tools and equipment.In 2019, when the board was controlled by appointees of President Donald J. Trump, it elevated one consideration — workers’ chances to make more money based on their business savvy, often described as “entrepreneurial opportunity” — above the others. It concluded that such opportunities should be a key tiebreaker when some factors pointed to contractor status and others indicated employment.In its decision in 2019, the board said that a ruling during the Obama administration had improperly subordinated the question of moneymaking opportunities.That 2019 ruling appeared to be a victory for gig companies like Uber and Lyft, whose supporters have argued that ride-share drivers should be considered contractors in part because of the opportunities they have for potential profit — say, by determining which neighborhoods to work in.The latest decision returned the board to the standard laid out in the Obama era, explicitly rejecting the elevation of entrepreneurial opportunity above other factors.The turnabout was criticized on Tuesday by businesses that rely heavily on contractors. In a statement, Evan Armstrong, chair of the Coalition for Workforce Innovation, which represents companies like Uber and Lyft as well as industry trade groups, said that the ruling “decreases clarity and threatens the flexible independent model that benefits workers, consumers, entrepreneurs, businesses and the overall economy.”Some labor experts, however, say it is not clear that gig companies like Uber and Lyft, which set the prices that passengers pay, provide drivers with enough bona fide entrepreneurial opportunity to qualify them as contractors even under the old standard.In his dissent, Marvin E. Kaplan, the board’s lone Republican member, made a version of this argument, concluding that the workers in the case before the board — wig, hair and makeup stylists who work with the Atlanta Opera — “have little opportunity for economic gain or, conversely, risk of loss.”As a result, he agreed with the board’s majority that the stylists should be considered employees who have the right to unionize.But Mr. Kaplan wrote that the lack of entrepreneurial opportunities meant that the stylists should have been considered employees even under the Trump-era standard, and that there was no need to alter it. More

  • 113 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Supreme Court Backs Employer in Suit Over Strike Losses

