UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD- REGION 325 TESLA, INC. and MICHAEL SANCHEZ, an Individual Case 32-CA-197020 and JONATHAN GALESCU, an Individual Case and RICHARD ORTIZ, an Individual Case and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED Case 32-CA-1971797 AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND Case 32-CA-200530 AGRICULTURAL WORKERS OF ANIERICA, AF L-CIO ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES, CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING Pursuant to Section 102.33 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) and to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, IT IS ORDERED THAT Cases 32- CA-197020, Case 32-CA-197058, and 32-CA-200530, which are based on charges ?led by Michael Sanchez, an Individual, Jonathan Galescu, an Individual, Richard Ortiz, an Individual, and Service Employees International Union, Local 2015 (Union), respectively, against Tesla Motor Corporation (Respondent) are consolidated. This Order ConsOlidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing, which is based on these charges, is issued pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), 29 U.S.C. 151 et seq. and Section 102.15 of the Board?s Rules and Regulations, and alleges Respondent has violated the Act as described below. 1. The charge in Case 32-CA-197020 was ?led by Michael SanChez on April 17, 2017, and a copy was served on ReSpondent by U.S. mail on April .18, 2017. The ?rst-amended-charge in Case 32-CA-197020 was ?led by Michael Sanchez on July 28, 2017, and a copy was served on Respondent by mail on August 1, 2017. The charge in Case 32-CA- 197058 was ?led by Jonathan Galescu on April 17, 20117, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on April 1 8, 2017. The ?rst-amended charge in Case 32-CA-197058 was ?led by Jonathan Galescu ontJuly 28, 2017, and a copy was served on Respondent by mail on August 1, 2017. The charge in Case was ?led by Richard Ortiz on April 17, 2017, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on April 19, 2017. The ?rst?jamended charge in Case 32-CA-197091 was?led by Richard Ortiz on Julyl28, 2017, and a copy was served on ReSpondent by U.S. mail on August ?1 2017. The charge in Case was ?led bythe Union on April 19, 2017, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on April 20, 2017. The ?rst-amended charge in Case 32-CA-197197 was ?led by the Union on July 28, 2017, anda c0py Was served oniRespondent by?U.S. mail on August-1, 2017. The charge in Case 32-CA-200530 was ?led by the UniOn on June 12, 2017, and a c0py Was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on June 13, 2017. . The ?rst-amended charge in Case 32-CA-200530 was ?led by the Union on July 28, 2017, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on August .2017. 2. At all material times, Respondent, a Delaware technology and design corporation with its headquarters in Palo Alto, California, and an automotive manufacturing facility in Fremont, California (the Facility), has been engaged in ?the design, manufacture, and sale of electric vehicles and energy storage systems. During the 12-month period ending August 31, 2017, Respondent, in 00nducting its operations described above in paragraph purchased and received goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from sources located outside the State of California. 3. At all material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections (6), and (7) of the Act and has been a health care institution within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. 4. At all material times, the Union has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 5. At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act and agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: Victor Facha Supervisor Environmental Health Safety and Sustainability Specialist Laura Holcomb Lisa Lipson - Human Resources Business Partner Mark Lipscomb Vice-President of Human Resources Juan Martinez - Production Manager Elon Musk - Chief Executive Of?cer Armando Rodriquez - Supervisor Seth Woody - Human Resources Business Partner David Zwieg - Human Resdurces Business Partner Red Shirt Supervisor No. 1 - Supervisor 6. At all material, the following individuals held the positions set forth opposite their reSpective namesand have been agents Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: JohnDoes l-_76 - Security Guards Unknown Human Resources Agent - Agent 7. Since at least late October 2016, Respondent has maintained the following rules in its? Con?dentiality Agreement: These obligations are straightforward. Provided that it's not already public information, everythingthat you work on, learn about or observe in your work about Tesla is con?dential inforrn?a?tion'under the agreement that you signed when you ?rst started. This includes information about. .customers, suppliers, employees. and anything similar. (ii) Additionally, regardless