12/18/2024 - NLRB Filed a Complaint Against Apple for Illegally Suspending & Firing Me in 2021

Status: NLRB filed a complaint against Apple on Dec. 18 2024.

​The case is tracked under: 

• August 26 2021 (32-CA-282142)

• September 16 2021 (32-CA-283161)​​

The Dec. 18 2024 complaint: ​

cpt.32-ca-282142.et_al._order_consolidating_cases_consolidated_cpt_and_noh.pdf
File Size:	396 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

​APPLE INC. and Cases 32-CA-282142 32-CA-283161

ASHLEY MARIE GJØVIK, an Individual

ORDER CONSOLIDATING CASES,
CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT AND NOTICE OF HEARING

Pursuant to Section 102.33 of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) and to avoid unnecessary costs or delay, IT IS ORDERED THAT Cases 32- CA-282142 and 32-CA-283161, filed by Ashley Marie Gjøvik , an Individual (Gjøvik or Charging Party) against Apple, Inc. (Respondent) are consolidated.

This Order Consolidating Cases, Consolidated Complaint and Notice of Hearing, which is based on these charges, is issued pursuant to Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., and Section 102.15 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, and alleges Respondent has violated the Act as described below.

1. (a) The original charge in Case 32-CA-282142 was filed by the Charging Party on August 26, 2021, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on August 30, 2021. (b) The amended charge in Case 32-CA-282142 was filed by the Charging Party on April 1, 2022, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on April 4, 2022. (c) The charge in Case 32-CA-283161 was filed by the Charging Party on September 16, 2021, and a copy was served on Respondent by U.S. mail on September 20, 2021.

2. (a) At all times, Respondent, a California corporation with a headquarters at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California has retail facilities throughout the United States, has been engaged in the development, manufacture, and retail sale of consumer electronics and software. (b) Annually, in the course and conduct of its operations, Respondent derives gross revenues in excess of $500,000, and purchased and received at its California facilities products, goods and materials valued in excess of $5,000 directly from points outside the State of California.

3. At all material times, Respondent has been an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.

4. At all material times, the following individuals held the positions set forth opposite their respective names and have been supervisors of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act or agents of Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(13) of the Act: Jenna Waibel Corporate Employee Relations Representative David Powers Software Development Engineering Director Ekelemchi Okpo Corporate Employee Relations Representative

5. About March 22, 2021, Respondent, by David Powers, by telephone: (a) Directed employees to refrain from talking about workplace environmental health and safety concerns with other employees. (b) Impliedly threatened employees with discipline by telling employees that the instruction to refrain from talking about workplace environmental health and safety concerns with other employees, was a warning. 

6. About April 27, 2021, Respondent, by Jenna Waibel: (a) By telephone, told employees to use the following five-point balancing test in advance of communicating workplace health and safety concerns to other employees: o make sure the information is complete o make sure the information is accurate o that it does not cause panic o that it does not make an assessment about safety; and o that people talk to the Employer’s Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) department directly. (b) By email, told employees that when discussing terms and conditions of employment, they should ensure that the information shared was as accurate and complete as possible. (c) By email, told employees to refrain from discussing their terms and conditions of employment by telling employees to first communicate their workplace health and safety concerns directly with Respondent.

7. Respondent, by Ekelemchi Okpo: (a) About August 4, 2021, during a video meeting, directed employees not to talk to other employees about Respondent’s investigation of employees’ workplace health and safety concerns. (b) About August 4, 2021, by email, told employees to refrain from sharing communications about Respondent’s investigation into employees’ workplace health and safety concerns. (c) About August 5, 2021, by email, told employees that he was “disappointed” that they “misrepresented” their discussion on August 4, 2021.

8. (a) From about March 22, 2021, to about September 2021, Respondent’s employee Gjøvik concertedly complained to Respondent regarding the wages, hours, and working conditions of Respondent’s employees, by inter alia, raising workplace environmental health and safety concerns. (b) From about June 2021, to about September 2021, Respondent’s employee Gjøvik engaged in concerted activities for the purposes of mutual aid and protection, by, inter alia, circulating a petition amongst employees regarding return-to-work concerns, talking to newspaper outlets about employees’ workplace complaints and concerns, posting about workplace complaints and concerns on social media as well as on Respondent’s Slack channel platform. (c) About August 4, 2021, Respondent suspended its employee Gjøvik. (d) About September 9, 2021, Respondent discharged its employee Gjøvik. (e) Respondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraphs 8(c) and 8(d), because Gjøvik engaged in the conduct described above in paragraphs 8(a) and 8(b), and to discourage employees from engaging in these or other concerted activities.

9. By the conduct described above in paragraphs 5 through 8 Respondent has been interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 10. The unfair labor practices of Respondent described above affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.

WHEREFORE, as part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices described above in paragraphs 5 through 8, the General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondent to: (1) physically and electronically post the Notice to Employees at all its facilities including, but not limited to, posting on Respondent-sponsored Slack communication channels, intranet portals, and by email; (2) email a copy of the Notice to Employees to all its supervisors and managers; (3) physically and electronically post the Employee Rights Notice poster in the same manner as the posting of the Notice to Employees; (4) have a Board Agent conduct a training session for its managers and supervisors on their obligations under the Act, on work time, scheduled so as to ensure the widest possible attendance (by videoconference or in person, at the discretion of the Regional Director); and (5) have a Board Agent conduct a training session for its employees on their rights under the Act, on work time, scheduled so as to ensure the widest possible attendance (by videoconference or in person, at the discretion of the Regional Director).

WHEREFORE, as part of the remedy for the unfair labor practices described above in paragraph 8 the General Counsel seeks an Order requiring Respondent to: (1) offer employee Gjøvik reinstatement to her former job position or, if that job no longer exists, to a substantially equivalent position, without prejudice to her seniority or any other rights or privileges previously enjoyed; (2) send a letter to Gjøvik apologizing for suspending and terminating her, expunge all Respondent’s records of such suspension and termination, and inform her, in writing, that her suspension and termination have been expunged from Respondent’s records and will not be used against her in any way; (3) make employee Gjøvik whole for all losses incurred as a result of the unfair labor practices described above, including for all direct and foreseeable pecuniary harm incurred as a result of her unlawful suspension an termination; and (4) should Gjøvik waive reinstatement, provide a neutral job reference to all prospective employers with the correct job titles and positions of employee Gjøvik. The General Counsel further seeks all other relief as may be just and proper to remedy the unfair labor practices alleged.