In what comes as a victory for labour rights organisations and regulators,&nbsp;a National Labor Relations Board judge on Friday ruled that Starbucks illegally fired an&nbsp;employee at&nbsp;its Ann Arbor, Michigan store.

The judge ruled that Starbucks “acted with animus” when it fired the employee and ordered the multinational coffee chain to reinstate the fired worker with back pay.

Moreover, the company will have to hold a meeting with the employees, management as well as government representatives where a notice about workers' rights will be read and Starbucks will have to&nbsp;reassert the agency's&nbsp;filing that it broke the law.&nbsp;

Hannah Whitbeck, the employee in question was fired because she helped build support for unionising the Ann Arbor store.&nbsp;

“I would hope that they learn their lesson, that firing people because they want to start a union is not going to solve their problems. In fact, it’s only going to make it worse.”&nbsp;Whitbeck was quoted as saying by Bloomberg.&nbsp;

This is not the first time that Starbucks has been ordered by a court to re-hire its illegally fired employees.

As reported by WION, in August,&nbsp;a&nbsp;US federal court ordered the company to reinstate its seven&nbsp;employees who were also fired for unionising.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-court-orders-starbucks-to-rehire-employees-it-fired-for-unionising-508252">Read more:&nbsp;US court orders Starbucks to rehire employees it fired for 'unionising'</a>

Judge Sheryl H. Lipman at the US District Court of the Western District of Tennessee passed the judgement, terming the&nbsp;rehiring as&nbsp;"just and proper".

Last month, the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, a New York City agency sued Starbucks for wrongfully terminating a longtime worker and union organiser.&nbsp;

According to the agency, the case marks its first lawsuit for a violation of New York City’s “just cause” protections, a 2017 law meant to safeguard the interests of fast-food workers.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/new-york-city-agency-sues-starbucks-for-wrongfully-terminating-union-organiser-employee-512636">Read more:&nbsp;New York City agency sues Starbucks for wrongfully terminating union organiser employee</a>

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is currently investigating hundreds of allegations of misconduct by Starbucks related to the union campaign, including claims of closing stores to dismantle unions, firing employees, and intimidating and threatening workers to prevent them from unionising.&nbsp;

While there is already a huge backlog of complaints, NLRB officials suggest that more cases will come to light in the coming year.&nbsp;

“Given the spike in case intake we are seeing in the field, we can expect even more cases to come before the board in fiscal year 2023,” said&nbsp;Lauren McFerran,&nbsp;NLRB chairperson.&nbsp;

Starbucks, on multiple occasions, has cleared that it is against any kind of unionising efforts.&nbsp;

“From the beginning, we’ve been clear in our belief that we do not want a union between us as partners, and that conviction has not changed,”&nbsp;Rossann Williams,&nbsp;Starbucks’ executive vice president stated last year.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) 
 
WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

In what comes as a victory for labour rights organisations and regulators, a National Labor Relations Board judge on Friday ruled that Starbucks illegally fired an employee at its Ann Arbor, Michigan store.

