Labor Relations in every Starbucks Cup.

I'm David Brancatia. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today on whether the National Labor Relations Board has to present more proof when intervening on behalf of

workers trying to unionize the challenge by the coffee chain Starbucks comes as

the High Court is considering other efforts to curb federal authority. Marketplace's Nova Safo is here, Nova.

David, this case has to do with a Starbucks store in Memphis where six employees who were trying to unionize got fired.

Starbucks said they violated its policies unrelated to the unionization

effort.

The National Labor Relations Board got a judge to grant a temporary injunction requiring the

company to rehire the workers until the agency adjudicated the case.

Starb B.

should have a higher burden of proof that it did something wrong, that it has to show that

a company likely interfered in unionization efforts

before intervening.

The crux of the cases is that there are two standards in federal courts.

Some circuits use a two-part test to determine whether to grant the NLRB a temporary

injunction and others use a four-part test and Starbucks wants everyone to use the four-part test.

So it's not just consistency. Starbucks wants the consistent

standard that's harder for the NLRB to meet. That's right. Now the NLRB

argues that it won't make much of a difference for the agency because it

already considers the elements of the four-part test when it decides whether to

even ask for injunctive relief and it points out that it rarely asks but if

justice's rule in Starbucks's favor it does mean a

...