Ex-Starbucks manager claims he was told to punish pro-union staff: ‘I didn’t want to do illegal stuff’

The company has been accused of union-busting tactics at stores across the country

A former manager at Starbucks claims he was told to find reasons to single out and discipline pro-union employees at his store.

David Almond, who managed a number of Starbucks locations in Buffalo, told the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in August that his superiors at the company handed him a list of employees they felt were supportive of the unionisation push and told him to punish them for unrelated reasons.

Bloomberg News obtained a transcript of Mr Almond’s testimony through the Freedom of Information Act and reported it on Tuesday. Starbucks is currently facing a barrage of NLRB complaints for union-busting at stores across the US.

Despite Starbucks’ stridently anti-union tactics, which have allegedly included firing employees supportive of the union, closing unionised stores, and offering a range of new benefits exclusively to non-union employees, the company’s workers are still unionising at a precocious rate.

More than 200 Starbucks stores have unoinised with Starbucks Workers United from states across the country. The movement started last year in Buffalo, where, despite the company’s best efforts, the first Starbucks locations voted to unoinise in NLRB elections.

In his testimony to the NLRB, Mr Almond said that other company managers suggested ways in which he could discipline employees who were supportive of the unoinisation push. In one particular case, Mr Almond said that one employee singled out for discipline was an excellent worker with no past infractions.

“[The manager] said go through her files,” Mr Almond said, according to the transcript reported by Bloomberg. “She’s a long-term partner. I’m sure there’s something in there we can use against her.”

Disciplining pro-union workers was not the only tactic that Mr Almond reported Starbucks using in Buffalo. He also testified that he was asked to follow a worker carrying a pro-union sign and to ensure that a manager was always present at the store to chill discussion of unionisation.

Mr Almond resisted, and, in January of last year, resigned his position with the company.

“I didn’t want to do illegal stuff,” he told the judge. “I’ve worked my entire life to build up a career of integrity, and I was not going to allow Starbucks to take that from me.”

Starbucks has denied allegations of wrongdoing. In an email to Bloomberg, a company spokesperson claimed that Starbucks does not intefere when it comes to the question of unionisation.

“We respect the right of all partners to make their decisions regarding union issues, whether they favor or oppose representation,” the company said.

At the NLRB hearing, Starbucks attorney Jacqueline Phipps Polito accused pro-union forces of spreading tales of company retaliation against workers to boost support for their unionisation campaign. Ms Phipps Polito also accused the NLRB of using the case to try to establish new labour law.

Starbucks has been unhappy with the NLRB for months as the board has attempted to hold the company accountable for its anti-union tactics. The company was recently forced to rehire seven pro-union workers it fired for dubious reasons from a store in Memphis, just a handful of the 80-odd workers Starbucks Workers United claims the company has fired due to their position on unionisation.