Starbucks — facing a growing push for unionization across the nation — is asking the Supreme Court to review how the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) files injunctions after a judge forced the company to rehire Memphis workers tied to unionizing efforts.

The company argues that some federal courts make it easier for the labor board to obtain an injunction, such as the one that handled the case in Memphis. Under the National Labor Relations Act, the labor board is allowed to seek "temporary injunctions against employers and unions in federal courts to stop serious unfair labor practices while a case moves through the Board's process."

"Starbucks is asking the Supreme Court to level the playing field for Starbucks and all U.S. employers by ensuring that the same, correct standard is applied before federal district courts grant the NLRB extraordinary injunctions in the future," a Starbucks spokesperson told FOX Business. 

The coffee giant filed a petition Tuesday reviewed by FOX Business asking for the Supreme Court to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit's decision in August to grant an injunction requiring the company to rehire the workers, that were let go in February. 

The injunction was issued based on a petition from New Orleans Regional Director Kathleen McKinney, who claimed that the employees were "unlawfully fired for exercising their right to form a union."

STARBUCKS STORES RALLY BEHIND FIRED MEMPHIS EMPLOYEES

The seven union activists in Memphis were all fired on the same day in early February "including five of the six members of the union organizing committee," the labor board said.

In the petition Starbucks argues that the circuits – which are federal appellate courts covering multiple states — "are irrevocably split over the standard to impose such injunctions." 

STARBUCKS FILES UNFAIR LABOR CHARGES AGAINST UNION ORGANIZERS FOR 'DISTURBING BEHAVIOR'

For instance, the Seattle-based company said that five circuits — including the Sixth circuit, where the Memphis case was heard, "apply a dramatically lower, two-factor ‘reasonable cause’ test that is ‘no real obstacle’ to obtaining injunctions." 

In other words, different federal courts of appeals have adopted different tests for how hard it is for the labor board to obtain preliminary injunctions though all the courts are purporting to interpret the same federal law, a person familiar with the case told FOX Business. 

The company is trying to force circuits to have the same standard for imposing injunctions, so its doesn't face different legal standards depending on where a store is located, the person familiar with the case said. 

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

 In the Memphis case, the labor board said it called for injunctive relief after it said that the company "directed a wide variety of coercive measures at its employees" which included disciplining the employee responsible for starting the campaign, more closely supervising its employees, terminating the employees following increased media coverage of the campaign.

At the time, Starbucks said the employees were let go because they violated "numerous" company policies by reopening a store after closing time and inviting non-employees to come inside and move throughout the store. The employees used the store to do an interview with a local television station about their unionizing effort.

However, the employees, who were fired after a local news outlet covered the employees' union organization efforts, accused Starbucks of "union-busting" and vowed to file a complaint with the labor board.

Starbucks Workers United is the union seeking to organize Starbucks employees nationwide.