My name is Jeremy Kimbrell. I was a 25 Year employee at Mercedes Benz U S International when I led the UAW unionization drive in 2024 in Alabama. Workers had been unhappy for a long time in 2024 when we almost voted for unionization. Insufficient pay, unpleasant shifts, and constant fear of punishment or termination had made MBUSI an undesirable place to work. High turnover, and a reluctance by good, experienced workers to even consider employment there had become a risk to our future. Poor quality, potential product recalls, and personal safety concerns were factors. Workers believed by forming a union, they could make MBUSI a desirable, proud place to work again which would be good for workers, good for investors, and good for Mercedes.
I’d read Mercedes’ Principles of Social Responsibility and Human Rights and I thought I was protected. According to your Principles, you say on page 10 that “In the event of organizational campaigns, companies and its executives remain neutral.”
I believed Mercedes was committed to being better than American law and I shared this view with my coworkers. Then, two years ago, I gave a statement that was read at the 2024 Annual Meeting asking Mercedes-Benz to respect my coworkers’ right to freely vote on our union. I asked you to insist that the MBUSI executives in Alabama end their aggressive union busting campaign and fire the union busting firm RWP. In response, you said you employed these “service providers” to help workers make an “informed choice” about whether to form a union or not.
Does that mean that the use and intent of these union busters was known and approved by the board in violation of the commitment to neutrality?
Less than a year after making that statement at the Annual Meeting, I was fired. After 25 years of working for MBUSI, and not 1 official writeup during this time, I was fired. I believe my firing was in retaliation for my help organizing our union and us coming too close to winning, and the National Labor Relations Board in the United States is actively investigating those allegations.
RWP, the firm I asked about in 2024, is headed by a man named Russell Brown, who is also the president of the union busting non-profit Center for Independent Employees or CIE. According to your 2024 LM-10 filing with the US Department of Labor, you paid Russell Brown at least $71,615 to “assist in educating team members about labor organizations.”
On their LinkedIn page, Brown’s firm CIE says they provide quote “legal guidance and support to employees who wish to eliminate unions from their workplaces, oppose initial union certification efforts, [and] counteract workplace organizing.”
Can you explain how opposing union certification and counteracting workplace organizing fits with your commitment to neutrality?
Was MBUSI following the Mercedes commitment to neutrality when in 2024, in the days leading up to the election, it hung banners on the inside of our fence which showed a ballot marked “NO” being inserted into a ballot box labeled “VOTE NO”?
Do you consider this banner to be neutral? If not, can you explain how it came to be hung prominently on company property ahead of the union election?
Does the commitment to neutrality and having the right to make an independent choice not apply to workers in the United States?
If you were concerned that workers make an informed choice, why was access inside the MBUSI facility only given to these union avoidance firms and not also to UAW representatives or even the German Works Council to offer the alternate view?
Why were meeting rooms inside MBUSI provided to these union busters during work hours for 2 weeks with only the single anti union viewpoint being presented?
Why were MBUSI employees not given access to fellow coworkers during work hours or provided meeting rooms to present a pro-union alternative so workers could make an informed decision?
One of the reasons given for my termination was speaking with my coworkers during production. Why were these non-Mercedes union busters allowed to walk the lines freely to speak with workers during production, yet pro union workers were forbidden from doing the same thing?
Were you aware that Matthew Wilson, a local pastor and Tuscaloosa City Councilman, was welcomed onto the shop floor during working hours to scare our black workers into voting NO by telling them that folks who look like him need to be thankful for what they have and not jeopardize it by unionizing, when nobody was allowed to do the same with a pro union viewpoint?
Will you submit in writing a commitment to MBUSI’s workers that in any future union organizing campaigns, MBUSI will not be allowed to use “union avoidance consultants”, “union busters”, or any outside 3rd party entity paid or not, to sway workers’ free decision on choosing union representation?
Will you commit to discipline local management and executives who violate the company’s neutrality principles going forward to send a message that violations of Mercedes principles will not be tolerated?
It comes down to this, is Mercedes going to be the leader among international auto companies in your commitment to follow social principles and human rights? Will you create a company where workers want to work and where customers want to spend their money because Mercedes is an example of best practices? Or are these Principles just talk? Does the Board truly have the ability to enforce these principles and the motivation to commit to them?
Answers from Olaf Schick, Member of the Board of Management of Mercedes-Benz Group AG. Integrity, Governance & Sustainability:
“I would like to answer the questions raised in their entirety. First of all, I would like to emphasize that we naturally respect the rights of our employees, including the right to trade union representation. We are committed to fair, respectful and compliant conduct.
At the Mercedes-Benz Group and our subsidiaries, we expressly recognize our employees’ right to form employee representative bodies. We respect our team members’ freedom to decide whether they are in favor of or against trade union representation. This principle is enshrined in our Statement of Principles on Social Responsibility and Human Rights, including the agreed requirement of neutrality during organizing campaigns.
For us, neutrality means no unjustified discrimination or preferential treatment based on trade union membership or activity, protection against reprisals, and conduct characterized by respect, fairness and transparency.
At the same time, it is both legitimate and necessary, within the framework of the applicable law, to inform employees about processes, rights and possible implications so that decisions can be made on a well-informed basis.
To this end, our subsidiary MBUSI ensured that its employees had access to the information necessary to make an informed decision, in accordance with US law. It was supported in this by service providers.
Mercedes-Benz maintains its position that, at no site, has any team member been prevented from exercising their right to trade union representation, nor have any measures been taken that infringe upon these rights.
At the same time, we take any specific indication of potential breaches of these principles very seriously and investigate them thoroughly. We examine the facts in a structured and careful manner, involving the relevant internal functions – be it HR, Compliance or Legal – and, depending on the individual case, we also consult external experts.
Where authorities are responsible, we cooperate with the relevant proceedings and present our views there as well. We are committed to clear, compliant behavior and transparent points of contact for our team members should they have any questions or concerns.
We have been aware of the UAW’s allegations for some time. We address these on a regular basis and in concrete terms. With regard to the Tuscaloosa site, it should be noted that in May 2024, in a fair and secret ballot supervised by the National Labor Relations Board, a majority of team members voted against representation by the UAW. The UAW has contested this result and raised further allegations; in addition, steps have also been taken in Germany, including in the context of the Supply Chain Due Diligence Act.
We take these proceedings seriously, precisely because they touch on issues of workers’ rights. In our view, however – and this is important – the allegations raised lack any factual or legal basis. Against this background, MBUSI has also agreed to a settlement with the National Labor Relations Board, without admitting any wrongdoing and solely to bring individual sub-proceedings to a close.
As various legal proceedings are still ongoing, today’s Annual General Meeting is not the appropriate forum to discuss these issues in detail or to comment on ongoing proceedings. However, this does not mean that we dismiss the allegations out of hand. We are addressing these issues consistently within the relevant bodies and proceedings, answering questions there and, where necessary, stating our position. Our aim is to reconcile legitimate expectations of transparency and accountability with the necessary discretion in ongoing proceedings.”
