Today, Wednesday, IG Metall filed a motion to declare the March 2026 works council election at Tesla invalid. The basis for this is Section 19 of the Works Constitution Act.
From the union’s perspective, the election campaign—which was marked by threats from the company, numerous attempts at intimidation, and unequal treatment of the individual slates and candidates—leaves no other conclusion than to regard this as impermissible interference in the election. For these reasons, IG Metall has decided to challenge the works council election held at Tesla in March 2026.
Christiane Benner, President of IG Metall: “The impression that the election at Tesla was influenced by threats is too serious not to be resolved in court. Our colleagues at the plant, as well as the candidates for the works council, deserve fair elections without the fear that they might be punished for their decisions afterward. In Germany’s constitutional state, this must not only be possible but a matter of course—and, in our view, this was not the case in the recent works council elections at Tesla. Democratic principles must apply to these critically important democratic elections in this country.”
The list of reasons is long. For months, Tesla employees were led to believe that voting for IG Metall was a vote against Tesla and would have consequences for the future of the plant and their jobs. However, the Works Constitution Act prohibits the obstruction of elections, particularly through the threat of adverse consequences. In IG Metall’s view, Tesla has violated these—and other—rules.
Here are a few examples: Illuminated advertising on the facade of the Tesla plant was permitted only for the pro-management slate, while the same action by the IG Metall slate was immediately shut down.
Supervisors distributed pins bearing the slogan “Giga Yes, Union No” and made statements suggesting that there would be less money with IG Metall, or issued unambiguous demands to the workforce, such as: “I can only advise you not to vote for the red list.”
It is particularly noteworthy that this behavior was observed primarily among supervisors and plant managers. Just like Tesla CEO Elon Musk, they hold a special position within the company, which they used to influence the election in an impermissible manner.
Jan Otto, IG Metall Regional Director for Berlin-Brandenburg-Saxony: “As a union representative, I have never before experienced such an attack on democratic co-determination as at Tesla. Elon Musk and Tesla’s German management have used all their power to steer this works council election in their favor. A corporation in Germany must not be allowed to get away with such massive interference in co-determination. We will fight back against this with every means at our disposal—including legal action if necessary.
But one thing is also clear: Legal disputes are not our priority. At Tesla, too, we are focusing all our efforts on working with our members to secure better working conditions. There is a lot of work to be done at the Gigafactory in Grünheide.”
A successful challenge to the election would result in the existing works council being dissolved as soon as the decision to overturn the election becomes legally binding, and a new election would have to be held.
From the union’s perspective, the current legal situation is insufficient to ensure democratic elections in workplaces. For years, the DGB has therefore been calling for, among other things, a strict duty of neutrality for employers in connection with works council elections as part of a draft for a modern Works Constitution Act. The labor side sees a need for clarification to the effect that employers are obligated to remain neutral and may neither endorse the election of specific candidates or slates nor favor them through financial contributions or expanded opportunities for action.
And for good reason, as the Tesla example shows.
