Starbucks worker reinstated after being fired during union drive

There is a heavy onus on an employer whose decision to dismiss or suspend an employee coincides with trade union activity: Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board

The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board has ordered the reinstatement of a worker who led a Starbucks Coffee outlet’s union membership and certification drive.

Trevor Holloway worked part-time at Starbucks from September 2003 to October 2005.

In 2005 he was disciplined five times for being late, missing a shift and violating the company’s food and free product policies. The last action, on July 27, was called a “final warning.”

In October Holloway was fired for taking a 30-minute unauthorized break.

Starbucks said Holloway was terminated by the application of progressive discipline after being given a final warning. The reasons for dismissal were coherent and credible, and its ability to manage the company would be compromised if Holloway’s employment was reinstated, it said.

Holloway had been the key person in a drive to unionize the Starbucks outlet. Because of this, the board ordered Holloway to be reinstated, as under the province’s Trade Union Act it is an unfair labour practice for an employer to do anything that could discourage membership in a labour organization.

There is a heavy onus on an employer whose decision to dismiss or suspend an employee coincides with trade union activity, said the board. The test is:

•whether the worker has an arguable case that his termination was because of union activity; and

•what labour relations harm is done if the order is not granted, compared to the harm done if it is.

To not grant the application for reinstatement would have a “chilling effect” on the union’s organizing drive, said the board. Holloway was known by other employees to be the key person in the union drive and he had been terminated for a relatively minor incident — taking a short, unauthorized break.

Starbucks said Holloway’s dismissal had nothing to do with his union activities, and that the union drive was over. It already had the support of a majority of workers and the date of a certification hearing was already set. But the board said the potential chilling effect extends beyond the organizing drive and after a union has been certified.

“A nascent bargaining unit is a fragile entity until a first collective bargaining agreement is achieved. The bargaining agent is vulnerable to activities by the employer that may be designed to make it look weak, ineffectual and unable to effectively represent the employees,” it said.

The board ordered Holloway to be reinstated and paid what he would have earned had he not been terminated. Starbucks was also ordered to post a notice of the decision in a place where employees could see the notice.

It also had to allow a union representative to meet with individual employees for 20 minutes on company time and in a room made available by the company.

For more information see:

R.W.D.S.U. v. Starbucks Coffee Canada, Inc., (2005), 2005 CarswellSask 902, [2006] L.V.I. 3615-2 (Sask. L.R.B.).

To read the full story, login below.

Not a subscriber?

Start your subscription today!