In what comes as a victory for labour rights organisations and regulators, a National Labor Relations Board judge on Friday ruled that Starbucks illegally fired an employee at its Ann Arbor, Michigan store. The judge ruled that Starbucks “acted with animus” when it fired the employee and ordered the multinational coffee chain to reinstate the fired worker with back pay. Moreover, the company will have to hold a meeting with the employees, management as well as government representatives where a notice about workers' rights will be read and Starbucks will have to reassert the agency's filing that it broke the law. Hannah Whitbeck, the employee in question was fired because she helped build support for unionising the Ann Arbor store. “I would hope that they learn their lesson, that firing people because they want to start a union is not going to solve their problems. In fact, it’s only going to make it worse.” Whitbeck was quoted as saying by Bloomberg. This is not the first time that Starbucks has been ordered by a court to re-hire its illegally fired employees. As reported by WION, in August, a US federal court ordered the company to reinstate its seven employees who were also fired for unionising. Read more: US court orders Starbucks to rehire employees it fired for 'unionising' Judge Sheryl H. Lipman at the US District Court of the Western District of Tennessee passed the judgement, terming the rehiring as "just and proper". Last month, the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, a New York City agency sued Starbucks for wrongfully terminating a longtime worker and union organiser. According to the agency, the case marks its first lawsuit for a violation of New York City’s “just cause” protections, a 2017 law meant to safeguard the interests of fast-food workers. Read more: New York City agency sues Starbucks for wrongfully terminating union organiser employee The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is currently investigating hundreds of allegations of misconduct by Starbucks related to the union campaign, including claims of closing stores to dismantle unions, firing employees, and intimidating and threatening workers to prevent them from unionising. While there is already a huge backlog of complaints, NLRB officials suggest that more cases will come to light in the coming year. “Given the spike in case intake we are seeing in the field, we can expect even more cases to come before the board in fiscal year 2023,” said Lauren McFerran, NLRB chairperson. Starbucks, on multiple occasions, has cleared that it is against any kind of unionising efforts. “From the beginning, we’ve been clear in our belief that we do not want a union between us as partners, and that conviction has not changed,” Rossann Williams, Starbucks’ executive vice president stated last year. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Starbucks ordered to rehire employee it fired for 'unionising' with back pay

A Starbucks cafe in Dublin has compensated an Irish customer of Thai heritage almost $13,000 for a drawing of ''slanty'' eyes on a cup made by an employee.

The incident took place when&nbsp;Suchavadee Foley ordered a chai matcha latte from&nbsp;Starbucks Tallaght but&nbsp;the cup in which it was served had a drawing of ''slanty eyes''.

The&nbsp;Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found&nbsp;Foley had been a victim of racial abuse as it was "clear that the visual depiction relates to her race".

Adjudication officer of the commission&nbsp;Kevin Baneham said the incident ''is as offensive and as unimaginative as a 19th century Punch cartoon”.

The Dublin outlet said, "complainant had not been treated less favourably and others would have drawings composed of them".

The employee accused of making the drawing on the cup is from Brazil and she drew a smile because she thought the customer was glamorous.

A spokeswoman for Starbucks said it was "deeply sorry".

"We have no tolerance for discrimination of any kind at Starbucks," she said.

"We accept the adjudicator's conclusion that our partner did not intend to harass this customer and we have retrained the team at this store to ensure this does not take place again."

A Starbucks cafe in Dublin has compensated an Irish customer of Thai heritage almost $13,000 for a drawing of ''slanty'' eyes on a cup made by an employee. The incident took place when Suchavadee Foley ordered a chai matcha latte from Starbucks Tallaght but the cup in which it was served had a drawing of ''slanty eyes''.

A Starbucks cafe in Dublin has compensated an Irish customer of Thai heritage almost $13,000 for a drawing of ''slanty'' eyes on a cup made by an employee. The incident took place when Suchavadee Foley ordered a chai matcha latte from Starbucks Tallaght but the cup in which it was served had a drawing of ''slanty eyes''. The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) found Foley had been a victim of racial abuse as it was "clear that the visual depiction relates to her race". Adjudication officer of the commission Kevin Baneham said the incident ''is as offensive and as unimaginative as a 19th century Punch cartoon”. The Dublin outlet said, "complainant had not been treated less favourably and others would have drawings composed of them". The employee accused of making the drawing on the cup is from Brazil and she drew a smile because she thought the customer was glamorous. A spokeswoman for Starbucks said it was "deeply sorry". "We have no tolerance for discrimination of any kind at Starbucks," she said. "We accept the adjudicator's conclusion that our partner did not intend to harass this customer and we have retrained the team at this store to ensure this does not take place again."

