An aerial view shows the Tesla Fremont Factory in Fremont, California on February 10, 2022.An aerial view shows the Tesla Fremont Factory in Fremont, California on February 10, 2022.

Invoices and other documents reviewed show that the electric vehicle company paid MWW PR to monitor employees in a Facebook group and more broadly on social media as they sought to form a union.

According to the documents describing their work, MWW PR watched discussions about unfair labor practices atTesla and a sexual harassment lawsuit.

While the records confirm that employees were spied on online, they hold new relevance for watchers who want to know more about Musk's priorities.

Musk has relied on the social network for years to promote his companies and mock or criticize perceived enemies, including short sellers, the UAW, journalists, and elected officials in the Democratic party. If the deal is completed, he will be the interim CEO.

The records show that MWW PR was paid byTesla to monitor aTesla employee Facebook group, monitor Facebook more broadly for commentary on organizing efforts, and to conduct research specifically on organizers, going on to develop labor communication plans and media lists.

Dave Arnold was a global communications director forTesla and he had ties to the PR and consulting firm that was hired to do this work. After working as a communications director for a congressman, he was hired by MWW as a vice president.

Musk and his company have clashed with unions. Musk made a comment that was found to violate federal labor laws after he was fired byTesla. The National Labor Relations Board ordered Musk to remove his statement that threatened workers. The administrative court ruled in his favor, but he is still on his account.

President Joe Biden has been criticized by Musk for his pro- union views. He plans to vote Republican in the upcoming elections because he thinks the Democratic Party is too conservative. In Texas and California, no union elections have taken place.

A person from MWW PR told CNBC.

During a time of rapid growth at the company, MWW consulted with them on a broad employee communications engagement.

The two companies did not respond to questions.

According to John Villasenor, a professor at UCLA, there are reasons why companies keep an eye on what their employees post online.

Suppose you have an employee go online and make racist statements. It would make sense for a company to know that. If a person is saying things that implicate their fitness to be an employee, you need to know that and you can't just say it's not our business.

Villasenor noted that there are ethical lines that should not be crossed when accessing employees social media profiles.

The associate professor of propaganda and social media at Syracuse University told CNBC that companies should not interfere with the rights of their workers.

Organizations can use publicly available social media data to gain insights for product development, or to understand voters, public and employee sentiment. The rights of people to organize are protected in the US. That's not right. I don't think a PR firm would help workers organize.

Three people who were employees of the company at the time told CNBC that they were warned not to link to their bosses on social networks or join employee groups unless they knew every single person in the group. Employees at the company assume that the company keeps a close eye on their social media posts, according to two other employees.

The company does not use Facebook's workplace and does not use Microsoft's video conferencing platform, but it does use Mattermost and Teams, which are open-sourced chat products.

Managers are not allowed to access subordinates' pages on social networks unless there is a specific reason for doing so. Employees are discouraged from speaking out online about work issues.

It is more likely for you to resolve concerns about work by speaking directly with your co-workers, supervisor or other management personnel, than by posting concerns on the internet.

The current and former employees who spoke with CNBC were not authorized to speak to the media and had signed non-disclosure agreements prohibiting them from making critical statements about the company.