Anda di halaman 1dari 617

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Kearney, Barry J.
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 8:09 AM
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE:

Do you want us to draft a reply?

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 11:59 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Ahearn,
Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Subject: Fwd:

Sent from my mobile


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Luttig, Michael" <michael.luttig@boeing.com>


To: "Solomon, Lafe E." <Lafe.Solomon@nlrb.gov>

NLRB-FOIA-U00000318

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Solomon, Lafe E.
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 8:38 AM
Kearney, Barry J.
Re:

Let's talk. --------------------------


Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

Exemption 5

From: Kearney, Barry J.


To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Sent: Wed May 04 08:08:39 2011
Subject: RE:

Do you want us to draft a reply?

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 11:59 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Ahearn,
Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Subject: Fwd:

Sent from my mobile


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Luttig, Michael" <michael.luttig@boeing.com>


To: "Solomon, Lafe E." <Lafe.Solomon@nlrb.gov>

NLRB-FOIA-U00000319

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Solomon, Lafe E.
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 3:31 PM
Cleeland, Nancy
RE: NLRB story

Wow!

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:40 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose
Subject: FW: NLRB story

You might enjoy this one.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: John Judis [mailto:jbjudis@gmail.com]


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:09 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: NLRB story

--
John B. Judis
Senior Editor, The New Republic
Visiting Scholar, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

NLRB-FOIA-U00000320

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Liebman, W ilma B.
Thursday, May 05, 2011 8:03 AM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: NLRB story

Remember this one by Judis from last year?


http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/archive/obama-labor-and-delivery

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 5:31 PM
To: Liebman, Wilma B.
Subject: FW: NLRB story

Here it is

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: John Judis [mailto:jbjudis@gmail.com]


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:09 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: NLRB story

--
John B. Judis
Senior Editor, The New Republic
Visiting Scholar, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

NLRB-FOIA-U00000326

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Kearney, Barry J.
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 9:35 AM
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
FW : Boeing - solomon letter
Solomon letter with attachment - May 3, 2011.pdf; ATT00001..htm

Exemption 5

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 11:59 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Ahearn,
Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Subject: Fwd:

Sent from my mobile


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Luttig, Michael" <michael.luttig@boeing.com>


To: "Solomon, Lafe E." <Lafe.Solomon@nlrb.gov>

NLRB-FOIA-U00000346

NLRB-FOIA-U00000347

NLRB-FOIA-U00000348

NLRB-FOIA-U00000349

NLRB-FOIA-U00000350

NLRB-FOIA-U00000351

NLRB-FOIA-U00000352

NLRB-FOIA-U00000353

NLRB-FOIA-U00000354

NLRB-FOIA-U00000355

NLRB-FOIA-U00000356

Page 1 of 1

NLRB-FOIA-U00000357

file://C:\IGCShared\in\23\1.htm

8/29/2011

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Kearney, Barry J.
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 9:35 AM
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
FW :
Solomon letter with attachment - May 3, 2011.pdf; ATT00001..htm

Exemption 5

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 11:59 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Ahearn,
Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Subject: Fwd:

Sent from my mobile


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Luttig, Michael" <michael.luttig@boeing.com>


To: "Solomon, Lafe E." <Lafe.Solomon@nlrb.gov>

NLRB-FOIA-U00000495

NLRB-FOIA-U00000496

NLRB-FOIA-U00000497

NLRB-FOIA-U00000498

NLRB-FOIA-U00000499

NLRB-FOIA-U00000500

NLRB-FOIA-U00000501

NLRB-FOIA-U00000502

NLRB-FOIA-U00000503

NLRB-FOIA-U00000504

NLRB-FOIA-U00000505

Page 1 of 1

NLRB-FOIA-U00000506

file://C:\IGCShared\in\23\1.htm

8/29/2011

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 11:25 AM
Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
ap questions

Hello there,
Lafe suggested I contact both of you with these questions
Sam Hananel of the AP is writing this morning about the Boeing letter and wants to know:
Is this unusual? (for a respondent to write a letter like this? Has Boeing filed a formal response to the complaint? If not yet, when is it due?
And will we have any response to this letter?
Thanks for any help you can provide.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00000593

