Oct 3 (Reuters) - Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz

violated federal labor law by telling a barista in California

who criticized the coffee chain's response to a nationwide union

campaign to "go work for another company," the National Labor

Relations Board has ruled.

The board on Wednesday said the comment by Schultz during a

company event in 2022 amounted to an illegal threat that could

discourage unionizing, upholding a decision by an administrative

judge.

Schultz was chief executive of Starbucks ( SBUX ) for three separate

stints beginning in the 1980s before he stepped down last year,

and is widely credited with turning the brand into a global

phenomenon.

Schultz had met with a group of Starbucks ( SBUX ) employees from

stores in Long Beach, California, to discuss concerns about

working conditions and made the comment to one of them, Madison

Hall, after she criticized the company's treatment of workers

and resistance to unionizing.

"Schultz's generic assurances against retaliation at the

opening of the meeting hardly lessened the objective tendency of

his invitation to quit to have a coercive effect on ... the

employees in attendance, particularly given his surrounding

explicit references to the Union," the board said.

Starbucks ( SBUX ) and Workers United, the union organizing the

company's workers, did not immediately respond to requests for

comment on Thursday. The decision can be appealed to a federal

appeals court.

Workers at 500 Starbucks ( SBUX ) locations in the U.S., including

one in Long Beach, have voted to unionize since late 2021.

Starbucks ( SBUX ) has faced allegations of widespread illegal

union-busting from workers, labor groups and Democratic

lawmakers, which it has denied. Earlier this year, Starbucks ( SBUX ) and

Workers United announced a nationwide "framework" to guide

organizing and collective bargaining and potentially settle

scores of legal disputes.

At the 2022 event at a conference center in Long Beach, Hall

said the company should engage in collective bargaining and

pledge not to interfere with union organizing. She also asked

Schultz about allegations of illegal labor practices, according

to board filings. No other workers raised concerns related to

unionizing, according to board filings.

Schultz in response asked Hall why she was "angry at

Starbucks ( SBUX )." He said he had not come to discuss union issues and

told her that "if you're not happy at Starbucks ( SBUX ), you can go work

for another company," according to filings in the case.

The NLRB on Wednesday rejected Starbucks' ( SBUX ) claim that the

broader context in which Schultz made the comments showed they

were not intended to discourage organizing. Schultz demeaned

Hall by calling her angry and noting that she had only worked

for Starbucks ( SBUX ) for two years, the board said.

"These factors, set against a backdrop of unfair labor

practice litigation arising from [Starbucks' ( SBUX )] response to the

Union's nationwide organizing, provide ample context for finding

Schultz's statement objectively coercive," the board said.

The decision bars Starbucks ( SBUX ) from "impliedly threatening

employees with discharge if they engage in union or other

protected concerted activities" and requires the company to post

notices of the violation at its stores in the Long Beach area.

The case is Starbucks Corp ( SBUX ), National Labor Relations Board,

No. 21-CA-294571.

For Starbucks ( SBUX ): Jonathan Levine of Littler Mendelson

For the union: Gabe Frumkin of Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt

For the NLRB general counsel: Lindsay Parker

Read more:

Ex-Starbucks ( SBUX ) CEO Schultz illegally threatened union

supporter, NLRB judge rules

Starbucks ( SBUX ) CEO Niccol says committed to "engage

constructively" with workers union

US Supreme Court backs Starbucks ( SBUX ) over fired pro-union

workers

Starbucks ( SBUX ) must rehire fired union supporters, US appeals

court rules

Starbucks' ( SBUX ) ex-CEO Schultz resists 'union busting' claims by

U.S. Senators

Starbucks ( SBUX ) must disclose spending on response to union

campaign, judge rules

(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York)