Feds say Starbucks illegally closed 6 L.A. area stores

Feds say Starbucks illegally closed 6 L.A. area stores

Six Starbucks stores in Los Angeles County are under scrutiny as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) investigates the closure of around two dozen locations, allegedly to impede unionization efforts. A regional NLRB office found that 23 U.S. stores were closed either “because its employees engaged in union activities or to discourage employees from doing so,” as reported by the New York Times. While Starbucks claims none of the Los Angeles locations were unionized, at least seven of the shuttered stores across the country had unionized.

The local Starbucks stores affected by the NLRB investigation are as follows:

  • 8595 Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood (the “Santa Monica & Westmount” store)
  • 5453 Hollywood Blvd. (the “Hollywood & Western” store)
  • 120 S Los Angeles St. (the “1st & Los Angeles (Doubletree)” store)
  • 6290 Hollywood Blvd. (the “Hollywood & Vine” store)
  • 1601 Ocean Front Walk, Santa Monica (the “Ocean Front Walk & Moss” store)
  • 232 E. 2nd St. (the “2nd & San Pedro” store)

Starbucks Workers United member Mari Cosgrove criticized the company, stating, “This complaint is the latest confirmation of Starbucks’ determination to illegally oppose workers’ organizing.” She added that if Starbucks genuinely wants to improve its relationship with its partners, it should cease such illegal behavior.

In response, Starbucks’ Executive Vice President and President of Starbucks North America, Sara Trilling, defended the company’s actions, emphasizing that opening new stores and closing some locations is a regular part of their business model. Trilling stated, “In support of our Reinvention Plan, and as part of our ongoing efforts to transform our store portfolio, we continue to open, close and evolve our stores as we assess, reposition and strengthen our store portfolio.”

The NLRB investigation will proceed, and the issue is expected to go before an administrative judge next summer unless Starbucks reaches a settlement before then, according to the New York Times.