Microsoft Outlook

Non-Responsive

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 11:58 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Ahearn,
Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Subject: Fwd:

Sent from my mobile


Begin forwarded message:
From: "Luttig, Michael" <michael.luttig@boeing.com>
To: "Solomon, Lafe E." <Lafe.Solomon@nlrb.gov>

NLRB-FOIA-U00000663

NLRB-FOIA-U00000664

NLRB-FOIA-U00000665

NLRB-FOIA-U00000666

NLRB-FOIA-U00000667

NLRB-FOIA-U00000668

NLRB-FOIA-U00000669

NLRB-FOIA-U00000670

NLRB-FOIA-U00000671

NLRB-FOIA-U00000672

NLRB-FOIA-U00000673

Page 1 of 1

NLRB-FOIA-U00000674

file://C:\IGCShared\in\23\1.htm

8/29/2011

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Kearney, Barry J.
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 9:30 AM
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE:

Exemption 5

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 8:38 AM
To: Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: Re:

Let's talk. --------------------------


Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

Exemption 5

From: Kearney, Barry J.


To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Sent: Wed May 04 08:08:39 2011
Subject: RE:

Do you want us to draft a reply?

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 11:59 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Ahearn,
Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Subject: Fwd:

Sent from my mobile


Begin forwarded message:

From: "Luttig, Michael" <michael.luttig@boeing.com>


To: "Solomon, Lafe E." <Lafe.Solomon@nlrb.gov>

NLRB-FOIA-U00000923

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:51 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
FW : Boeing - letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

Exemption 5

From: Ferguson, John H.


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:24 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.
Cc: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: FW: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

More details

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:20 PM
To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Ferguson, John H.
Subject: RE: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

Here is their letter to congress http://www.scattorneygeneral.org/newsroom/pdf/2011/4.28.11_Letter_to_Congress_2.pdf


Here is their letter to us
http://www.scattorneygeneral.org/newsroom/pdf/2011/4.28.11_NLRB_Letter_Formatted_with_Signatures.pdf

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:19 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Ferguson, John H.
Subject: RE: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

The 8 states have replied to the complaint through a letter? To whom? Do we have a copy?

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:14 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ferguson, John H.
Subject: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

Please see below; Now there are 9 states going after us. Bloomberg asks if we have a response.

NLRB-FOIA-U00000997

Columbia - South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and eight (8) other state attorneys general have
replied to a complaint filed against Boeing Corporation by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The
complaint charges Boeing with the commission of an unfair labor practice, but appears to do so without legal
and factual foundation. The board claims Boeing is prohibited from expanding production of its planes beyond
the reach of unions currently associated with its workers in Washington State. South Carolina is a staunch right
to work state. In reality, Boeing expanded its production of 787 Dreamliners to South Carolina last year in
response to increase in demand. What the NLRB complaint fails to mention is the increased demand for the
planes prompted the creation of over 2,000 new jobs in Washington State first, and continued demand
subsequently required an expansion facility in South Carolina. Recognizing the dangerous precedent this
aggressive action could set against the right to work, job creation, and economic growth in many states, the
attorneys general wrote:

"This complaint represents an assault upon the constitutional right of free speech, and the ability of our states
to create jobs and recruit industry. Your ill-conceived retaliatory action seeks to destroy our citizens' right to
work. It is South Carolina and Boeing today, but will be any of our states, with our right to work guarantees,
tomorrow."

"...this tenuous complaint will reverberate throughout union and non-union states alike, as international
companies will question the wisdom of locating in a country where the federal government interferes in industry
without cause or justification."

"Our states are struggling to emerge from one of the worst economic collapses since the Depression. Your
complaint further impairs an economic recovery. Intrusion by the federal bureaucracy on behalf of unions will
not create a single new job or put one unemployed person back to work."

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00000998

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Szapiro, Miriam
W ednesday, April 27, 2011 8:22 AM
NLRB Attorney in Advice W illen, Debra L
RE:

Hahah cool

From: NLRB Attorney in Advice Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:21 AM
To: Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE:

Thanks. I think hes pretty special, but he fancies himself just an ordinary guy.