    by

    The justices ruled that federal labor law did not block state courts from ruling on a case regarding damage caused when workers walked off the job.The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that federal labor law did not protect a union from potential liability for damage that arose during a strike, and that a state court should resolve questions of liability.The majority found that if accusations by an employer are true, actions during a strike by a local Teamsters union were not even arguably protected by federal law because the union took “affirmative steps to endanger” the employer’s property “rather than reasonable precautions to mitigate that risk.” It asked the state court to decide the merits of the accusations.The opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett M. Kavanaugh.Three conservative justices backed more sweeping concurring opinions. A single justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.Some legal experts had said a union setback in the case would discourage workers from striking by making the union potentially liable for losses that an employer incurred during a work stoppage.“It will definitely lead to more expensive-to-resolve lawsuits against labor unions,” said Charlotte Garden, a law professor at the University of Minnesota who was an author of a brief in support of the union. Professor Garden did note, however, that the decision was less far-reaching in discouraging strike activity than it could have been.Others have argued that the ruling was necessary to prevent workers from intentionally harming an employer’s property, an act not protected by federal labor law, and that such restrictions do not jeopardize the right to strike.“Damages from intentional destruction of property are not inherent to the act of striking,” said Michael O’Neill of the Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative legal advocacy group that submitted a brief in the case. As a result, Mr. O’Neill said, the law does not shield workers or unions from liability for such damage.The case, Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, No. 21-1449, involved unionized employees of a concrete mixing and pouring company who walked off the job during contract negotiations, leaving wet concrete in their trucks. The employer argued that it suffered substantial monetary losses because the abandoned concrete was unusable.The union argued that it had taken reasonable steps to avoid harming the employer’s property, as federal law requires, because workers kept their trucks running as they walked off the job. That allowed the company to dispose of the concrete without damage to the trucks. The union said the lost concrete amounted to the spoilage of a product, for which unions were not typically held liable.At issue were two key questions. The first was procedural: whether the case should be allowed to go forward in state court, as employers generally prefer. The alternative is that the state court — in this case, Washington — should step aside in favor of the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency responsible for resolving labor disputes.The second question was about what economic damage is acceptable during a strike, and what amounts to vandalism — which federal labor law does not protect — of property or equipment.The two issues are linked because under legal precedent, the labor board is supposed to elbow aside state courts when the alleged actions during the strike are at least “arguably protected” by federal law.The Supreme Court ruled that the union’s actions, as alleged by the employer, were not arguably protected because the spoilage of the product was not merely an indirect result of the strike. Instead, the employer contended in a lawsuit, “the drivers prompted the creation of the perishable product” and then waited until the concrete was inside the trucks before walking off the job.“In so doing, they not only destroyed the concrete but also put Glacier’s trucks in harm’s way,” the majority opinion said. It sent the case back to Washington State court to be litigated.Sean M. O’Brien, the president of the Teamsters, issued a defiant statement after the decision was announced. “The Teamsters will strike any employer, when necessary, no matter their size or the depth of their pockets,” he said.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the court “got it right” in ruling that federal law “does not pre-empt state tort claims against a union for intentional destruction of an employer’s property during a labor dispute.”In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas agreed that the Washington State court should be allowed to take up the case. He wrote that in a future case, the Supreme Court should reconsider whether the National Labor Relations Board should have such wide latitude to take the first pass in such cases.Justice Jackson noted in her dissent that the labor board had issued its own complaint since the case was first filed in Washington State. In issuing its complaint, the labor board’s general counsel found that the strike activity was in fact protected. This by definition meant that the activity was “arguably protected,” Justice Jackson wrote, requiring the state court to stand down.The decision, which some experts said could cause unions to reconsider striking or take a more cautious approach when a perishable product could be harmed, followed a series of rulings that appeared to scale back the power of unions and workers.The court ruled in 2018 that companies could prohibit workers from collectively bringing legal actions against their employers, even though the National Labor Relations Act protects workers’ rights to engage in so-called concerted activities.In the same year, the court ruled that public-sector unions could no longer require nonmembers to pay fees that help fund bargaining and other activities that unions do on their behalf.In 2021, the court deemed unconstitutional a California regulation that gave unions access to agricultural employers’ property for recruitment.In interviews, union leaders said that the ruling on Thursday would further tilt an already uneven playing field toward employers, and that it was often not a strike itself but the threat of a strike that helped unions win concessions.“Without the threat of a strike, you have little leverage in negotiations,” said Stuart Appelbaum, the president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, which has organized successful strikes.Mr. O’Neill’s group, the Landmark Legal Foundation, argued that a ruling against the employer could have jeopardized the labor peace that the National Labor Relations Act was enacted to assure, “placing workers and the public at risk” by essentially blessing acts of vandalism and sabotage.Unions and workers often deliberately plan strikes to exploit employers’ vulnerability — for example, Amazon workers walked out during the holiday season — and rely on an element of surprise to maximize the economic harm they inflict, and therefore the leverage the union gains.In the near term, unions that are contemplating strikes or already striking, such as unions representing Hollywood writers or United Parcel Service employees whose contract expires this summer, may have to take greater precautions to insulate themselves from legal liability.Such precautions will typically weaken the impact of strikes, said Ms. Garden, the University of Minnesota professor. “You could get unions prophylactically adopting less effective tactics — things like giving advance warning about strike, which gives the employer a lot more time to hire replacement workers,” she said.Other unions may simply decide not to strike at all out of fear of heightened legal exposure, she said.Further out, unions and their political allies may seek to enact legislation that explicitly exempts workers from liability for certain types of economic damage that arise during a strike.“There will be efforts in blue states to make the best of it, to do something protective,” said Sharon Block, a former Biden and Obama administration official who is a professor of practice at Harvard Law School.But even these laws could wind up being challenged before the Supreme Court, experts said.Adam Liptak More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Starbucks Violated Labor Law in Buffalo Union Drive, Judge Rules

