“The company is entitled to avoid the distraction from its messages that a number of union buttons would risk.” —Newman, Circuit Judge 

Facts: The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) is a labor union. The IWW engaged in a highly visible campaign to organize the employees at four Starbucks coffee shops located in Manhattan, New York City, that were owned by Starbucks Corporation. Among other efforts union supporters held protests, attempted to recruit Starbucks’s employees to join the union, and made numerous statements to the media. Many Starbucks employees engaged in pro-union activities and participated in pro-union events. In response, Starbucks mounted an anti-union campaign aimed at tracking and restricting the growth of prounion sentiment. Starbucks adopted a number of restrictive policies, including prohibiting employees from discussing the union or the terms and conditions of their employment and prohibiting the posting of union material on bulletin boards in employee areas. Starbucks also engaged in employment discrimination against pro-union employees regarding work opportunities. When employees appeared at work wearing numerous pro-union buttons and pins on their work clothing, Starbucks instituted a dress code rule that employees could only wear one pro-union button of a reasonable size to work. The National Labor Relations Board (Board), a federal agency charged with enforcing labor law, issued an order that Starbucks’s conduct constituted unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) of the National Labor Relations Act. The Board filed a petition for enforcement of its order. Starbucks accepted the Board’s determinations except for alleging on appeal that its one-button dress policy is not an unfair labor practice. 

Issue: Is Starbucks’s one-button policy an unfair labor practice? 

Language of the Court: We conclude that the Board has gone too far in invalidating Starbucks’s one button limitation. The company is entitled to avoid the distraction from its messages that a number of union buttons would risk. The record reveals that one employee attempted to display eight union pins on her pants, shirts, hat, and apron. The company adequately maintains the opportunity to display pro-union sentiment by permitting one, but only one, union button on work-place clothing. Decision The U.S. court of appeals concluded that Starbucks’s enforcement of its one-button dress code is not an unfair labor practice. 

Ethics Questions: Why did Starbucks fight the unionization of its employees? Did Starbucks act unethically in this case?