The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision in Siren Retail Corporation d/b/a Starbucks overruling Tri-Cast, Inc. and clarifying the test that the NLRB will use to evaluate whether employer predictions about the impact of unionization on the relationship between individuals and their employer are lawful threats. While Tri-Cast deemed most employer statements about the impact of unionization on the relationship between individual employees and their employer to be categorically lawful, moving forward the NLRB will analyze such statements under the same longstanding test it uses to evaluate other potentially threatening or coercive statements. That approach, which is grounded in the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. Gissel Packaging Co., mandates that—to be lawful—employer predictions of negative impacts from unionization “must be carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact to convey an employer’s belief as to demonstrably probable consequences beyond [its] control.” If such a prediction is not grounded in objective fact or predicts negative consequences that would result from the employer’s own actions, it is “no longer a reasonable prediction based on available facts, but a threat of retaliation based on misrepresentation and coercion.” In Siren Retail, the NLRB made clear that this change in the governing standard will be applied prospectively only, to appropriately accommodate the reasonable reliance employers may have placed on Tri-Cast’s categorical rule. NLRB Members Prouty and Wilcox joined Chairman McFerran in issuing the Siren Retail decision. NLRB Member Kaplan dissented.