    by

    The decision cited “egregious and widespread misconduct,” including illegal monitoring and firing of workers. Starbucks signaled that it would appeal.In a sweeping decision, an administrative judge in New York ruled on Wednesday that Starbucks had violated federal labor law dozens of times in responding to a union campaign in the Buffalo area shortly after the campaign began roughly 18 months ago.Michael A. Rosas, a judge for the National Labor Relations Board, concluded that Starbucks had illegally monitored, disciplined and fired employees engaged in union organizing; added workers to stores to dilute support for the union; and promised new benefits to workers in an attempt to defuse support for the union.The ruling mandates the reinstatement of seven Buffalo-area workers who the judge concluded were unlawfully discharged from the company, and back pay and damages to more than two dozen workers who the judge concluded had suffered retaliation that affected their compensation, such as a reduction of hours.In addition, the judge ordered the chief executive of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, to read or be present for the reading of a notice, more than 10 pages long, promising to refrain from committing a series of labor law violations in the future, and to make and distribute a video of the reading.Because of the company’s “egregious and widespread misconduct demonstrating a general disregard for the employees’ fundamental rights,” Judge Rosas wrote, it was necessary to issue a broad order requiring Starbucks “to cease and desist from infringing in any other manner on rights guaranteed employees.”“This is truly a historic ruling,” Gary Bonadonna Jr., the regional head of Workers United, the union organizing Starbucks, said in a statement. “We will continue to fight and hold billionaires like Howard Schultz accountable for their actions. We will not rest until every Starbucks worker wins the right to organize.”The ruling can be appealed to the labor board in Washington, and to federal court after that, and Starbucks indicated that it might do so. “We believe the decision and the remedies ordered are inappropriate given the record in this matter and are considering all options to obtain further legal review,” the company said in a statement.The organizing campaign notched its first victory in Buffalo in 2021. Since then, more than 280 of the roughly 9,300 corporate-owned Starbucks locations in the United States have unionized. The ruling covers the period from August 2021 to July 2022, by which point the campaign had spread from the Buffalo area to dozens of stores nationwide.In the early months of the campaign, Starbucks workers complained that executives and other company officials were converging on Buffalo in an attempt to undermine their unionization effort.Judge Rosas found that Starbucks had violated labor law by “having high-ranking company officials make repeated and unprecedented visits to stores in order to more closely supervise, monitor or create the impression that employees’ union activities are under surveillance.”He also ordered the company to bargain with the union at a Buffalo-area location where the union lost an election in December 2021, concluding that the scope of the violations at the store tainted the vote and made a rerun of the election an “insufficient” remedy.It is rare but not unprecedented for a judge to effectively order in a union upon concluding that it had support among workers but that a fair vote is nearly impossible. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Judge Scales Back Ruling Against Starbucks in Union Fight

    by

    After barring Starbucks from firing any U.S.-based worker over labor activity, a federal judge said he had erred and limited the action to one store.It was the most sweeping intervention by a court in the 18-month campaign to unionize Starbucks: Last week, a federal judge in Michigan issued an order blocking Starbucks from firing any U.S. worker because they engaged in collective action, like seeking to form a union.Union supporters cheered. Starbucks seemed taken aback, calling the order “extraordinary” and “unwarranted” and denying that the company had broken the law.But a few days later, the judge, Mark A. Goldsmith, announced that he had made certain unspecified “errors” and withdrew his earlier injunction. On Thursday, Judge Goldsmith issued a new injunction — only this time it was limited to a store in Michigan where a worker said she had been fired for her involvement in union organizing. The injunction’s national scope had vanished.In a revised opinion accompanying Thursday’s order, Judge Goldsmith said that the key criterion for determining whether to impose a nationwide injunction was whether the company had pursued a general policy of violating labor law. He said that while the National Labor Relations Board had filed about 24 complaints involving roughly 50 workers fired by Starbucks across the country, many of those cases were in their early stages.As a result, Judge Goldsmith concluded, the evidence supported an injunction only at a store in Ann Arbor, Mich., where a labor board judge found in October that a worker had illegally been fired.Legal experts said that the original injunction would have allowed the labor board to seek expedited reinstatement of workers who had been fired at any of the roughly 9,000 corporate-owned Starbucks stores in the country, and that it could have led to fines if the court found that Starbucks was continuing to fire workers for union organizing. Now those measures will apply only to a single store.The general counsel of the labor board, who oversees the office that had gone to federal court seeking the worker’s reinstatement, called the reversal disappointing but said in a statement that “the judge’s revised order still provides critical protection for the workers at Starbucks’ Ann Arbor store.” The statement said the agency would continue to seek nationwide remedies for labor law violations “as appropriate.”The union, Workers United, said it would “continue to fight for a national remedy to address Starbucks’ unprecedented union-busting campaign and hold the company accountable for their actions.”A Starbucks spokesman said, “We are pleased that the court rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s overreaching and inappropriate request for a nationwide cease-and-desist order as we pursue a full legal review of the merits of the case.”As to why the court initially issued the national injunction before abandoning it, Judge Goldsmith’s opinion did not elaborate.Legal experts said they couldn’t recall seeing a judge make a similar about-face. “I don’t think I can think of anything like this,” Wilma Liebman, a former chairwoman of the National Labor Relations Board, said in an email.Ms. Liebman said the most plausible explanation she could imagine was that the board had provided the judge with the order it was seeking, and that the judge had incorporated the order without sufficient modification — “careless but not intentionally mistaken,” Ms. Liebman said.A clerk reached at the court said the judge could not comment. More

