Recent NLRB Activity Includes Big Names and Big Decisions: Trader Joe’s, Starbucks Dress Codes, Netflix, and Google
The NLRB’s renewed activity has produced a wave of decisions touching some of the most recognizable employers in the country. A few worth flagging:
* Trader Joe’s at the Fifth Circuit. The court affirmed an NLRB decision finding Trader Joe’s illegally fired a union supporter. The Fifth Circuit, generally employer-friendly, still upheld the Board where the record supported a finding that union activity drove the discharge. Lesson: even in friendly forums, well-documented union animus tied to the discharge decision will be hard to overcome.
* Starbucks Dress Code. A recent ALJ decision examined Starbucks’s enforcement of its dress code against employees wearing union pins or pro-union messaging. The decision adds to a long line of cases reinforcing that employers can have neutral dress codes — but enforcement must be even-handed and not function as a de facto ban on union expression.
* Netflix Media Contact Rule. A Netflix policy restricting employee communications with media — including a case in which an employee posted a link to a discussion forum in an internal channel — drew NLRB scrutiny. The case underscores that media-contact and external-communication policies need careful drafting to avoid sweeping in protected concerted activity.
* Google/Alphabet Workers Union as Joint Employer. The NLRB ordered Google to bargain with the Alphabet Workers Union as a joint employer of certain contractor workers. This is the kind of joint-employer finding that has structural implications for tech-sector contracting arrangements — and underscores that the joint-employer question is alive and well even outside the formal rulemaking process.
* Amazon Bargaining Order. The NLRB ordered Amazon to bargain with a union at one of its facilities — another data point in the ongoing standoff between Amazon and various labor organizations.
* DFW Symphonies and Midterm Modifications. The Board found DFW Symphonies liable for unlawful midterm modifications — a reminder that unilateral changes during the term of a CBA continue to be a fertile area of ULP exposure, especially as employers face economic pressure to adjust terms.
The common thread across these cases is that the NLRB — even mid-transition — is actively shaping employer obligations on speech, contracting, discharge, and bargaining.