of whether information has already been made public, it is never OK to communicate with the media or someone closely related to the media about Tesla, unless you have been speci?Cally authorizedin writing to do so. Unless otherwise allowed by law or you have received written approval, you must not, for example, discuss con?dential information with anyone outside of Tesla, (iv) take or post photos or make video or audio'recordings inside Tesla facilities, forward work e-mai-ls outside of Tesla or to a personal email account, (vi) or write about your work in any social media, blog, or book. If you are unsure, check with your manager, HR, or Legal. (vii) The consequences for careless violation of the confidentiality agreement, could include, depending on severity, loss of employment. Anyone engaging in intentional violation of the con?dentiality agreement will be liable for all the harm and damage that is caused to the company, with possible criminal prosecution. These obligations remain in place even if no longer working at Tesla. About late October 2016 or early November 2016, Respondent, by Human Resources Business Partner David Zweig, at Respondent?s Facility, during a one-on-one meeting with an employee, prohibited the employee from taking a picture of Respondent?s Con?dentiality Agreement described above in paragraph On February 10, 2017, Respondent, by its Security Guards, including, but not limited to, Security Guards Nos. 1-4, restrained and coerced off-duty employees who were engaged in lea?eting on Respondent?s premises outside, of Respondent?s Facility by repeatedly asking them to produce their employee identi?cation badges and/or telling them to leave Respondent?s premises. On February 10, 2017, Respondent, by Male Security Guard No. 1, outside the entrance to Door 2 at Respondent?s Facility: Onltwo separate occasions, instructed an off-duty employee to leave Respondent?s premises. (ii) Male Security Guard No. 1 engaged in theconduct described above in paragraph because the employee was engaged-in Union lea?eting and to discourage these and other protected, concerted activities. On February 10, 2017, Respondent, by Female Security Guard No. 2, outside the entrance to Door 1 at Respondent?s Facility: told off-duty employees to leave Respondent?s premises. (ii) ?Security Guard No. 2 engaged in the conduct described above in.- paragraph because the employees were engaged in Union lea?eting and to discourage these and other protected, concerted activities. 'On February 10, 2017, Respondent, byMale Security Guard No. 3, outside the entrance to Door 1 at Respondenti's Facility; told off?duty employees to leave Respondent?s. premises. (ii) Security Guard xNo.? 3 engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph because the employees were engaged in Union lea?etingand to discourage these and?other protected, concerted activities. On February 10, 2017, Respondent, by Female SeCurity Guard No. 4, outside the entrance to Door 3 at told an off-duty employee'to leave Respondent?s premises. (ii) Security Guard No. 4 engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph because the employee was engaged in Union lea?etingand to discourage these and other protected, concerted activities. -On.February 10, 2017, Respondent, by Red Shirt Male supervisor No. 1, near the back entrance to Respondent?s Facility by the Receiving Addition: told an off-duty employee to leave the premises. (ii) Red, Shirt Male Supervisor No. 1 engaged in the cenduct described above in paragraph because the employee was engaged in Union lea?eting and to, discourage these. and other protected, concerted activities. On February 10, 2017, Respondent, by an unnamed Human Resources Agent who was-called by Red Shirt Male Supervisor No. 1, during a phone conversation: told an off-duty employee who was on medical leave to leave Respondent?s premises. (ii) The unnamed Human Resources Agent engaged in the conduct deScribed above in paragraph because the was engaged in Union lea?eting and to discourage these and other protected, concerted activities. G) On March 23, 2017, Respondent, by Supervisor Armando Rodriguez, during a pre-shift meeting 'at Respondent?s Facility: told employees that they could not distribute stickers, lea?ets, or pamphlets that were not approved by Respondent. (ii) threatened that Respondent would terminate employees if they passed out stickers, lea?ets, or materials that were not approved by Respondent. Supervisor Armando Rodriguez engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph 50') because employees engaged in Union activities and to discourage these and other protected, concerted activities. On April 5 2017, Respondent, by David Zweig, attempted to prohibit an employee from discussing safety concerns with other employees and/or with the Union. (I) On April 28, 2017, ReSpondent, by Seth Woody, attempted to prohibit an employee from discussing safety