A federal court in Seattle has ruled that Starbucks Corp. must comply with a U.S. Department of Labor administrative subpoena that seeks documents needed in an investigation by the department’s Office of Labor-Management Standards into money spent by the company related to worker organizing campaigns. This enforcement comes in the wake of the U.S. Department of Labor's attempt to verify Starbucks' adherence to reporting requirements tied to union organizing initiatives.
The case arose after Julie A. Su, the Acting Secretary of Labor for the United States Department of Labor, sought to enforce a subpoena against Starbucks. This followed a petition in August 2021 by Starbucks employees in Buffalo, New York, aiming for an election to determine union representation. Starbucks subsequently communicated with its employees on the matter and even created a website to address the union organizing campaign.
The investigation aims to determine whether Starbucks failed to meet reporting requirements related to union organizing efforts. The Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS), a segment of the U.S. Department of Labor, initiated the investigation under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA).
Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda explained, "Congress has given the U.S. Department of Labor the power to issue subpoenas to investigate compliance with federal law under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. We will not sit idly by when any company, including Starbucks Corp., defies our request to provide documents to make certain they are complying with the law."
According to court documents, on March 8, 2023, OLMS served a subpoena on Starbucks requesting documents connected to travel expenditures for former CEO Howard Schultz and other corporate officers to Buffalo, records of meetings with employees, and information about any bonuses paid related to the union matter.
Starbucks had sought to quash the subpoena, arguing that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the LMRDA, and the First Amendment. The company claimed that there was a departure from OLMS's previous enforcement policy. Starbucks also contended that the requested materials were protected under the First Amendment as compelled speech.
After analyzing the legal merits, the court ruled to enforce the subpoena on October 4. The judge concluded that the Acting Secretary of Labor adequately demonstrated her authority to investigate, followed the appropriate procedural requirements, and confirmed that the information sought was relevant and material to the investigation, as outlined in the court documents.
Starbucks has been ordered to produce all requested documents within 14 days from the date of the order.