  • 100 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Labor Board Curbs Gag Rules in Severance Agreements

    by

    The National Labor Relations Board said severance pacts requiring confidentiality and nondisparagement violated a law on collective worker activity.The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that it is generally illegal for companies to offer severance agreements that prohibit workers from making potentially disparaging statements about the employer or from disclosing details of the agreement.The ruling by the board, which has a Democratic majority, overturns a pair of 2020 decisions, when the board was controlled by Republicans and found that such severance agreements were not illegal on their face. It continues the labor board’s worker- and union-friendly trajectory under appointees of President Biden.The earlier decisions held that the severance agreements were illegal only if accompanied by other circumstances making them suspect, such as the possibility that they were being used to cover up the illegal firing of employees who tried to form a union.Still, Anne Lofaso, a professor of labor law at West Virginia University, said the latest decision was limited to rights under the National Labor Relations Act, such as employees’ rights to draw attention to unsafe working conditions, or to engage in other activities that protect or benefit workers as a group.She said an employer could still offer workers a severance agreement requiring them to give up their right to sue over, say, race discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.In the ruling, issued Tuesday, the board said it was returning to longstanding precedent. The 2020 standard, it said, ignored the fact that a severance package with confidentiality or nondisparagement provisions could on its own “unlawfully restrain and coerce” workers’ labor rights.“It’s long been understood by the board and the courts that employers cannot ask individual employees to choose between receiving benefits and exercising their rights,” the board’s chairman, Lauren McFerran, said in a statement.Charlotte Garden, a professor of labor law at the University of Minnesota, said the 2020 approach had effectively tried to “narrow the rule to situations where an employer was trying to cover up their own previous unlawful activity and prohibit employees from talking about it.” The current ruling, she added, takes a broader view of when employees have the right to speak out.The case involved a Michigan hospital that permanently furloughed 11 union members during the pandemic. To receive severance benefits, they were required to sign an agreement that barred them from making statements that could disparage the hospital and from sharing the terms of the agreement.In furloughing the workers and offering them the agreement, the hospital also bypassed the union, depriving it of a chance to negotiate the terms, according to Tuesday’s ruling.In his dissent, Marvin Kaplan, the board’s lone Republican, argued that offering the severance agreement was illegal because the hospital circumvented the union, but not specifically because of its nondisclosure and nondisparagement provisions.Under Mr. Biden’s appointees, the labor board has moved relatively quickly to reinstate workers who it determines have been fired illegally. It has also issued rulings effectively expanding the financial remedies available to such workers and making it easier for a subset of employees within a workplace to unionize. More

  • 113 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Judge Finds Amazon Broke Labor Law in Anti-Union Effort

