LFTL: Restaurants & Unions - Part 1
Welcome to this month's special two part Lessons from the Line with a topic so expansive and discussion so enlightening we’re splitting this issue of LFTL over two weeks.
This month we explore the interconnected challenges of employee satisfaction, employee retention and the growing trend of unionization in the restaurant industry. Many unionization efforts stem from underlying issues related to employee well-being and workplace conditions, which can and should be easily addressed not only to avoid the need for a union but also to ensure employee satisfaction rates are high, leading to low turnover rates. High turnover rates carry significant costs, from increased recruitment and training expenses to decreased service consistency and potential damage to team morale.
Creating a workplace where employees feel valued and respected is paramount, not only for fostering a positive environment but also for long-term business success. To provide expert insight, we're delighted to be joined by Adam Aljoburi, who is a labor and employment attorney who works directly with a unionized workforce.
Read on for valuable insight that should not be considered legal advice but rather thoughts to point you in the right direction. Be sure to consult a lawyer as needed before implementation of new ideas.
Q&A with Adam
Harmony: The labor movement has played a pivotal role in shaping workplace rights and protections throughout U.S. history, from the eight-hour workday to safety regulations. Given that legacy, do you believe unionization is a natural or necessary step for the modern restaurant industry, where issues like wage fairness, benefits, and working conditions remain hot-button topics?
America’s labor movement transformed the country from a “robber baron” economy - where workers had few rights - into a nation where fairness, safety, and dignity in the workplace became core values. Thanks to unions, we have much better working conditions, such as overtime pay, workplace safety laws, and protections against discrimination—rights that are now standard. That legacy is significant.
Given that history, it’s understandable why some see unionization as a natural response to challenges in the modern restaurant industry - particularly around wages, benefits, and working conditions. When employees feel undervalued or overlooked, they may seek out collective bargaining as a way to address those concerns. In some cases, unionization has helped raise standards for pay and job security.
But it’s also important to recognize that restaurants are uniquely demanding environments - fast-paced, customer facing, and highly variable by nature. Scheduling needs change quickly, and flexibility is essential. That’s where traditional union structures can struggle: they’re often built around predictability and routine, which doesn’t always align with the realities of restaurant operations.
If unionization efforts are gaining traction, it’s worth asking: Why now? Are team members feeling unheard? Is high turnover a sign of deeper issues? For many owners, the best way to avoid external organizing efforts is to build a workplace culture that listens, adapts, and invests in its people - long before frustrations lead to union cards.
Unions aren’t inherently good or bad - they’re often a reaction. Addressing the root causes behind that reaction is where restaurant owners can lead - by creating great jobs, fostering open communication, and staying ahead of the issues that matter most to their teams.
Harmony: Many of the items that employees seek when considering unionization, such as fair scheduling and clear disciplinary procedures, seem like they fall under general best practices. From a legal perspective, what are some key areas where proactively implementing clear and fair policies can not only improve employee morale but also potentially mitigate the risk of union organizing efforts?
While many of the issues that drive interest in unionization - such as fair scheduling, transparent discipline, and predictable working conditions - reflect broadly recognized best practices in workforce management, implementing them proactively requires thoughtful planning. From a legal and operational perspective, the manner in which these policies are introduced can have significant implications.
Employers who invest in clearly communicated, consistently applied policies may see benefits in both employee morale and organizational stability. For example, providing advance scheduling notices, offering channels for feedback, and using a consistent process for handling performance concerns can foster a sense of fairness and predictability. These practices align with widely accepted principles of good management and may help employees feel heard and respected in their workplace - which, in turn, can reduce the likelihood of interest in third-party representation.
At the same time, it's important for organizations to ensure that any new policies or benefits are implemented thoughtfully and not in a way that could be perceived as a direct response to union activity. The National Labor Relations Act prohibits employers from making changes to terms and conditions of employment with the intent to influence employees’ decisions regarding union representation. To avoid legal risk, policy improvements should ideally be part of a longer-term strategy grounded in operational goals and employee engagement, rather than tied to specific organizing efforts.