From: Szapiro, Miriam


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:19 AM
To:
NLRB Attorney in Advice

Willen, Debra L

Subject: RE:

Yay! I always liked your Dad (tho based on your prior descriptions, Im not sure if he qualifies as an everyman. And I
mean that in the best possible way).

From:

NLRB Attorney in Advice

Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:17 AM


To: Willen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: FW:

One everymans [my dad] opinion about Boeing.

From: To:

Exemption 6 - Privacy
NLRB Attorney in Advice

Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:07 PM


Subject: Re:

Good! Bout damn time.

-----Original Message-----
From: To:
Exemption 6 Privacy
NLRB Attorney in Advice

Sent: Tue, Apr 26, 2011 1:06 pm


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014851805_nlrb23.html

Tracking:
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00001039

Recipient

Read

NLRB Attorney in Advice


Willen, Debra L

Read: 4/27/2011 8:43 AM


Read: 4/27/2011 8:40 AM

NLRB-FOIA-U00001040

Microsoft Outlook

Non-Responsive

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 11:58 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Ahearn,
Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Subject: Fwd:

Sent from my mobile


Begin forwarded message:
From: "Luttig, Michael" <michael.luttig@boeing.com>
To: "Solomon, Lafe E." <Lafe.Solomon@nlrb.gov>

NLRB-FOIA-U00001051

NLRB-FOIA-U00001052

NLRB-FOIA-U00001053

NLRB-FOIA-U00001054

NLRB-FOIA-U00001055

NLRB-FOIA-U00001056

NLRB-FOIA-U00001057

NLRB-FOIA-U00001058

NLRB-FOIA-U00001059

NLRB-FOIA-U00001060

NLRB-FOIA-U00001061

Page 1 of 1

NLRB-FOIA-U00001062

file://C:\IGCShared\in\23\1.htm

8/29/2011

Microsoft Outlook

Non-Responsive

From: Wagner, Anthony R.


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 4:38 PM
To: Liebman, Wilma B.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Schiff, Robert; Colwell, John F.; Garza, Jose
Subject: Social media trends

There were very few new angles to the Boeing case today, notwithstanding Grahams floor speech this morning.

The afternoon actually saw more traffic on the Reuters Twitter case than Boeing. A Littler blog lays out what Philip
Gordon, the author, believes are the basic parameters were using regarding social media and protected activity.
It also claims that we are collecting cases with the intention of revisiting Register Guard.
http://privacyblog.littler.com/2011/05/articles/labor-relations/the-latest-from-the-nlrb-on-social-
media/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+WorkplacePrivacyCounsel+(Workpla
ce+Privacy+Counsel)&utm_content=Google+Reader

On Boeing, there was little new, mostly a rehash of the arguments already made. The letter from Boeing has not
yet made it to any of the social media channels. The letter from the HELP Republicans made the rounds a bit:
http://help.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=0a2629be-691e-4ed7-8dc9-2f2b9a632641&groups=Ranking

The SC Attorney General went on Fox Business News to discuss Boeing. No new arguments:
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4674218/south-carolina-and-boeing-tee-off-on-nlrb/?playlist_id=87081

Tony Wagner
New Media Specialist | Office of Public Affairs
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
1099 14th Street NW, Suite 11550 | Washington, DC 20570
anthony.wagner@nlrb.gov | 202-273-0187 | cell: 202-375-9791

nlrb.gov | m.nlrb.gov | facebook.com/NLRBpage | @nlrb

NLRB-FOIA-U00001065

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 4:01 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy
RE: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

BTW, I am sending my dead blackberry to Al Turner today; if anyone needs to reach me over the weekend, best to try:

Exemption 6
Rich

or

From: Kearney, Barry J.


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:51 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L
Cc: Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: FW: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

Exemption 5

From: Ferguson, John H.


