NLRB Region 32 Oakland

Region 32, Oakland, which covers parts of the Bay Area, Central Valley and Northern Nevada, is reflected in this data. We're here to assist you in filing petitions and charges.

x.com

Region 32-Oakland Secures Settlement Requiring Lucid to Rescind Unlawful Severance Agreement Language. For more details, please see the General Counsel's Press Release.

Region 32-Oakland Secures Settlement Requiring Lucid to Rescind Unlawful Severance Agreement Language On March 5, 2024, Region 32-Oakland Regional Director Valerie Hardy-Mahoney approved an agreement settling a case against Lucid Group, Inc. (Employer), an electric vehicle manufacturer, based on an unfair labor practice charge filed by its former employees who had been laid off under a May 2023 redu...

Tesla, Inc., Board Case No. 32-CA-197020 (reported at 370 NLRB No. 101) (5th Cir. decided March 31, 2023).
In a published opinion, the Court enforced the Board’s order that issued against this manufacturer of electric vehicles at a plant in Fremont, California, where it committed numerous unfair labor practices during an organizing campaign initiated by employees seeking representation by the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO. In doing so, the Court denied Tesla’s petition for review, which disputed only an unlawful discharge and the Board’s finding that CEO Elon Musk threatened employees by tweeting that they would lose stock options if they unionized. Further, the Court denied the Union’s petition for review, which challenged the Board’s dismissal of an allegation that Tesla unlawfully solicited grievances, as well as the Board’s determination not to issue a notice-reading remedy.
The Board (Chairman McFerran and Members Emanuel and Ring) found that Tesla committed a litany of unfair labor practices when it unlawfully responded to its employees’ organizing efforts by repeatedly coercing, threatening, and discriminating against them. Among other violations, the Board found that Tesla violated Section 8(a)(1) by coercively interrogating employees on five occasions, threatening them with the loss of stock options if they unionized, and maintaining a confidentiality agreement that employees would reasonably interpret to interfere with protected activity, and restricting their use of the company’s messaging-and-data program in response to protected activity. The Board also found that Tesla violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) by discharging one key employee organizer, and warning another. In the absence of exceptions, the Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge’s findings that Tesla violated Section 8(a)(1) by twice interfering with its employees’ distribution of union leaflets, prohibiting employees from distributing union materials, and threatening them with discharge if they did, and threatening that unionization would be futile. Further, the Board dismissed several allegations, including an unlawful discharge allegation, and declined to order a notice-reading remedy. Before the Court, Tesla conceded the bulk of those unfair-labor-practice violations.
In a comprehensive opinion, the Court rejected Tesla’s argument that its CEO’s tweet, which conveyed to employees that they would “give up stock options” if they voted for the Union, was speech protected by Section 8(c) of the Act. Relying on NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575 (1969), the Court explained that “a statement implying that unionization will result in the loss of benefits, without some explanation or reference to the collective-bargaining process, economic necessity, or other objective facts, is a coercive threat, while such a statement is not a threat if made in the context, for example, of explaining that existing benefits may be traded away during the bargaining process.” Here, the Court found that the tweet did not include any objective facts that would lead a reasonable employee to conclude that the statement was anything other than a threat. Moreover, the Court rejected Tesla’s argument that the Board erred in not taking into account later tweets and a press release, noting that such non-contemporaneous communications “cannot change whether the original tweet was a threat.” In so holding, the Court emphasized its view that “Tesla’s history of labor violations supports the NLRB’s finding that employees would understand Musk’s tweet as a threat to commit another violation by rescinding stock options as retaliation.” On the unlawful discharge finding, the Court held that substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that union animus motivated, at least in part, Tesla’s decision to fire the employee, who in response to questioning during an investigation, had lied about union activity.
Turning to the issues raised by the Union’s petition, the Court upheld that the Board’s dismissal of the allegation that Tesla had unlawfully solicited grievances, finding it fully supported by the record evidence. Regarding the Board’s determination not to order a notice-reading remedy, the Court declined to disturb the Board’s determination, noting “the deferential standard of review and the ‘special respect’ given to the NLRB’s choice of remedy in light of its policy expertise and its broad, discretionary remedial powers.” Go to https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-197020 for a copy of the decision.

TESLA, INC. | National Labor Relations Board TESLA, INC.   E-File Follow Sign into MyNLRB to follow cases and receive updates. What is this? Case Number: 32-CA-197020 Date Filed: 04/17/2017 Status: Open Location: Fremont, CA Region Assigned: Region 32, Oakland, California Docket Activity Items per page Date Document Issued/Filed By 04/12/2023...

