Supreme Court, siding with Starbucks, makes it harder for NLRB to win court orders in labor disputes
Supreme Court, siding with Starbucks, makes it harder for NLRB to win court orders in labor disputes
The Supreme Court has made it harder for the federal government to win court orders when it suspects a company of interfering in unionization campaigns in a case that stemmed from a labor dispute with Starbucks.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday made it harder for the federal government to win court orders when it suspects a company of interfering in unionization campaigns in a case that stemmed from a labor dispute with Starbucks.
The justices tightened the standards for when a federal court should issue an order to protect the jobs of workers during a union organizing campaign.
The court rejected a rule that some courts had applied to orders sought by the National Labor Relations Board in favor of a higher threshold, sought by Starbucks, that must be met in most other fights over court orders, or injunctions.
The NLRB had argued that the National Labor Relations Act, the law that governs the agency, has for more than 75 years allowed courts to grant temporary injunctions if they find requests “just and proper.” The agency said the law doesn’t require it to prove other factors and was intended to limit the role of the courts.
The case began in February 2022, when Starbucks fired seven workers who were trying to unionize their Tennessee store. The NLRB obtained a court order forcing the company to rehire the workers while the case wound its way through the agency’s administrative proceedings. Such proceedings can take up to two years.
You're viewing a single thread.
This is a pretty bad headline. SCOTUS held that precedent stands and an already-existing four-prong test must be applied to the NLRB's requests for TRO in such matters.
It's less a "makes it harder" and more a "allows the current status quo, wherein it is hard to obtain a TRO, to remain."
EDIT: Of note, the "irreparable harm" standard is well established and quite standard and the decision was unanimous. Opinion here
That’s a fair point. I thought it was best just to copy and paste the headline, but you’re right.
No no, you didn't do anything wrong; I think it's best to copy the exact headline from the publication, too. I just disagree with the choice the headline editor at the Associate Press made, here. Thanks for your post.
This was quite a wonderful way to handle a miscommunication and I was glad to witness it.
Thanks for restoring some hope that the fediverse is capable of handling such issues with respect and courtesy.