    by

    The ruling, on charges brought by the National Labor Relations Board, involved actions at two Staten Island warehouses before union votes last year.Amazon violated labor law in advance of unionization elections last year at two warehouses on Staten Island, a federal administrative judge has ruled.The judge, who hears cases for the National Labor Relations Board, ruled on Monday that Amazon supervisors had illegally threatened to withhold wage and benefit increases from employees at the warehouses if they voted to unionize. The judge, Benjamin W. Green, also ruled that Amazon had illegally removed posts on a digital message board from an employee inviting co-workers to sign a petition being circulated by the Amazon Labor Union. The union sought to represent workers at both warehouses.The ruling ordered Amazon to stop the unfair labor practices and to post a notice saying it would not engage in them.In the same ruling, the judge dismissed several accusations brought in a complaint by the labor board’s prosecutors, including charges that Amazon indicated take-home pay would fall if workers unionized; that Amazon promised improvements in a program that subsidizes workers’ educational expenses if they chose not to unionize; and that Amazon indicated that workers would be fired if they unionized and failed to pay union dues.The judge found that these accusations were either overstated or, in the final instance, that the action was not illegal.Amazon can appeal the ruling to the labor board in Washington.“We’re glad that the judge dismissed 19 — nearly all — of the allegations in this case,” Mary Kate Paradis, an Amazon spokeswoman, said in a statement, adding: “The facts continue to show that the teams in our buildings work hard to do the right thing.”The union declined to comment.The violations occurred at a vast Amazon warehouse known as JFK8, where workers voted to unionize in an election whose results were announced in April, and at a smaller, nearby warehouse known as LDJ5, where workers voted down a union the next month.In the weeks before the elections, Amazon summoned employees at the warehouses to dozens of anti-union meetings at which supervisors questioned the credibility of the Amazon Labor Union, emphasized the costliness of union dues and warned that workers could end up worse off under a union.The judge’s ruling set aside a broader question brought by labor board prosecutors: whether employers can force workers to attend such meetings.The meetings are legal under labor board precedent and common among employers facing union campaigns. But the board’s general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, has argued that the precedent is in tension with federal labor law and had sought to challenge it.Judge Green concluded that he lacked the authority to overturn the precedent. “I am required to apply current law,” he wrote. Ms. Abruzzo’s office can file an appeal asking the labor board in Washington to overturn the precedent. More

  • 125 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Starbucks Illegally Denied Raises to Union Members, Labor Board Says

    by

    Federal labor regulators have accused Starbucks of illegally discriminating against unionized employees by denying them wage and benefit increases that the company put in place for nonunion employees.In a complaint on Wednesday, a regional office of the National Labor Relations Board accused the company of breaking the law when its chief executive, Howard Schultz, “promised increased wages and benefits at U.S. stores if its employees rejected the union as their bargaining representative,” and when it withheld raises and benefits from unionized workers.The labor board is seeking, among other things, that affected employees be made whole for the denial of benefits and wage increases. It is also asking that Mr. Schultz read a notice to all employees informing them that some had been unlawfully denied benefits and pay increases and explaining their rights under federal labor law. Alternatively, a board official could read this material to employees in Mr. Schultz’s presence.The labor board’s case is scheduled for a hearing on Oct. 25 before an administrative law judge, unless Starbucks settles with the agency beforehand. Starbucks could appeal any ruling by an administrative judge to the full board.In a statement, Starbucks said that it was required under federal law to negotiate changes in wages and benefits with the union and that it was therefore not allowed to make such changes unilaterally, as it can in nonunion stores. “Wage and benefits are ‘mandatory’ subjects of the collective bargaining process,” the statement said.Workers United, the union representing the company’s newly organized workers, said the complaint affirmed its contention that Starbucks was discouraging union activity.“He claims to run a ‘different kind of company,’ yet in reality, Howard Schultz is simply a billionaire bully who is doing everything he can to crush workers’ rights,” Maggie Carter, a worker who helped unionize her store in Knoxville, Tenn., said in a statement.More than 225 out of roughly 9,000 corporate-owned Starbucks locations in the United States have voted to unionize since last fall.Mr. Schultz began indicating that the company would roll out new benefits, but only for nonunion workers, shortly after he began his third tour as the company’s chief executive in April.The next month, the company announced a series of new benefits — including additional career development opportunities, better tipping options and more sick time — but only for stores that hadn’t unionized or weren’t in the process of unionizing. The benefits were to begin in the coming months.The company unveiled wage increases as well, some of which had already been announced and which the company said would apply to all workers. But other increases were new and would apply only to nonunion workers.For example, according to Reggie Borges, a Starbucks spokesman, all employees stood to benefit from a companywide $15-an-hour minimum wage, but nonunion workers hired by May 2 would get a 3 percent raise if that proved higher than $15.The wage policy appears to have sown confusion, with some employees briefly receiving a pay increase that was then withdrawn. Colin Cochran, a worker at a store near Buffalo that initially voted to unionize and then voted against the union in a rerun election decided this month, provided pay stubs showing that his $16.28 hourly wage had increased to $16.77 the first week of August, when Starbucks began the pay increases nationwide. But Mr. Cochran’s pay stub for the second week of August showed his hourly pay dropping back to $16.28. (The union is challenging the election loss at this store.)Mr. Borges said that the reversion to the previous wage had resulted from an inadvertent error and that unionized stores would get wage increases in September.Workers involved in union campaigns at other Starbucks locations said the denial of pay and benefit increases to unionized stores had slowed their organizing efforts.Kylah Clay, a Starbucks worker in Boston who helped organize several stores in the area, said inquiries from employees at other stores who were interested in unionizing had dropped off substantially not long after the company’s pay and benefits announcement in May. But they picked up recently after the pay and many benefit changes took effect, she said. More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    NLRB Finds Merit in Union Accusations Against Amazon and Starbucks

