WionDrive News Desk 
In a landmark decision that intersects labour law and constitutional rights, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overstepped its bounds when it ordered Tesla CEO Elon Musk to delete a controversial 2018 tweet about unionisation. The closely divided court voted 9-8 in favour of Tesla on Friday, emphasising the primacy of First Amendment protections in labour disputes.
The contested tweet, posted during a United Auto Workers (UAW) organising campaign at Tesla’s Fremont, California plant, stated: “Nothing stopping Tesla team at our car plant from voting union… But why pay union dues & give up stock options for nothing?” The NLRB had previously determined in 2021 that this message constituted an unlawful threat to workers considering unionisation.
However, the New Orleans-based appeals court’s majority, composed entirely of Republican-appointed judges, ruled that compelling the deletion of private citizens’ speech on matters of public concern falls outside the traditional scope of American legal remedies. The court’s unsigned majority opinion specifically focused on the constitutional implications of the NLRB’s order rather than addressing whether the tweet itself violated the National Labor Relations Act.
The ruling represents a significant shift in how labour regulators may address corporate communications about unionisation in the social media era. By prioritising First Amendment protections over the NLRB’s regulatory authority, the court has potentially established a new precedent for similar cases involving executive communications about labour organising efforts.
In a related matter, the court also directed the NLRB to reconsider its decision regarding the reinstatement of a pro-union employee who had been terminated. This aspect of the ruling adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing debate over worker rights and employer speech in the context of union organising.
The decision drew sharp criticism from the dissenting judges, including all Democratic appointees on the court. U.S. Circuit Judge James Dennis, writing for the eight dissenting judges, characterised the majority’s ruling as “light on law and facts,” suggesting a fundamental disagreement about the balance between free speech rights and labour law protections.
The case has attracted particular attention given Musk’s subsequent acquisition of Twitter (now X) for $44 billion in 2022, a platform he has consistently used to share his views on various topics, including labour relations. Tesla’s legal team had argued that Musk’s tweet merely reflected factual information about stock options, noting that union workers at other automotive companies typically do not receive such benefits.
This ruling comes at a time when Tesla faces broader challenges in the labour relations arena. The company’s approach to worker organising has been under scrutiny, and this legal victory may influence how other companies approach communications about unionisation efforts in the future.
The broader implications of this decision extend beyond Tesla and the automotive industry. As companies increasingly use social media platforms for corporate communications, the ruling could affect how the NLRB regulates employer speech about union activities across all sectors.
Notably, this legal battle coincides with a separate challenge by Musk’s space exploration company, SpaceX, which is currently suing the NLRB over the constitutionality of its in-house enforcement proceedings. This parallel legal action suggests a broader strategy of challenging federal labour regulatory authority on constitutional grounds.
Neither Tesla nor the NLRB has provided immediate comment on the ruling, leaving questions about potential appeals or modifications to labour communication policies unanswered. The decision’s long-term impact on labour-management relations and corporate speech rights remains to be seen, but it undoubtedly marks a significant moment in the evolving landscape of labour law and constitutional rights in the digital age.
