UAW Petitions NLRB Over Mercedes Alabama Vote

The UAW is challenging the election results after workers at Mercedes in Alabama narrowly defeated a vote to join the UAW in an election that was made public late Friday night 17 May 2024. (2642 at 56% Against with 2045 For that tallies to a loss of 597 votes) This was in stark contrast to the record contract approved by workers at Daimler Truck or the ratification of the union at Volkswagen in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Alabama has been a so-called “right to work state (for less?) since 2016, meaning that union-membership is not required for employment. By late February, less than two months after Mercedes workers went public with their drive to join the UAW. Basically the UAW is saying the employer – MBUSI interfered with employees’ free choice in the election. The UAW is asking for a new election, and appears to have a strong case under US law. (See AutoInformed on: UAW Loses Mercedes Alabama Vote; Germany Opens Anti-Union Investigation at Mercedes-Benz)

“Over 2000 Mercedes workers voted yes to win their union after an unprecedented, illegal anti-union campaign waged against them by their employer. What that tells us is that in a fair fight, where Mercedes is held accountable to following the law, workers will win their union. All these workers ever wanted was a fair shot at having a voice on the job and a say in their working conditions. And that’s what we’re asking for here. Let’s get a vote at Mercedes in Alabama where the company isn’t allowed to fire people, isn’t allowed to intimidate people, and isn’t allowed to break the law and their own corporate code, and let the workers decide,” the UAW said in a statement to AutoInformed. Following is the filing.

Petitioner’s Objections to Conduct Affecting Representation Election

Between May 13, 2024 and May 17, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) conducted a representation election in conjunction with the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America’s (“UAW” or” the Union”) petition in the above captioned RC case at the employer, Mercedes-Benz U.S. International (“the Employer” or “MBUSI”), at MBSUI’s Assembly Plants in Vance, Alabama and its Battery Plants in Woodstock, Alabama (“the Facilities”). The Union hereby submits the following Objections to conduct affecting the results of the Election, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §102.69(a)(8) and its rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The Union will submit evidence to the Board in support of these Objections as required by 29 C.F.R. § 102.69.

On January 11, 2024, employees of MBUSI publicly announced that they were exploring forming a union with the UAW at MBUSI’s Facilities. Almost immediately thereafter, both prior to and during the election period, the Employer engaged in a relentless antiunion campaign marked with unlawful discipline, unlawful captive audience meetings, and a general goal of coercing and intimidating employees who were attempting to exercise their Section 7 rights. On April 5, the Union filed the instant RC petition seeking to represent the employees at the Facilities. The manual election was then conducted pursuant to a stipulated election agreement.

The Employer’s actions, from the time the employees publicly announced their intent to organize through the critical period of the election, constitute both Unfair Labor Practices(“ULPs”) and objectionable conduct that created an atmosphere preventing “a free and untrammeled choice by the employees.”

In Re Jensen Enterprises, Inc., 339 NLRB 877, 890 (2003). The Employer’s conduct ran contrary to the Board’s efforts “to provide a laboratory in which an experiment may be conducted, under conditions as nearly as ideal as possible, to determine the uninhibited desires of the employees.” Id. This conduct occurred both during the critical period – the time between the filing of the RC petition and the election—as well as in the weeks prior to the RC petition.

Pursuant to the Board’s recent decision in Cemex Constr. Materials Pac., LLC, the Board considers ULPs committed prior to the critical period when evaluating if the employer interfered with employees’ free choice in the election. 372 NLRB No. 130, fn 84 (Aug.25, 2023); Memorandum GC 24-01 at pg. 2; fn 6. Accordingly, the Employer’s wanton lawlessness as detailed in the below objections, both separately and cumulatively, and which are also pending ULPs when so indicated, constitute grounds to set the election aside and order a new election.

1. Before the critical period, the Employer terminated four (4) employees who openly supported the Union. These terminations are subject to investigation in case nos. 10-CA-338637 and 10-CA-341557.

2. Before and during the critical period, and throughout the election period, the Employer maintained an unlawfully discriminatory solicitation policy that allowed anti-union employees to solicit support during work hours but forbade pro-union employees from soliciting support during work hours. Additionally, the Employer disciplined employees pursuant to this policy. This policy is subject to investigation in case nos. 10-CA-337345and 10-CA-337350.

3. Before and during the critical period, and throughout the election period, the Employer interfered with employees’ ability to advocate for the Union in non-work areas and off the clock including by prohibiting the distribution of union materials and paraphernalia. Some of these actions are subject to investigation in case no. 10-CA-337350.

4. Before and during the critical period, and throughout the election period, the Employer forced employees to attend anti-union captive audience meetings, thereby coercing employees into participating in its anti-union campaign efforts. Some of these meetings are subject to investigation in case no. 10-CA-341574.

5. During the critical period and throughout the election period, the Employer, by and through its agents, suggested voting in the union would be futile.

6. During the critical period and throughout the election period, the Employer, by and through its agents, polled employees for their support of the union.

7. During the critical period and throughout the election period, the Employer, by and through its agents, engaged in conduct which deliberately sought to exacerbate racial feelings by irrelevant and inflammatory appeals to racial prejudice.

8. During the critical period and throughout the election period, the Employer, by and through its agents, displayed a constant barrage of anti-union propaganda that had the effect of chilling employee free choice.

9. During the election period, the Employer threatened a Union observer with discipline or discharge for acting as an election observer for Petitioning Union.

10. During the election period, the Employer compelled Team Members on short and long term disability, as well as other unidentified Team Members, to come in and vote, interfering with employee free choice to vote or refrain from voting.

11. During the election period, the Employer’s Observers coerced voters to “vote no” in front of other voters/observers.

12. Before and during the election period, the Employer targeted union supporters with drug tests.

13. Before and during the election period the Employer impaired employee free choice by acting ultra vires by violating its corporate neutrality rule through its encouragement of employees to vote against the union, directly and through its agents, as well as by engaging in the other unlawful conduct alleged here.