Overstreet v. Lucid U.S. Inc.

1

Cornele A Overstreet, Petitioner, v. Lucid USA Incorporated, Respondent.

No. CV-24-01356-PHX-DJH

United States District Court, D. Arizona

September 13, 2024

ORDER

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa United States District Judge

Petitioner Cornele A. Overstreet (“Petitioner”), Regional Director of Region 28 of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), has filed a Complaint alleging that Respondent Lucid USA Incorporated (“Respondent” or “Lucid”) has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 160(j), by stifling its employee's unionization efforts. (Doc. 1 at 1). Petitioner has also filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction under Section 10(j),^[1] which asks the Court to enjoin Respondent from engaging in further violations. (Doc. 12). This Motion is fully briefed. (Docs 24; 26). The Court grants Petitioner's request for a preliminary injunction for the reasons that follow.^[2]

I. Background

A. Unionization Efforts by Respondent's Employees

Respondent is a manufacturer of electric vehicles in Casa Grande, Arizona. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 2). Petitioner alleges that Respondent instructed its employees to use a mobile application to clock in and out of work while the plant was expanding.^[3] (Doc. 13-2 at 35). Petitioner also alleges that Respondent's Employees were given thirty minutes before and fifteen minutes after work to change into necessary personal protective equipment; however, there is no written policy stating this. (Id; Doc. 52 at 77-78). Many employees changed in the parking lot, rather than the bathrooms at the Plant, because they were small and congested.^[4] (Doc. 13-2 at 35). Respondent's employees were expected to work twelve-hour shifts, five days a week. (Id. at 38 (Affidavit of Amie Begay)).

These circumstances prompted some employees, including Ms. Amie Begay^[5] and Mr. Chad Brewer, to discuss the prospect of unionization. (Id. at 39). Mr. Brewer reached out to the United Auto Workers Union (“UAW”) and was put in contact with Ms. Carla Villanueva. (Id.) On January 24, 2023, Ms. Begay and Mr. Brewer started distributing union leaflets in Respondent's bathroom and break areas. (Id. at 40).

After this, Ms. Begay observed that as she discussed unionization with a co-worker in the breakroom, Jake Steel (Respondent's Production Manager) kept walking by to eavesdrop on their conversation. (Id. at 41). Ms. Begay also states that, the next day, Miguel Paredes (Senior Manager of Powertrain Manufacturing) offered her a promotion to be a supervisor during the night shift. (Id.) When Ms. Begay expressed she was not interested in working the night shift, she was offered a position in a different department that paid more-which she accepted. (Id. at 42). A few days into her new position, Ms. Begay told Mr. Layton Ratliff (Respondent's Production Supervisor) that she felt like she was being “set up” for attempting to start a union. (Id.) Mr. Ratliff assured her she was simply offered a better position. (Id.)

On February 6, 2023, Ms. Begay passed out new flyers from UAW, which Respondent's managers took down. (Id. at 43). Specifically, Ms. Begay alleges she saw Tiffany Lopez (Respondent's Human Resources Business Partner) throwing away the union literature. (Id.) The next day, Ms. Lopez terminated Ms. Begay. (Id. at 43-44). Ms. Lopez told Ms. Begay that she was being terminated for clocking in earlier than when she entered Respondent's facility and for clocking out two hours after she left the facility on November 8, 2022 (an election day). (Id. at 44). Ms. Begay states that her termination letter was signed by Mr. Ratliff, who was not her supervisor at that time. (Id. at 45). Ms. Begay tried to explain that she clocked in once she arrived at work and began changing in her car, and that Steve Ingles allowed her to leave early on November 8th so she could vote. (Id.) Respondent nevertheless terminated Ms. Begay.^[6] (Id.)

Mr. Brewer's affidavit alleges many of the same experiences as alleged by Ms. Begay. (Doc. 13-2 at 47). Importantly, he alleges that he and Ms. Begay put up union flyers in employee break areas outside of working hours or on their break, and that these flyers were thrown away by management.^[7] (Id. at 53). He also states that Mr. Steel and Mr. Ratliff told him he would get in trouble for visiting Ms. Begay in her new department on his break.^[8] (Id. at 52). Mr. Brewer was then fired on the same day as Ms. Begay. (Id. at 53). Petitioner alleges that this has had a chilling effect on unionization efforts between the UAW and Respondent's employees. (Doc. 13 at 9-10).

