Breaking News: NLRB Overrules Tri-Cast Decision in Starbucks Case, Tightens Standards for Employer Predictions on Unionization

In a landmark decision today, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision in Siren Retail Corp d/b/a Starbucks, overturning the Tri-Cast, Inc. precedent set in 1985. This shift marks a significant change in how the Board will assess employer statements predicting the impact of unionization on employee-employer relationships.

Under Tri-Cast, most employer statements about unionization’s impact were considered broadly lawful. However, this new decision redefines the framework, aligning it with the Board’s longstanding test for evaluating potentially threatening or coercive statements. Now, the Board will follow the standard set by the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., which requires employer predictions about unionization to be based on objective facts and probable outcomes beyond the employer’s control.

For employer predictions to be lawful under this standard, they must:

• Be grounded in clear, objective facts.

• Convey a belief about likely outcomes that are not influenced by the employer’s own actions.

Statements failing to meet these criteria — specifically those suggesting negative consequences due to the employer’s own actions — may now be interpreted as veiled threats or coercive tactics rather than reasonable predictions.

The NLRB emphasized that this updated standard will only apply to future cases, recognizing that many employers may have reasonably relied on Tri-Cast’s broader approach.

“This return to a more consistent approach allows us to carefully evaluate employer statements on a case-by-case basis,” stated NLRB Chairman Lauren McFerran. “Our aim is to protect workers’ rights to make free choices about union representation, while ensuring employers can still express their views non-coercively.”

The decision saw agreement from Members Prouty and Wilcox, with Member Kaplan dissenting.