On June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney making it more difficult for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) to obtain temporary reinstatement of workers fired during labor disputes.
Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gives the Board the authority to seek temporary injunctions against employers and unions in federal district courts. This provision is used to stop unfair labor practices while the case is being litigated before administrative law judges and the NLRB. Under McKinney, district courts must now apply a more stringent, traditional four-factor test to issue a preliminary injunction.
McKinney involved several Starbucks employees who announced plans to unionize and ultimately invited a news crew from a local television station to visit the store after hours to promote their unionizing effort. Consequently, Starbucks fired multiple employees involved with the media event for violating company policy.
The NLRB filed an administrative complaint against Starbucks alleging that it had engaged in unfair labor practices. The Board's regional director then filed a petition under Section 10(j) seeking a preliminary injunction for the duration of the administrative proceedings that would, among other things, require Starbucks to reinstate the fired employees.
The District Court assessed whether the NLRB was entitled to a preliminary injunction by applying a two-part test that asks whether “there is reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices have occurred,” and whether injunctive relief is “just and proper.” Applying this standard, the District Court granted the injunction, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
The Supreme Court, however, sided with Starbucks and instead applied a more traditional four-factor test that governs requests for injunctive relief in many other contexts. This test requires a showing that:
-
The plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the claim;
-
The plaintiff will likely suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief granted by the Court;
-
The balance of the equities (i.e., fairness) tips in the plaintiff’s favor; and
-
An injunction is in the public interest.
Rejecting the more lenient two-part standard, the Court’s ruling will slow the injunction process and increase the burdens for the NLRB to obtain immediate court orders. The Court’s opinion ultimately weakens what has been one of the agency’s most potent tools to protect workers’ rights under the NLRA.
Employers can take solace that the Court has concluded that the NLRB is not entitled to special status with respect to judicial relief and that preliminary injunctive relief under section 10(j) should be reviewed under the same criteria as applied in any other preliminary injunction requests made in private litigation.
For assistance with your organization’s labor needs, please contact Employers Council’s Labor Relations department.
Drew Hintze is an attorney for Employers Council.