But the situation seems materially different for a large company like Starbucks, where each physical location is only a small part of their overall business operations.
What SCOTUS ruling was that? I wonder if it applies to e.g. shutting down a warehouse or dismantling a department within the business, as opposed to shutting down a business entirely.
Each location is differently situated. One might have higher real estate costs or taxes or more competitors or fewer customers or antagonistic local politicians etc. There are so many things that go into store closures that they could always find a plausible pretext. Then what do you do, have a rule that you can never close a store with a union?
Then why did Starbucks, no doubt availing themselves of very well-paid labor lawyers, lose this case to the NLRB? For these examples at least they were not able to provide plausible pretexts.
There are licensed stores, which is what you'll see in a Barnes and Noble, hospital, or on a college campus. These do make up a significant ~40% of total locations.
FWIW, Barnes and Noble operates its own brand, Barnes and Noble Cafe, that isn't a licensed Starbucks.
Licensed stores have full branding and, these days, accept stars as discounts and purchases there accrue stars. The third category (corporate and licensed being the first two) is "We Proudly Serve", meaning the business isn't a Starbucks but has an agreement to sell some or all of the 'bux product line.