Now, before you go ahead and just put new policies in place, take a moment to ask: Do you actually have the ability to consistently enforce these policies? If not, you may be opening yourself up to more exposure than you realized. Inconsistent enforcement can erode trust, invite claims of favoritism or discrimination, and even weaken your position in future grievance or arbitration proceedings. A policy that looks good on paper but is unevenly applied in practice can create more issues than it solves - and may become a focal point for employee dissatisfaction.
Employers should also remain mindful of preserving managerial flexibility. Well-crafted policies typically include language that allows for discretion in application, recognizes the evolving needs of the business, and communicates that policies may be revised to adapt to changing circumstances.
Ultimately, implementing best practices around scheduling, communication, and workplace fairness can support a positive workplace culture and reduce misunderstandings. When done consistently and transparently - and as part of a broader commitment to employee development and engagement - these measures can not only mitigate the risk of labor disputes but also strengthen the employer-employee relationship in a sustainable way.
Harmony: Regarding specific requests like "just cause" protection for discipline or mandatory notice for schedule changes, what are the legal implications of implementing such policies in a non-unionized environment? Are there any potential pitfalls or legal requirements employers should be aware of when voluntarily adopting these types of protections or any best practices you suggest for implementation?
In non-unionized workplaces in the U.S., employment is generally “at-will,” meaning an employer can terminate an employee at any time, for any lawful reason - or even no reason at all - so long as the action does not violate anti-discrimination or other applicable laws. However, when an employer voluntarily adopts protections like “just cause” standards for discipline or mandatory scheduling notice, it’s important to recognize that these decisions can carry significant legal and operational consequences.
For example, written policies that suggest employees will only be disciplined or discharged for “just cause” may unintentionally create enforceable expectations. In some states, courts have found that these types of policies can give rise to implied employment contracts, even where no formal agreement exists. This can significantly limit an employer’s flexibility and may complicate termination decisions, particularly if the policy does not define what “just cause” means or how it will be applied.
Similarly, scheduling policies that require advance notice of shift changes - while often well-intentioned and aligned with employee preferences - can also create contractual obligations if not carefully drafted. For example, even in jurisdictions where no predictive scheduling law applies, a clearly written policy requiring, say, 14 days’ notice for any schedule change could be interpreted by courts or state labor departments as a binding promise. If not followed consistently, this could open the door to claims of breach of contract or, in some cases, constructive discharge or wage law violations.
It’s also worth considering that offering protections commonly associated with collective bargaining - such as just cause or fixed scheduling protocols - can inadvertently send a signal to employees that their concerns are being heard because of organizing activity, or may inspire the belief that unionization could yield even stronger protections. That doesn’t mean employers should avoid adopting fair and transparent policies, but rather that such decisions should be made as part of a broader workforce strategy, rather than a reactive measure.
Now, before moving forward with these types of changes, employers should ask themselves: Do we have the ability to enforce this consistently, across all managers, departments, and shifts? If not, the organization may face more exposure than anticipated. Inconsistent application of these policies not only undermines credibility, but can also increase the risk of claims alleging unfair treatment, discrimination, or retaliation.
Best practices for implementation include:
Clearly stating that policies are guidelines, not guarantees;
Reserving management discretion to revise or adapt policies as business needs evolve;
Training supervisors on consistent enforcement;
Avoiding language that could be construed as promising indefinite employment or certain treatment under all circumstances.
Finally, employers should remain mindful of state and local laws that may already impose certain requirements, such as predictive scheduling ordinances (e.g., in Oregon, San Francisco) or reporting time pay rules that can be triggered by short-notice changes.
In short, while adopting “just cause” or scheduling notice policies may seem like a simple way to build goodwill and align with employee expectations, these changes are best approached with legal awareness, operational readiness, and a long-term view of the workplace culture being shaped.
That’s a ton of great information to chew on, so we’re going to leave it there for now. Stay tuned for part two next week with the rest of Adam’s insights and as always, head to Harmony’s Blog for ongoing news, info, and updates.