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:24 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.
Cc: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: FW: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

More details

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:20 PM
To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Ferguson, John H.
Subject: RE: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

Here is their letter to congress http://www.scattorneygeneral.org/newsroom/pdf/2011/4.28.11_Letter_to_Congress_2.pdf


Here is their letter to us
http://www.scattorneygeneral.org/newsroom/pdf/2011/4.28.11_NLRB_Letter_Formatted_with_Signatures.pdf

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:19 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Ferguson, John H.
Subject: RE: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

The 8 states have replied to the complaint through a letter? To whom? Do we have a copy?
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00001077

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:14 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ferguson, John H.
Subject: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

Please see below; Now there are 9 states going after us. Bloomberg asks if we have a response.

Columbia - South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and eight (8) other state attorneys general have
replied to a complaint filed against Boeing Corporation by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The
complaint charges Boeing with the commission of an unfair labor practice, but appears to do so without legal
and factual foundation. The board claims Boeing is prohibited from expanding production of its planes beyond
the reach of unions currently associated with its workers in Washington State. South Carolina is a staunch right
to work state. In reality, Boeing expanded its production of 787 Dreamliners to South Carolina last year in
response to increase in demand. What the NLRB complaint fails to mention is the increased demand for the
planes prompted the creation of over 2,000 new jobs in Washington State first, and continued demand
subsequently required an expansion facility in South Carolina. Recognizing the dangerous precedent this
aggressive action could set against the right to work, job creation, and economic growth in many states, the
attorneys general wrote:

"This complaint represents an assault upon the constitutional right of free speech, and the ability of our states
to create jobs and recruit industry. Your ill-conceived retaliatory action seeks to destroy our citizens' right to
work. It is South Carolina and Boeing today, but will be any of our states, with our right to work guarantees,
tomorrow."

"...this tenuous complaint will reverberate throughout union and non-union states alike, as international
companies will question the wisdom of locating in a country where the federal government interferes in industry
without cause or justification."

"Our states are struggling to emerge from one of the worst economic collapses since the Depression. Your
complaint further impairs an economic recovery. Intrusion by the federal bureaucracy on behalf of unions will
not create a single new job or put one unemployed person back to work."

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00001078

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00001079

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

W illen, Debra L
Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:00 AM
W olin, Michele
FW : letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

From: Kearney, Barry J.


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:51 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L
Cc: Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: FW: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

Exemption 5

From: Ferguson, John H.


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:24 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.
Cc: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: FW: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

More details

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:20 PM
To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Ferguson, John H.
Subject: RE: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

Here is their letter to congress http://www.scattorneygeneral.org/newsroom/pdf/2011/4.28.11_Letter_to_Congress_2.pdf


Here is their letter to us
http://www.scattorneygeneral.org/newsroom/pdf/2011/4.28.11_NLRB_Letter_Formatted_with_Signatures.pdf

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:19 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Ferguson, John H.
Subject: RE: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

The 8 states have replied to the complaint through a letter? To whom? Do we have a copy?

NLRB-FOIA-U00001082

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:14 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ferguson, John H.
Subject: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits

Please see below; Now there are 9 states going after us. Bloomberg asks if we have a response.

Columbia - South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and eight (8) other state attorneys general have
replied to a complaint filed against Boeing Corporation by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The
complaint charges Boeing with the commission of an unfair labor practice, but appears to do so without legal
and factual foundation. The board claims Boeing is prohibited from expanding production of its planes beyond
the reach of unions currently associated with its workers in Washington State. South Carolina is a staunch right
to work state. In reality, Boeing expanded its production of 787 Dreamliners to South Carolina last year in
response to increase in demand. What the NLRB complaint fails to mention is the increased demand for the
planes prompted the creation of over 2,000 new jobs in Washington State first, and continued demand
subsequently required an expansion facility in South Carolina. Recognizing the dangerous precedent this
aggressive action could set against the right to work, job creation, and economic growth in many states, the
attorneys general wrote:

"This complaint represents an assault upon the constitutional right of free speech, and the ability of our states
to create jobs and recruit industry. Your ill-conceived retaliatory action seeks to destroy our citizens' right to
work. It is South Carolina and Boeing today, but will be any of our states, with our right to work guarantees,
tomorrow."

"...this tenuous complaint will reverberate throughout union and non-union states alike, as international
companies will question the wisdom of locating in a country where the federal government interferes in industry
without cause or justification."