    by

    In a sign that federal labor officials are closely scrutinizing management behavior during union campaigns, the National Labor Relations Board said Friday that it had found merit in accusations that Amazon and Starbucks had violated labor law.At Amazon, the labor board found merit to charges that the company had required workers to attend anti-union meetings at a vast Staten Island warehouse where the Amazon Labor Union won a stunning election victory last month. The determination was communicated to the union Friday by an attorney for the labor board’s regional office in Brooklyn, according to Seth Goldstein, a lawyer representing the union.Such meetings, often known as “captive audience” meetings, are legal under current labor board precedent. But last month, the board’s general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, issued a memo saying that the precedent was at odds with the underlying federal statute, and she indicated that she would seek to challenge it.In the same filing of charges, the Amazon Labor Union accused the company of threatening to withhold benefits from employees if they voted to unionize, and of inaccurately indicating to employees that they could be fired if the warehouse were to unionize and they failed to pay union dues. The labor board also found merit to these accusations, according to an email from the attorney at the regional office, Matt Jackson.Mr. Jackson said the agency would soon issue a complaint reflecting those accusations unless Amazon settled the case. The complaint would be litigated before an administrative law judge, whose decision could be appealed to the labor board in Washington.Understand the Unionization Efforts at AmazonBeating Amazon: A homegrown, low-budget push to unionize at a Staten Island warehouse led to a historic labor victory. (Workers at another nearby Amazon facility rejected joining a similar effort shortly after.)Retaliation: Weeks after the landmark win, Amazon fired several managers in Staten Island. Some see it as retaliation for their involvement in the unionization efforts.A New Playbook: The success of the Amazon union’s independent drive has organized labor asking whether it should take more of a back seat.Amazon’s Approach: The company has countered unionization efforts with mandatory “training” sessions that carry clear anti-union messages.Mr. Goldstein applauded Ms. Abruzzo and the regional office for taking “decisive steps ending required captive audience meetings” and said the right to unionize “will be protected by ending Amazon’s inherently coercive work practices.”Kelly Nantel, an Amazon spokeswoman, said in a statement that “these allegations are false and we look forward to showing that through the process.”At Starbucks, where the union has won initial votes at more than 50 stores since December, the labor board issued a complaint Friday over a series of charges the union filed, most of them in February, accusing the company of illegal behavior. Those accusations include firing employees in retaliation for supporting the union; threatening employees’ ability to receive new benefits if they choose to unionize; requiring workers to be available for a minimum number of hours to remain employed at a unionized store without bargaining over the change, as a way to force out at least one union supporter; and effectively promising benefits to workers if they decide not to unionize.In addition to those allegations, the labor board found merit to accusations that the company intimidated workers by closing Buffalo-area stores and engaging in surveillance of workers while they were on the job. All of those actions would be illegal.In a statement, Starbucks Workers United, the branch of the union representing workers there, said that the finding “confirms the extent and depravity of Starbucks’s conduct in Western New York for the better part of a year.” It added: “Starbucks will be held accountable for the union-busting minefield they forced workers to walk through in fighting for their right to organize.”Starbucks said in a statement that the complaint doesn’t constitute a judgment by the labor board, adding, “We believe the allegations contained in the complaint are false, and we look forward to presenting our evidence when the allegations are adjudicated.” More