Ricardo Pasalagua
Earlier Jeremy Kimbrell asked about the union busting firm RoadWarrior Productions, and I want to ask about a couple of other union busting firms. According to the LM-20 filed with the US Dept of Labor for 2024, you hired Ricardo Pasalagua on April 26th 2024 via your contract with the firm Labor Relations Specialists LLC to persuade employees how to vote in the UAW union election at Mercedes Benz U.S. International assembly plant in Alabama later that year. This document says you had a verbal agreement to pay him $200/hour plus a $59 per diem as well as expenses.
This is a person who three different federal law judges found to have violated U.S. labor law.
I want to read you a quote from the administrative law judge from one case between Green Fleet Systems LLC and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, another large US labor union. In his decision, the judge listed among his findings of fact that Pasalagua quote “unlawfully instructed employees to harass union supporters, direct derogatory remarks and gestures to them, and provoke them into fights to justify discharging them” end quote. For example, the judge found that Pasalagua told several anti-union workers to quote “give picketers the middle finger and call them names like ‘pigs’ or ‘trash’.”
All of this information was readily available in the public record before you hired Ricardo Pasalagua. According to your Principles of Social Responsibility and Human Rights, you say on page 10 that quote “In the event of organizational campaigns, companies and its executives remain neutral.”
Can you explain how Ricardo Pasalagua’s behavior can be construed as neutral? How did you evaluate these public records as part of your due diligence process before hiring vendors like Ricardo Pasalagua? Is a history of inciting violence not a red flag when evaluating vendors given your commitment to neutrality?
Byron Clay
Per your 2024 LM-10 filing you also hired another union buster named Byron J Clay on April 26th 2024 and paid him $482,873 to quote “assist in educating team members about labor organizations” at the MBUSI plant in Alabama.
According to the promotional materials on their website, Byron Clay’s firm, BJC & Associates, quote “helps employers avoid union activity” and “maintain a union-free workplace today and in the future.”
BJC & Associates also boasts that it played a quote “crucial role” in defeating the 2024 Mercedes-Benz Alabama union drive, and goes so far as to feature a defeated UAW organizer in a repurposed testimonial video. Clay wrote that “taking the lessons learned from an organizing drive…makes the painful process of defeating a union all the more gratifying.”
Again on page 10 of your Principles, you write “Workers’ unions and the company ensure that employees can make a free decision” to found, join, or be a member of a workers’ union.
Why did the Board of Management and Supervisory Board approve the use of company resources to persuade Alabama workers to vote against union representation, a clear break from compliance with Mercedes-Benz’s Principles?
How does hiring anti-union persuaders to intimidate workers into voting against forming a union create an environment that ensures workers can make a free decision?
Looking at your LM-10 filing as well as the LM-20 and 21 filings of the firms you contracted with we can see that you paid at least five union busting service providers including BJC & Associates, RoadWarrior Productions, Flores Labor Relations, Labor Relations Services (also known as Labor Relations Specialists), and Employer Labor Solutions to, as you put it before, inform MBUSI workers’ choice ahead of the union election.
How does hiring so many union busting firms comport with your binding commitment to neutrality?
What due diligence did you do prior to hiring these firms to confirm they were neutral?
Can you guarantee that you will not make use of union busters in future campaigns?
What due diligence will you commit to going forward to make sure the firms you hire are neutral?
Can you describe what you consider to be neutral?
Clearly, the firms you hired in Alabama were not neutral. Was the decision to hire these firms approved by the Board of Management? If not, where was the breakdown in your governance structure? If so, when you did you abandon your principles?
Workers Information Committee
I also wanted to ask about the anti-UAW website mbusiworkersinfo.com.
Were you responsible for any part of that website or any of the similarly branded material passed out at the MBUSI facility?
Did you or any of your contractors provide any money to the site’s owner Jeffrey C. Smith?
How much money did you spend on that campaign?
If you were not responsible for it, will you condemn it?
NYC Dealership
In your wholly-owned flagship dealership in New York City, Mercedes-Benz USA has refused to negotiate with service technicians who voted 31 to 18 for a union in 2024. Since the election MBUSA has fired several union supporters and hired law firm Fox Rothschild. Fox Rothschild states in its promotional materials that it offers “Union Avoidance,” helps employers create a workplace where employees have “no reason to consider union representation,” and works “side-by-side with management” to help “effectively thwart” organizing campaigns.
Can you explain how this is consistent with your principles?
Social Dialog
On February 10, 2026, UAW President Shawn Fain sent a letter to Mercedes-Benz Group AG CEO Ola Kallenius requesting social dialog to discuss pending legal matters, the company’s compliance with U.S. labor law, and general labor relations.
The UAW received a response on March 6th from Jason Hoff, CEO of Mercedes-Benz North America declining to meet on the grounds that it was prohibited under U.S. labor law. According to our legal counsel, nothing in U.S. labor law prohibits an employer from voluntarily meeting with a labor organization to discuss labor relations practices or the substance of pending charges.
Will you agree to hold social dialog with the United Auto Workers? If not, can you specify which U.S. labor law you believe prohibits employers from speaking with unions?
Neutrality Agreement
In your introduction to the Principles of Social Responsibility, you note on page three that quote “Only those who focus on a sustainable business strategy in the long term can remain economically successful.”
And that quote “At Mercedes-Benz, we are committed to ensuring that human rights are respected along our value chains, in our Group companies, by our partners and our suppliers.”
An easy way to ensure that the human rights of your American workers are respected in future union elections would be to sign a legally binding neutrality agreement with the United Auto Workers that at a minimum commits to not bringing anti-union persuaders into the workplace ahead of the election so that workers can make a free decision.
Given your existing commitment to neutrality and to creating an environment in which your workers can make a free decision will you commit to signing a neutrality agreement with the United Auto Workers in the US? If not, why not?
Retaliation
In your Principles of Social Responsibility, you say that neutrality quote “means, in particular, that founding, joining, or being a member of a workers’ union recognized under applicable law does not lead to unjustified discrimination or retaliation.” End quote.
In the US, the National Labor Relations Board is currently investigating allegations that multiple workers both at the MBUSA dealership in New York City and at the MBUSI plant in Alabama were fired in retaliation for their union activity.
Can you confirm how much money has been spent on legal fees and other expenses in connection to the investigation of these unfair labor practices?
Union busting expense
According to the LM-10 you filed with the US Department of Labor for 2024, you spent $659,116 on outside consultants to speak with workers to oppose unionization. However the payments indicated in these public filings reflect only a fraction of the activities for which companies typically pay union avoidance firms. My understanding is that they only include payments specifically for speaking directly to workers.
How much money did you spend on union busting firms at your manufacturing plant in Alabama and your wholly owned dealership in New York City in total including legal advice, videos, consultation with management, advertising, developing and printing flyers, banners and other materials, or donations to anti-union non-profits, such as Russell Brown’s Center for Independent Employees?
Do you hire similar consultants in your other global operations? If so, how much did you spend on union avoidance globally?
How many levels of management were involved in defeating the union in Alabama and decertifying the union at your dealership in New York?
How many internal and external resources including legal fees were devoted to defeating the union in Alabama and New York?
Those are all my questions at this time. Thank you.
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.”