"Our states are struggling to emerge from one of the worst economic collapses since the Depression. Your
complaint further impairs an economic recovery. Intrusion by the federal bureaucracy on behalf of unions will
not create a single new job or put one unemployed person back to work."

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00001083

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Mattina, Celeste J.
Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:10 AM
Ahearn, Richard L.

Non-Responsive

Non-Responsive

Cant wait to hear your perspectives on the meeting, so sorry i missed it. busy here you a call at some point next week.
________________________________________
From: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:56 AM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject:
Non-Responsive

probably should have asked to be conferenced in to listen to the discussion, but we have been

Non-Responsive

I will give

Non-Responsive

we met with the IAM in

Boeing; Warm regards,


Rich

Exemption 5

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
________________________________

Non-Responsive

NLRB-FOIA-U00001218

Non-Responsive

NLRB-FOIA-U00001219

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Friday, May 20, 2011 10:18 AM

NLRB Board Agent in Seattle Re: Did you catch CNNs Boeing story last night?

I am certain you'll be a fabulous ambassador; enjoy!


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: NLRB Board Agent in Seattle To: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Fri May 20 10:16:00 2011
Subject: RE: Did you catch CNNs Boeing story last night?

Its been fascinating. I think everyone should do this. So many pieces have fallen into place. Ive been working hard and
hope to leave a good impression of Region 19.

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 7:11 AM
To:
NLRB Board Agent in Seattle

Subject: Re: Did you catch CNNs Boeing story last night?

Did not see it...are you having a good, worthwhile time?


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From:

NLRB Board Agent in Seattle

To: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Fri May 20 10:02:20 2011
Subject: Did you catch CNNs Boeing story last night?

As soon as I introduce myself to someone at Hdqtrs and explain Im on exchange from the Seattle Region, he/she
inevitably mentions this case. . . . .
I have been telling people that Im hiding in DC because its the last place anyone will look

NLRB Board Agent in Seattle


National Labor Relations Board
2948 Jackson Federal Building
915 Second Avenue
Seattle, W A 98174

NLRB Board Agent in Seattle

NLRB-FOIA-U00001291

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Sunday, May 22, 2011 11:52 PM
Finch, Peter G.
Re: Gov. Gregoire

Right on!
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message -----


From: Finch, Peter G.
To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Sun May 22 19:05:47 2011
Subject: RE: Gov. Gregoire

Exemption 5

________________________________________
From: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 9:28 AM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise; Finch, Peter G.; Harvey, Rachel
Subject: Gov. Gregoire
News
1 new result for National labor relations board

Sunday Buzz Air show delegation will be wearing their smiley


faces<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sundaybuzz/20151
08942_sundaybuzz22.html&ct=ga&cad=CAEQARgAIAAoATAAOABA2tDi7gRIAVAAWABiAmVu&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&usg=AFQjCNEpuLlBum63N2-ce4FpFFtL1TS3tg>
The Seattle Times
Last month the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against Boeing
spurred by the Machinists. Arguing that Boeing executives chose to locate a second production
line for the 787 Dreamliner in North Charleston, SC, ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://news.google.com/news/story%3Fncl%3Dhttp://seattleti
mes.nwsource.com/html/sundaybuzz/2015108942_sundaybuzz22.html%26hl%3Den%26geo%3Dus&ct=ga&cad=
CAEQARgAIAAoBjAAOABA2tDi7gRIAVAAWABiAmVu&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&usg=AFQjCNE0dh9Gzip45z_9_uqGq6YjYsVlPw>

________________________________
Tip: Use quotes ("like this") around a set of words in your query to match them exactly.
Learn
more<http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=136861&hl=en&source=alertsm
ail&cd=We-Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE>.
Remove<http://www.google.com/alerts/remove?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&s=AB2Xq4ixgae4U9XJPW
N_8lOOaVEEbn_MHk9Cwtg&cd=We-Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> this alert.
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00001299

Create<http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> another alert.
Manage<http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> your alerts.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001300

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:09 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; W agner,
Anthony R.
RE: time to decide

Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:05 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00001393

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:59 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: time to decide
Importance: High

Exemption 5

The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00001394

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:10 PM
Cleeland, Nancy
Re: time to decide

