KEITH ELLISON CHIEF DEPUTY WHIP

5TH DISTRICT, MINNESOTA

CO-CHAIR CONGRESSIONAL
PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS
2263 RAVOURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
(202) 225—4755

2100 PLYM UTH AVENUE NORTH I NCIAL SERV CES C MMITTEE

MINNEAPOUS, MN 55411 CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 0VERSGHAN~NVCST~ATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON CAPITAL MARKETSAND

ellison.house.gov SUBCOMMITTEE ON
TWITTER: @keithellison HOUSING AND INSURANCE

May 31, 2018

Elon Musk
CEO
Tesla Motors
3500 Deer Creek Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304

Dear Mr. Musk:

I write to seek clarification regarding your May 21, 2018 comments on Twitter regarding Tesla
workers’ efforts to unionize at the plant in Fremont, California. Specifically, I request a
commitment that you will refrain from violating Tesla workers’ federal rights under the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

On May 21, 2018, you tweeted the following: “Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant
from voting union. Could do so tmrw [sic] if they wanted. But why pay union dues & give up
stock options for nothing? Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW &
everybody already gets healthcare”

I found your comments to be troubling and want to make sure you are fully aware of federal
labor law. As you may know, Section 7 of the NLRA gives employees the right to “self
organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection”.2 Section 8(a)(1) outlaws any
employer attempts to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights”
guaranteed by Section 7. ~

Section 8(a)(1) prohibits a broad range of employer conduct, including more subtly coercive
statements like those in your tweet. For example, in Monfort ofColorado, during a union
organizing drive, an employer made similar statements: “If the union were to come into the
plant, the profit sharing would probably not be there [but] if the union was not to go in there,
..

our profit sharing would be good, it would probably be there.”4 The National Labor Relations
Board ruled that these statements violated Section 8(a)(1) because they “unlawfully implied a
probability that the [employer] would act differently with respect to profit sharing if the Union
was voted in” and “had a reasonable tendency to coerce employees in the exercise of Section 7
rights and constituted an unlawful threat of economic reprisal to be taken solely on the
[employer’s] own initiative for reasons related to union activity.”5

P INTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Although it is the policy of the United States to encourage the practice of collective bargaining
throughout industry,6 it appears particularly necessary when a company fails to ensure the basic
physical safety of its employees. Collective bargaining agreements have used time and time
again to improve health and safety standards in the workplace, benefitting employers and
workers alike. I am concerned that the National Council for Occupational Safety and Health
found that “Recordable injuries for workers at Tesla Motors were 31 percent higher than the rest
of the automotive industry in 2015 and 201 6.”~ The Los Angeles Times noted that in 2015, Tesla
motors record of workplace safety incidents was higher than the rate for slaughterhouses and
sawmills.8 In June 2017, Son Nguyen, a contract worker in your Fremont plant, was severely
burned throughout his body while wiring an electrical plug for Tesla fueling stations.9 Injury logs
for Tesla obtained by the investigative journalism website Reveal indicate that in 2017, four
other employees at the Fremont plant suffered electrical burns.’0 Another report by Reveal
indicates that in April 2018, after Reveal began to inquire about your company’s official injury
counts, Tesla added 13 more injuries to its official injury log for 2017 that had not been reported
previously.’1

In order to better understand your comments regarding unionization efforts at Tesla’s Fremont,
California plant, I seek the following responses from you:

1. Will you refrain in the future from threatening your employees with retaliation for
exercising federally protected rights, including but not limited to their Section 7 rights to
join a union and bargain collectively?
2. Will you refrain in the future from stating or implying that employees will lose job-
related benefits if they choose union representation?
3. Given that you have already made statements violating Section 8(a)(1), I worry that you
may soon violate Section 8(a)(3), which prohibits retaliation against employees (such as
discipline or discharge) for exercising their Section 7 rights to join or support a union.’2
Will you refrain in the future from adverse action against an employee for choosing to
join or support a union?
4. Regarding the health and safety record at the Tesla plant, will you explain the thirteen
injuries added to Tesla’s official injury log for 2017 that were not reported initially?

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to receiving your responses no later
than June 15, 2018.

Sincerely,

i’~ “~
eith Ellison
Member of Congress
 Musk, E. “Tweet concerning UAW.” Twitter. (May 21,2018). Online at:
I PS: twilter.corn eloninusk/status/99845453994 1367808.
229 U.S.C. § 157.
~29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(l).
“Monfort of Colorado, 298 NLRB 73, 85 (1990).
Id. See also “Interfering with employee rights (Section 7 & 8(a)( I)).” National Labor Relations Board. (Accessed
May 23, 2018). Online at: hugs: www.nlrb.gov rights-we-protect whats-law employers/interfering-employee
rights-section-7-8a I (“you may not. [t]hreaten employees with adverse consequences, such as. loss of
. . . .

benefits. .. if they support a union, engage in union activity, or select a union to represent them.”); N.L.R.B. v.
Federbush Co., 121 F.2d 954, 957 (2d Cir. 1941) (“Words are not pebbles in alienjuxtaposition; they have only a
communal existence; and not only does the meaning of each interpenetrate the other, but all in their aggregate take
their purport from the setting in which they are used, of which the relation between the speaker and the hearer is
perhaps the most important part. What to an outsider will be no more than the vigorous presentation ofa conviction,
to an employee may be the man (feslat ion of a determination which it is not safe to thwart.”) (emphasis added).
6See29U.S.C.~ 151.
“The Dirty Dozen 2018: Employers Who Put Workers and Communities at Risk.” National COSH. (April 2018).
Online at: httg: coshnetwork.org sites/default/fl Ies/Dirty%2oDozen%2020 I 8%2C%204-25-
l8°02BFINAL°028l°029 pdf.
Mitchell, R. “Tesla had worse safety records than slaughterhouses and sawmills, but says it’s improving.” Los
Angeles Times. (May 24,2017). Online at: http:f/www.latimes.com/business/autos/Ia-fi-hy-tesla-workplace-safety
201 70524-siory.html.
~ Evans, W. “Severely injured worker sues tesla: ‘I’m not who I used to be’.” Reveal (May 21,2018). Online at:
https: www.revealnews.org/blog/irn-not who-i-used-to-be-severely-injured worker-sues-tesla?.
‘° “Tesla Electrical Bum Injuries.” Obtained by Reveal Online at:

https: www.documentcloud org/documents/4478649-Tesla-Electrical-Burn-lnjuries.htm I

Evans, W. “Tesla left injuries off the books, but it might not face penaltie.s.” Reveal (May 23, 2018). Online at:
https: www.revealnews.org/article tesla-left-injuries-off-the-books-but-jt-m ght not-face penalties?
1229 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3).