concerns with other employees and/or with the Union. (In) On May 24, 2017, Respondent, by its Security Guards, including, but not limited to, Security Guards Nos. 5-6, restrained and coerced employees who were engaged in lea?eting ,on Respondent?s premises outside of Respondent?s Facility by repeatedly asking them to produce their employee identi?cation badges and/or telling them to leave Respondent?s premises. On May 24, 2017-, by Female Security Guard No. at the security counter near the Door 4 entrance atRespond'ent?s Facility, told an employee that the employee could not hand out ?yers on Respondent? premises. On May 24, 2017, by Male Security Guard No. 6, outside the Door 4 entrance at Respondent?s Facility: .ont?Wo occasions, instructed an off-duty employee to leave the premises. (ii) (Male Security Guard No. 6' engaged in ?the conduct described above in paragraph because the employee because the employee was engaged in Union lea?eting and todiscourage these and other,prote?cted, concerted activities. On May'24, 2017, Respondent, by RespOndent?s Human Resources Business Partner, Lisa Lispon, during separate meetings with two employees, in the presence of Environmental Health Safety and Sustainability Specialist Laurent- Holcomb, interrogated the employee about the emplOyee?s Union and/or protected, concert-ed activities and/or the Union and/or protected, concerted activities of other employees. 8. By the conduct described above in paragraph Respondent has been interfering with, restrainingand coercing employees :in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Sections of the Act. 9. The unfair. labor practices of Respondent described above affect commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ANSWER REQUIREMENT Respondent is noti?ed that, pursuant to Sections 102.20,,and. 102.21 ofthe Board?s Rules and Regulations, it must ?le an answer to the Consolidated Complaint. The answer must be received by this of?ce on or before September 14, 2017, or postmarked on or before September 13,2017. Respondent should ?le an original and four COpies of the answer with'this Of?ce and serve a copy of the answer on each of the other parties. An answer may also be ?led electronically through the Agency?s Website. To ?le electronically, go to click on E-File Documents, enter the NLRB Case Number, and follow the detailed instructions. The responsibility for the receipt and usability of the answer rests exclusively upon the sender.' Unless noti?cation on the Agency?s website informs users that the Agency?s E-Filing system is of?cially determined to be in technical failure because it is unable to receive documents for a continuous period of more than 2 hours after 12:00 noon (Eastern Time) on the due date for ?ling, a failure to timely ?le the answer will not be excused on the basis that the transmission Could not be accomplished because the Agency?s website was off-line or unavailable for some other reason. The Board?s Rules and Regulations require that an answer be signed by counsel or non-attomey representative for represented parties or by the party if not represented. See Section 102.21. If the answer being ?led electronically is apdf document containing the required signature, no paper copies of the answer need to be transmitted to the. Regional Of?ce. However, if the electronicyersion of an answer to a complaint is not a ?le containing the required signature, then the E-?ling rules require that such answer containing the required signature continue to be submitted to the Regional Of?ce by traditional means within three (3) business days after the date of electronic ?ling. Service of the answer on each of the other parties must still be accomplished by means allowed under the Board?s Rules and Regulations. The answer may not be ?led by facsimile transmission. If no answer is ?led, or if an answer is ?led untimely, the Board may ?nd, pursuant to a Motion for Default udgment, that the allegations in the Consolidated Complaint are true. NOTICE OF HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTTCE THAT on November 14, 2017, at 9:00 at the Oakland Regional Of?ce of the National Labor Relations Board located at 1301 Clay Street, Suite 300N, Oakland, California 94612, and on consecutive days thereafter until concluded, a hearing will be conducted before an administrative law judge of the National Labor Relations Board. At the hearing, Respondent and any other party to this proceeding have the right to appear and present testimony regarding the allegations in this Consolidated Complaint. The procedures to be followed at the hearing are described inthe attached Form NLRB-4668. The procedure to request a postponement 'of the hearing is described in the attached Form DATED AT Oakland, California this 3lst day of August 2017. 7W Val?erie Hardy- -Mahoney Regional DireCtor a National Labor Relations Board Region 32 1301 Clay Street, Suite 3OON Oakland, CA 94612?5224- Attachments 10