If it is you can work for me


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Wagner, Anthony R.
Sent: Thu Apr 28 18:08:46 2011
Subject: RE: time to decide

Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:05 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

NLRB-FOIA-U00001395

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:59 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: time to decide
Importance: High

Exemption 5

The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00001396

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:20 PM
Cleeland, Nancy
Re: time to decide

Great job of herding cats


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Wagner, Anthony R.
Sent: Thu Apr 28 18:08:46 2011
Subject: RE: time to decide

Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:05 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

NLRB-FOIA-U00001397

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:59 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: time to decide
Importance: High

Exemption 5

The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00001398

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:24 PM
Kearney, Barry J.
Re: time to decide

Thanks - much appreciated.


The reporter barely got it in.

From: Kearney, Barry J.


To: Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Thu Apr 28 18:20:26 2011
Subject: Re: time to decide

Great job of herding cats


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Wagner, Anthony R.
Sent: Thu Apr 28 18:08:46 2011
Subject: RE: time to decide

Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:05 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00001399

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:59 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: time to decide
Importance: High

Exemption 5

The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00001400

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Farrell, Ellen
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:28 PM
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
RE: Boeing
ADV.19-CA-32431.Response2.Boeing.dlw.doc; ADV.19-CA-32431.factsheet.Boeing.dlw.doc

Nancy
Attached are the memo, which issued yesterday, and the fact sheet.
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 2:36 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Boeing

Ellen, W ould you please send electronically to Nancy the Boeing Advice memo and fact sheet?
Nancy, W e anticipate that Region 19 will issue complaint next week. We can talk about it, Thanks, Lafe
Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00001402

United States Government

National Labor Relations Board

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Advice Memorandum

DATE:

April 11, 2011

S.A.M.

TO:

Richard L. Ahearn, Regional Director


Region 19

FROM:

Barry J. Kearney, Associate General Counsel


Division of Advice

SUBJECT:

The Boeing Company Case 19-CA-32431

512-5006-5062 512-5006-5067 512-5036-8387 512-5036-8389 524-0167-1033 524-5029-5037 524-0167-1033 524-506

524-8307-1600
524-8307-5300
530-6050-0825-3300
530-6067-4011-4200
530-6067-4011-4600
530-6067-4011-7700
530-8054-7000
775-8731

The Region submitted this case for advice on several


issues relating to the Employers decision to place a second
assembly line at a nonunion facility rather than at the
facility where unit employees work on the original assembly
line. Specifically the Region requested advice as to whether:
(1) the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by threatening to
place the second assembly line at a nonunion facility unless
the Union agreed to a long-term no-strike clause and by
repeatedly stating that its decision to place the second line
elsewhere was based on the units strike history; (2) the
Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) by deciding to place the
second assembly line at a nonunion facility because of the
units strike history, even though no unit employees have yet
to lose their jobs; and (3) the Employer violated Section
8(a)(5) by failing to bargain in good faith over its decision
about where to locate the second assembly line or whether the
Union waived its right to bargain under the parties
collective-bargaining agreement.
We conclude that the Region should issue a complaint
alleging: independent Section 8(a)(1) violations based on the
Employers coercive and threatening statements; and a Section
8(a)(3) violation based on the Employers decision to locate
the second line at a nonunion facility and to establish a
dual-sourcing supply program in retaliation for protected
activity. However, the Region should dismiss the Section
8(a)(5) allegations because under the contract, the Union
expressly waived its right to bargain about the Employers
decision to offload unit work to a facility not covered by
the agreement. To remedy the chilling effect of Boeings
Section 8(a)(1) statements, the Region should request, in
addition to the traditional remedies, a notice reading by a

NLRB-FOIA-U00001403

Case 19-CA-32431
- 2 -

high-level Boeing official. To remedy the Section 8(a)(3)


violation, the Region should seek an order that would require
Boeing to maintain the surge line in the Puget Sound area.
Specifically, Boeing intended for the second line to assemble
three aircraft each month in South Carolina, while assembling
seven planes on the first line. Thus, the Region should seek
an order requiring Boeing to assemble in the Puget Sound area
the first ten 787 aircraft that it produces each month and to
maintain the supply lines for those aircraft where they
currently exist, in the Puget Sound and Portland facilities.

