Elon Musk Achieves Court Victory in Dispute Over 2018 Social Media Post During Labour Organising Efforts

A federal appeals court has ruled that a federal agency was incorrect in ordering Tesla CEO Elon Musk to delete a 2018 social media post. Union leaders viewed the post as a threat to employee stock options. The post was made on Twitter, now known as X, during United Auto Workers' organising efforts at Tesla's Fremont, California facility.

The controversial tweet from May 20, 2018, stated: "Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union. Could do so tmrw if they wanted. But why pay union dues and give up stock options for nothing? Our safety record is 2X better than when plant was UAW & everybody already gets healthcare." The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) deemed it an illegal threat.

Legal Proceedings and Court Decisions

Tesla appealed the NLRB's decision, leading to a ruling by three judges from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. They upheld the NLRB's decision and ordered Tesla to rehire a dismissed employee with back pay. However, Tesla requested a rehearing, and the full 5th Circuit later overturned the previous decision, agreeing to review the case again.

In a recent opinion dated Friday, the judges were divided 9-8 in favour of Tesla and Musk. The unsigned opinion stated: "We hold that Musk's tweets are constitutionally protected speech and do not fall into the categories of unprotected communication like obscenity and perjury." This decision also required the NLRB to reconsider its order regarding the reinstatement of the fired employee.

Dissenting Opinion and Further Actions

Judge James Dennis authored a 30-page dissent on behalf of eight judges. He argued that the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the First Amendment does not protect threatening or coercive employer speech during labour organisation elections. Dennis contended that Musk's tweet fell into this category.

Dennis further argued that the supervisor's attitude who dismissed the worker was irrelevant to whether reinstatement should occur. He noted that the worker "was fired for declining to divulge information about protected union activities during an interrogation." The case has been sent back to the NLRB for further consideration.

The ruling leaves uncertainty about whether there will be an appeal to the US Supreme Court. The Associated Press reached out to the United Auto Workers for information on their next steps but has yet to receive a response.