B. Related Proceedings

The UAW filed a charge with the NLRB^[9] under Sections 8(a)(1) and (a)(3) alleging Respondent has and continues to engage in unfair labor practices. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 4). Petitioner investigated these allegations and determined that there is “reasonable cause to believe” that Respondent is engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(a)(1) and (3). (Id. at ¶ 5(b)). These alleged unfair labor practices include, among other things, “confiscating employees' union literature, engaging in surveillance of employees' union activity, threatening employees in response to union activity, directing employees not to engage in union activity, and discharging employees spearheading union organizing efforts.” (Id. at ¶ 6).

In a parallel administrative action, Petitioner issued a Consolidated Complaint (Doc. 13-2 at 7-15) on January 2, 2024, and Notice of Hearing setting an administrative hearing to commence on October 9, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 5(c)). Respondent's Answer to this

Consolidated Complaint denied engaging in any unfair labor practices. (Id. at ¶ 6). Petitioner argues in its Complaint that unless Respondent is enjoined and restrained from engaging in unfair labor practices, it will continue to engage in those acts pending the proceedings before the NLRB and that Respondent's employees will be deprived of their rights under 29 U.S.C. § 157 to “form, join, or assist a labor organization or to freely refrain from any and all such activities, a harm which cannot be remedied in due course by the Board.” (Id. at ¶ 8).

C. The Preliminary Injunction Hearing

The Court held a hearing on Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction on August 9, 2023. (Doc. 52). Tiffany Lopez, Jake Steele, Layton Ratliff, Chad Brewer and Amie Begay all testified. (Id. at 3). The Court will briefly restate some of the relevant testimony and evidence from the hearing.

Ms. Lopez, Respondent's “human resource business partner,” testified first. (Doc. 52 at 26-27). She oversees the powertrain department, where Brewer and Begay were employed. (Id. at 28). Ms. Lopez testified that she learned of union activity at the facility on January 19, 2023, but that she did not know who was involved at that time. (Id. at 32-33). This same day, however, Ms. Lopez sent an email asking “Powertrain Salary” to “collect and forward to me all employee attendance records/ violations” for Respondent's senior leadership. (Doc. 48, Ex. 16 at 1). Ms. Lopez testified that she was forwarded a link for a unionization meeting and that she clicked on it, but that she exited right away. (Doc. 52 at 35). In an email also written on January 19, 2023, Ms. Lopez told her colleagues that she attempted to join the meeting and that a “Carla Villanueva” was the host.” (Doc. 48, Ex. 14a). These two emails were sent less than two minutes apart. (Doc. 52 at 42).

Mr. Chris Atwood told Ms. Lopez about the “union interest survey barcodes” on January 24, 2023, and Ms. Lopez replied that “the LAST thing we want moving in here is a Union.” (Doc. 48, Ex. 18 at 2). She also told Mr. Atwood that she would do “anything” to stop the attempt to unionize. (Doc. 52 at 66). Ms. Lopez also testified that on January 25, 2023, Mr. Steele made her aware of union literature with QR codes on them. (Id. at 4748). The next day, Ms. Lopez asked one of Respondent's security officers for “badge reports” for Ms. Begay and Mr. Brewer.^[10] (Id. at 50). She requested Mr. Brewer's badge reports on January 31, 2023, as well. (Id. at 59). On February 6, 2024, Ms. Lopez sent her supervisor, Bo Cucuz, an email with a picture of union literature and the subject line reads “Union propaganda collected from Breakroom at Hanna today.” (Doc. 48, Ex. 29 at 1).

On February 7, 2023, employees began noticing the union literature which Ms. Begay and Mr. Brewer were distributing. (Doc. 48, Ex. 31 at 1-2). Mr. Cucuz then directed Mr. Paredes to “assign salaried employees you trust to walk through the bathrooms and other areas and pick up any literature which is being posted and/or dropped on tables and benches on each shift. Have them drop off any information they find with [Ms. Lopez].” (Id. at 1). The same day, Ms. Lopez terminated Ms. Begay and Mr. Brewer for time theft. (Doc. 52 at 71).

Mr. Steele Testified next and confirmed that, after hearing of union activity, he and Mr. Ratliff met with Mr. Brewer and discussed how to improve morale at the facility, including parking and hazard pay. (Id. at 167-68). Mr. Ratliff testified he attended the meeting and stated that unionization was not discussed. (Id. at 192). In contradiction, Mr. Brewer testified that during the meeting he told Steele and Ratliff that “this is the reason why we're organizing” and that Steele responded, “that is his right.” (Id. at 212).

Mr Brewer testified that he is the employee who contacted the UAW as he was familiar with unions from his previous employment. (Id. at 203-04). He and Carla Villanueva discussed how Respondent's employees could unionize. (Id. at 205). Mr. Brewer testified that, after he started distributing union literature, Mr....