Starbucks customer gets $13,000 compensation over 'slanty' eyes drawing on cup

Starbucks Corp and other coffee sellers must put a cancer warning on coffee sold in California, a Los Angeles judge has ruled, possibly exposing the companies to millions of dollars in fines.

A little-known not-for-profit group sued some 90 coffee retailers, including Starbucks, on grounds they were violating a California law requiring companies to warn consumers of chemicals in their products that could cause cancer.

One of those chemicals is acrylamide, a byproduct of roasting coffee beans that is present in high levels in brewed coffee.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said in a decision dated Wednesday that Starbucks and other companies had failed to show there was no significant risk from a carcinogen produced in the coffee roasting process, court documents showed.

Starbucks and other defendants have until April 10 to file objections to the decision.

Starbucks declined to comment, referring reporters to a statement by the National Coffee Association (NCA) that said the industry was considering an appeal and further legal actions.

"Cancer warning labels on coffee would be misleading. The US&nbspgovernment’s own Dietary Guidelines state that coffee can be part of a healthy lifestyle," the NCA statement said.

In his decision, Berle said: "Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health."

Officials from Dunkin’ Donuts, McDonald's Corp, Peet's and other big coffee sellers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuit was filed in 2010 by the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT). It calls for fines as large as $2,500 per person for every exposure to the chemical since 2002 at the defendants’ shops in California. Any civil penalties, which will be decided in a third phase of the trial, could be huge in California, which has a population of nearly 40 million.

CERT's lawyer Raphael Metzger did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Starbucks lost the first phase of the trial in which it failed to show the level of acrylamide in coffee was below that which would pose a significant risk of cancer. In the second phase of the trial, defendants failed to prove there was an acceptable "alternative" risk level for the carcinogen, court documents showed.

Several defendants in the case settled before Wednesday's decision, agreeing to post signage about the cancer-linked chemical and pay millions in fines, according to published reports.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said in a decision dated Wednesday that Starbucks and other companies had failed to show there was no significant risk from a carcinogen produced in the coffee roasting process

Starbucks Corp and other coffee sellers must put a cancer warning on coffee sold in California, a Los Angeles judge has ruled, possibly exposing the companies to millions of dollars in fines. A little-known not-for-profit group sued some 90 coffee retailers, including Starbucks, on grounds they were violating a California law requiring companies to warn consumers of chemicals in their products that could cause cancer. One of those chemicals is acrylamide, a byproduct of roasting coffee beans that is present in high levels in brewed coffee. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle said in a decision dated Wednesday that Starbucks and other companies had failed to show there was no significant risk from a carcinogen produced in the coffee roasting process, court documents showed. Starbucks and other defendants have until April 10 to file objections to the decision. Starbucks declined to comment, referring reporters to a statement by the National Coffee Association (NCA) that said the industry was considering an appeal and further legal actions. "Cancer warning labels on coffee would be misleading. The US&nbspgovernment’s own Dietary Guidelines state that coffee can be part of a healthy lifestyle," the NCA statement said. In his decision, Berle said: "Defendants failed to satisfy their burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that consumption of coffee confers a benefit to human health." Officials from Dunkin’ Donuts, McDonald's Corp, Peet's and other big coffee sellers did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The lawsuit was filed in 2010 by the Council for Education and Research on Toxics (CERT). It calls for fines as large as $2,500 per person for every exposure to the chemical since 2002 at the defendants’ shops in California. Any civil penalties, which will be decided in a third phase of the trial, could be huge in California, which has a population of nearly 40 million. CERT's lawyer Raphael Metzger did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Starbucks lost the first phase of the trial in which it failed to show the level of acrylamide in coffee was below that which would pose a significant risk of cancer. In the second phase of the trial, defendants failed to prove there was an acceptable "alternative" risk level for the carcinogen, court documents showed. Several defendants in the case settled before Wednesday's decision, agreeing to post signage about the cancer-linked chemical and pay millions in fines, according to published reports.

Starbucks coffee in California must have cancer warning, says judge