The Nationwide Labor Relations Board accused SpaceX in a brand new grievance of getting into into illegal severance agreements with terminated workers nationwide.

The unfair labor practices grievance comes two months after SpaceX filed a federal lawsuit difficult the legality of the NLRB’s oversight authority, and after the federal company in a separate grievance accused the corporate of illegally firing eight staff who had criticized its CEO Elon Musk in an open letter.

The brand new NLRB grievance claims that SpaceX included illegal confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements and that it unlawfully restricted the terminated staff’ capability to take part in different claims in opposition to the corporate.

It additionally alleges that the rocket maker and satellite tv for pc web firm maintained an illegal rule that required staff — as a situation of their employment — to signal an settlement for arbitration and dispute decision, and to waive their proper to obtain cash in class-action lawsuits in opposition to the corporate.

One part of the severance settlement says, “You agree to not present help to any present, former, or future SpaceX worker with respect to any complaints, considerations, claims, or litigation of any form in opposition to the Firm, whether or not particular person or class or collective motion, until compelled to take action by a legitimate subpoena or courtroom order,” the grievance famous.

The motion, filed Wednesday by NLRB’s Area 19-Seattle Regional Director, alleges that, “these illegal employment settlement provisions have been interfering with, restraining, and coercing workers within the train of the rights assured within the Nationwide Labor Relations Act,” the company stated in an e mail.

If SpaceX doesn’t settle the case, the grievance might be heard by an NLRB administrative legislation decide in Seattle on Oct. 29.

Any last determination within the case may be appealed to federal courtroom.

As a part of the grievance, the company’s common counsel is searching for an order from the listening to decide requiring SpaceX to rescind the severance agreements and class-action waivers, and to broadly notify staff of a discover of worker rights.

SpaceX didn’t instantly reply to a request for remark from CNBC in regards to the grievance. The corporate is required to file a response to the NLRB by April 3.

The motion is the newest in a collection of battles between Musk’s corporations and the NLRB.

In a previous grievance in opposition to SpaceX filed Jan. 3, the NLRB alleged that the corporate had violated staff’ rights by firing eight workers for sending a letter in June 2022 to firm executives, calling Musk a “distraction and embarrassment.”

The letter targeted on a collection of tweets that Musk had made since 2020, lots of which had been sexually suggestive.

All however one of many fired folks had labored at SpaceX’s headquarters in Hawthorne, California.

A day after that NLRB grievance was filed, SpaceX sued the NLRB in federal courtroom in Texas. The corporate claimed that the NLRB’s construction violates the U.S. Structure.

Each the Dealer Joe’s grocery retailer chain and on-line retail large Amazon have challenged the legality of the the NLRB’s construction on these grounds in separate actions.

In October, the NLRB accused the Musk-owned social media firm X of violating the legislation by firing an worker who criticized the agency’s return-to-work coverage. The grievance says that the employee, Yao Yue, was terminated after making an attempt to prepare different staff on the firm over these considerations.

X was often known as Twitter earlier than Musk purchased it.

The NLRB’s residence web page lists eight open circumstances in opposition to Tesla, the electrical automobile maker of which Musk is CEO.

Musk scored a win in opposition to the NLRB final yr with the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the fifth Circuit vacated a call in opposition to Tesla by an NLRB administrative legislation decide.

That NLRB decide had declared that Tesla’s uniform coverage had violated the rights of staff to put on garments adorned with pro-union logos and slogans.