In a Region 32 case, Aakash, Inc., d/b/a Park Central Care & Rehabilitation Center, 371 NLRB No. 46, the National Labor Relations Board rejected the employer’s contentions that the complaint issued by General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo was invalid because former General Counsel Peter Robb’s removal from office was unlawful. Read more here,

NLRB Rejects Challenge to Former General Counsel Robb’s Removal In a decision today in Aakash, Inc., d/b/a Park Central Care & Rehabilitation Center, 371 NLRB No. 46, the National Labor Relations Board rejected the employer’s contentions that the complaint issued by General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo was invalid because former General Counsel Peter Robb’s remo...

The NLRB is recruiting to fill the position of Student Volunteer for Summer 2022 within the Office of the General Counsel Field Offices through the US. Here at the Oakland office (Region 32) we are seeking law students. Application deadline is 3/3/2022. Please click on the link below for more detailed information on criteria and application process.

Student Volunteer - Summer 2022 (Office of General Counsel - Field Offices) These positions are part of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Student Volunteer Program under The General Counsel - Field Offices' Program areas. The purpose of these positions is to provide students the opportunity to learn about the NLRB, gain valuable on the job work expe...

On Wednesday, we will count the ballots cast by HelloFresh workers at the Richmond, CA facility. The question on the ballot is: "Do you wish to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining by
UNITE HERE LOCAL 2850?"

Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, Inc. d/b/a HelloFresh | National Labor Relations Board Grocery Delivery E-Services USA, Inc. d/b/a HelloFresh   Follow Sign into MyNLRB to follow cases and receive updates. What is this? Case Number:   32-RC-283407 Date Filed:   09/23/2021 Status:  Open Location:  Richmond, CA Region Assigned:  Region 32, Oakland, California Docket Activity Items ...

To access a recorded webinar about an employee's right to engage in protected concerted activities regardless of immigration status, please click below:

Video Conferencing, Cloud Phone, Webinars, Chat, Virtual Events | Zoom Zoom's secure, reliable video platform powers all of your communication needs, including meetings, chat, phone, webinars, and online events.

Region 32 thanks Zachary Manuel for partnering with us to provide information about the rights we protect to workers, community based organizations, and other non-profit organizations. Zach is a Morehouse graduate and a current Coro fellow in Public Affairs. He is currently interested in public policy and its ability to create bridges between communities to create equitable change. We wish him success in all his future endeavors! https://coronorcal.org/network/fppa-2022/

On 12/2/2021, an NLRB complaint issued alleging that Whole Foods Market illegally disciplined and fired its employees for wearing BLM (Black Lives Matter) facemasks and other apparel at work, which included Cases 32-CA-263226 and 32-CA-266442 involving the Berkeley Whole Foods Market. For more details, see this press release

Region 20-San Francisco Issues Consolidated Complaint Against Whole Foods for Unlawfully Disciplining Workers in Response to Wearing Black Lives Matter Apparel San Francisco—On December 3rd, Region 20-San Francisco Regional Director Jill Coffman issued a consolidated complaint against Whole Foods Market, Inc. The consolidated complaint covers violations arising in 10 different states (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Mary...

Region 32 is hosting a Webinar event on 12/7/2021 at 11am to explain the role the NLRB plays in protecting concerted activities and collective bargaining. This will be a space to learn more about the work of the NLRB and to ask any questions you may have about our process and the rights we protect. If you are interested in participating in the Webinar and would like the Zoom link, or have questions you would like to address prior to the event, please contact [email protected].

The National Labor Relations Board, U.S. Department of Labor, and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission today announced a joint initiative to raise awareness about retaliation issues when workers exercise their protected labor rights.

The initiative was launched today with a virtual dialogue with the employer community focused on the importance of workers’ anti-retaliation protections for those exercising their rights, and the agencies’ shared commitment to vigorous enforcement.

The National Labor Relations Board, US Department of Labor, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Align to End Retaliation, Promote Workers’ Rights | National Labor Relations Board WASHINGTON – The National Labor Relations Board, U.S. Department of Labor, and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission today announced a joint initiative to raise awareness about retaliation issues when workers exercise their protected labor rights. The initiative will include collaboration a...

On November 5, 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor issued an Emergency Temporary Standard to Protect Workers from Coronavirus (ETS). “The ETS clearly affects terms and conditions of employment—including the potential to affect the continued employment of workers who become subject to it—and gives covered employers discretion in implementing certain of its requirements. In those circumstances, a decisional bargaining obligation is required. The employer also has an obligation to bargain over the effects of this policy,” said General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. “While our country recovers from COVID-19, workers should know they have the right to a safe workplace and to have their voices heard.”

NLRB General Counsel’s Office Issues Memorandum on COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard Bargaining Obligations | National Labor Relations Board In a memo issued on November 10th, Acting Associate General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board Joan Sullivan, provided information to all field offices on the recent Department of Labor Emergency Temporary Standard to Protect Workers from Coronavirus (ETS).