Federal labor regulators accused Starbucks on Wednesday of illegally closing 23 shops to suppress organizing exercise and sought to power the corporate to reopen them.

A criticism issued by a regional workplace of the Nationwide Labor Relations Board argued that Starbucks had closed the shops as a result of its workers engaged in union actions or to discourage workers from doing so. At the very least seven of the 23 shops recognized had unionized.

The company’s transfer is the newest in a collection of accusations by federal officers that Starbucks has damaged the legislation throughout a two-year labor marketing campaign.

The case is scheduled to go earlier than an administrative decide subsequent summer time until Starbucks settles it earlier. Along with asking the decide to order the shops reopened, the criticism needs workers to be compensated for the lack of earnings or advantages and for different prices they incurred on account of the closures.

“This criticism is the newest affirmation of Starbucks’ dedication to illegally oppose staff’ organizing,” Mari Cosgrove, a Starbucks worker, stated in an announcement issued via a spokesperson for the union, Employees United.

A Starbucks spokesman stated, “Annually as a normal course of enterprise, we consider the shop portfolio” and usually open, shut or alter shops. The corporate stated it opened tons of of recent shops final 12 months and closed greater than 100, of which about 3 p.c had been unionized.

The union marketing campaign started in 2021 within the Buffalo, N.Y., space, the place two shops unionized that December, earlier than spreading throughout the nation. Greater than 350 of the corporate’s roughly 9,300 corporate-owned areas have unionized.

The labor board has issued greater than 100 complaints overlaying tons of of accusations of unlawful conduct by Starbucks, together with threats or retaliation towards staff concerned in union exercise and a failure to cut price in good religion. Administrative judges have dominated towards the corporate on greater than 30 events, although the corporate has appealed these choices to the total labor board in Washington. Judges have dismissed fewer than 5 of the complaints.

Not one of the unionized shops have negotiated a labor contract with the corporate, and bargaining has largely stalled. Final week, Starbucks wrote to Employees United saying it wished to renew negotiations.

In keeping with Wednesday’s criticism, Starbucks managers introduced the closing of 16 shops in July 2022, then introduced a number of extra closures over the subsequent few months.

An administrative decide previously ruled that Starbucks had illegally closed a unionized retailer in Ithaca, N.Y., and ordered staff reinstated with again pay, however the firm has appealed that call.

The brand new criticism was issued on the identical day that Starbucks launched a nonconfidential model of an outdoor evaluation of whether or not its practices align with its said dedication to labor rights. The corporate’s shareholders had voted to again the evaluation in a nonbinding vote whose outcomes had been introduced in March.

The creator of the report, Thomas M. Mackall, a former management-side lawyer and labor relations official on the meals and amenities administration firm Sodexo, wrote that he “discovered no proof of an ‘anti-union playbook’ or directions or coaching about learn how to violate U.S. legal guidelines.”

However Mr. Mackall concluded that Starbucks officers concerned in responding to the union marketing campaign didn’t seem to know how the corporate’s Global Human Rights Statement may constrain their response. The rights assertion commits Starbucks to respecting workers’ freedom of affiliation and participation in collective bargaining.

Mr. Mackall cited managers’ “allegedly illegal guarantees and threats” and “allegedly discriminatory or retaliatory self-discipline and discharge” as areas the place Starbucks might enhance.

In a letter tied to the report’s launch, the chair of the corporate’s board and an unbiased director stated the evaluation was clear that “Starbucks has had no intention to deviate from the rules of freedom of affiliation and the proper to collective bargaining.” On the similar time, the letter added, “there are issues the corporate can, and will, do to enhance its said commitments and its adherence to those essential rules.”