Nov 8 (Reuters) - The National Labor Relations Board on

Friday said Starbucks ( SBUX ) broke the law by telling workers at its

flagship Seattle cafe that they would lose benefits if they

joined a union.

The board in a 3-1 ruling in the case, one of scores

involving a nationwide union campaign at Starbucks ( SBUX ), made it

easier to prove that employers' predictions about the impact of

unionizing amount to threats that violate the National Labor

Relations Act.

The NLRB's Friday ruling overruled a 1985 decision that said

most employer statements about the effects of unionization on

the relationship between workers and management are lawful. The

board said that moving forward, those statements will be deemed

illegal unless they are "carefully phrased," based on objective

facts, and relate to consequences out of an employer's control.

Otherwise, the board said, "the statement is no longer a

reasonable prediction based on available facts but a threat of

retaliation based on misrepresentation and coercion."

The NLRB said Starbucks ( SBUX ) violated that standard by telling

workers during mandatory meetings in 2022 that if they

unionized, they would be deprived of benefits granted to

non-union employees.

Workers at the Seattle store voted that year to join the

union Workers United, as have employees at more than 500 other

Starbucks ( SBUX ) locations. In April, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of

Appeals upheld an NLRB ruling ordering Starbucks ( SBUX ) to bargain with

the union at the Seattle store.

Starbucks ( SBUX ) and lawyers for the union did not immediately

respond to requests for comment.

NLRB Chair Lauren McFerran in a statement said the new

standard would bring greater consistency to the board's approach

in evaluating employer statements.

The ruling "better protects workers' right to make a free

and fair choice about union representation while respecting an

employer's prerogative to share their views in a non-coercive

manner," McFerran said.

The decision is the latest by Democratic President Joe

Biden's appointees to the board to reverse or update

longstanding NLRB precedent in ways seen as favoring unions.

Those rulings, including one creating a path for unions to

organize workers outside of the traditional election process,

will likely be on the chopping block after Republican former

President Donald Trump's victory in this week's election.

After he takes office in January, Trump could install a

Republican majority on the five-member board fairly quickly, as

one seat is already vacant and McFerran's term expires next

month.

The board's current lone Republican, Marvin Kaplan,

dissented on Friday, saying the 1985 test appropriately

distinguishes between non-coercive statements and threats.

Kaplan also said his colleagues should not have addressed

the broader issue because it was not raised by the union or

general counsel in Starbucks' ( SBUX ) case, and that as a result, it

should not be treated as binding precedent.

"This case would make Shakespeare proud. It is truly a

decision full of sound and fury that signifies nothing," Kaplan

wrote.

The case is Siren Retail Corp, National Labor Relations

Board, No. 19-CA-290905.

For Starbucks ( SBUX ): Jeffrey Dilger and Ryan Hammond of Littler

Mendelson

For the union: Dmitri Iglitzin of Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt

For the NLRB general counsel: Sarah McBride

Read more:

Starbucks ( SBUX ) loses appeal over union election at Seattle store

Starbucks ( SBUX ) CEO Niccol says committed to "engage

constructively" with workers union

Unions poised to capitalize on U.S. labor board rulings that

bolstered organizing

NLRB paves way for workers to unionize without formal

elections