Stellantis Files String of Lawsuits Against UAW Claiming Strike Threats Are Bad Faith

On October 7, 2024, in a coordinated attack, Chrysler owner Stellantis filed a string of lawsuits across multiple jurisdictions against the United Auto Workers Union (“UAW”) and numerous local chapters regarding the UAW’s threats to strike if Stellantis does not move forward with planned investments in its U.S. operations. A Complaint filed in the Eastern District of Michigan largely mirrors complaints Stellantis filed in California, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Texas, Arizona, Massachusetts and Oregon.

In the lawsuits, Stellantis asserts the UAW and its local chapters have breached the 2023 Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) and acted in bad faith by attempting to force planned investments through work stoppages. Stellantis claims that the “plain language” in a letter supplementing the CBA and memorializing the parties’ negotiations, “Letter 311”, explicitly states that the planned future investments are conditioned upon certain business contingencies.

As emphasized by the UAW “Stellantis: Keep the Promise” website, the UAW views the planned investments described in Letter 311 as a “historic gain” for UAW members and a major part of the parties’ agreement because the UAW wanted assurances that Stellantis would invest in its U.S. plants and American autoworkers. Letter 311 provides that, during the term of the CBA (2023 through 2028), Stellantis plans to take on certain U.S. investments totaling “approximately $18.9B.” Letter 311 also states that “the parties understand and agree that the global North American economies and vehicle markets remain highly volatile” and due to their unpredictability, the planned investments are “subject to approval by Stellantis Production Allocation Committee and contingent upon plant performance, changes in market conditions, and consumer demand continuing to generate sustainable profitable volumes . . .”

In the lawsuits, Stellantis alleges that “on September 2, 2024, UAW President Fain wrote a letter to the UAW Stellantis Council … that [Stellantis engaged in a serious violation of the CBA] and that Fain had recommended to the membership that every UAW worker at Stellantis prepare for a fight, and we all get ready to vote YES to authorize a strike at Stellantis.” Stellantis also alleges that the UAW’s threats to strike are in bad faith because the UAW ignores the contingency language in Letter 311 that the planned investments are subject to approval by the Stellantis Production Committee and economic considerations. Stellantis also claims that the UAW has filed sham grievances as a pretense designed to justify mid-contract strikes.

Stellantis requests a declaratory judgment from the Court immediately declaring that:

the UAW and the local chapters cannot ignore the “plain language” in Letter 311,
the UAW’s grievances do not authorize the UAW to strike mid-contract,
any forthcoming strike by UAW members based on the pending grievances breaches the CBA, and
the UAW has acted in bad faith.

Stellantis seeks to hold the UAW liable for potential revenue loss and other damages resulting from the lost production from any strike.

The UAW has yet to file a formal response. Foley is closely following this matter and will report further on material developments, including UAW’s response.

Disclaimer

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.