FACTS

The Boeing Company is an international corporation


engaged primarily in developing and producing military and
commercial aircraft. Boeing has a long-established collective-
bargaining relationship with the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) and certain IAM
District and Local Lodges. The parties current collective-
bargaining agreement is effective November 2, 2008 through
September 8, 2012 and covers three separate bargaining units
of production and maintenance employees in three geographical
areas, the Puget Sound area in Washington; Portland, Oregon;
and Wichita, Kansas.
Section 21.7 of that agreement, entitled
Subcontracting, sets forth various notice periods and an
opportunity for the Union to review and recommend alternatives
to Boeing proposals to subcontract or offload unit work.
[O]ffloading work is defined as moving work from one
Company facility to another Company facility not covered by
this Agreement[.] Less stringent notice requirements apply
to subcontracting and offloading decisions affecting less than
ten employees. In addition, the notice and review process
does not cover certain work transfers listed in subsections
(a) through (d), including [d]ecisions to subcontract or
offload work due to lack of capability or capacity, or to
prevent production schedule slippage[.] Section 21.7
concludes with the following language:
Anything in this Section 21.7 to the contrary
notwithstanding, it is agreed that ... the Company has
the right to subcontract and offload work, to make and
carry out decisions in (a) through (d) above, to enter
offsets and offset arrangements, and to designate the
work to be performed by the Company and the places where
it is to be performed, which rights shall not be subject
to arbitration. ...

NLRB-FOIA-U00001404

Case 19-CA-32431
- 3 -

Boeing Introduces the 787 Dreamliner

The Puget Sound unit is comprised of approximately 18,000


employees working in Washington. Historically these employees
have performed the final assembly of all Boeing planes. In
late 2003, Boeing announced that it would place the assembly
line for its new 787 Dreamliner airplane in Everett,
Washington after the Washington State Legislature passed a tax
and subsidy incentive package totaling more than $3.2 billion.
That line opened in May 2007, with the capacity for producing
seven planes each month.
With the 787, Boeing departed from its previous practice
of manufacturing most of the aircraft parts with its own
employees and instead outsourced parts production to other
suppliers in the southeast U.S. and abroad. For example,
Boeing contracted with Vought Aircraft Industries in North
Charleston, South Carolina for the manufacture of the aft
fuselage and with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan for the
manufacture of the wings. Boeing repeatedly has had to
postpone the delivery dates for the aircraft, due primarily to
problems with suppliers and software issues.
Starting in mid 2008, the media began reporting that
Boeing would need to add a second 787 assembly line because of
its growing order backlog. At about the same time, Boeing
entered negotiations with the Union for a successor
collective-bargaining agreement. During those negotiations,
Company officials noted the need for a second assembly line
but did not discuss the matter further.

The 2008 Strike and Its Aftermath

On September 6, 2008, the employees struck in support of


the Unions bargaining position. On October 6, 2008, Boeings
stock dropped to a four-year low. That same day, CEO Jim
McNerney sent a long e-mail to Boeing employees about the
strike. McNerney stated that he understood and shared the
frustration so many of you feel when we dont have the whole
team together working to meet the commitments weve made to
our customers and competing to win the new business that will
sustain and grow Boeing jobs[.] McNerney went on to state,
[t]he issue of competitiveness as it relates to this strike
is a big deal[.] He also tied labor disputes to problems
with Boeings customer relationships. After asserting that
the Union had recommended that its members reject contract
offers and go on strike four of the last five negotiations
going back to 1995, he wrote, we believe this track record of
repeated union work stoppages is earning us a reputation as an

NLRB-FOIA-U00001405

Case 19-CA-32431
- 4 -

unreliable supplier to our customers who ultimately provide


job security by buying our airplanes.1
The following day, Boeings Vice President for Government
and Community Relations Fred Kiga spoke at an aerospace
conference in Everett. In a Seattle Times article, he was
quoted as stating, We cant afford to become known as the
strike zone[.] He reportedly also told the conference that
labor unrest could drive Boeings decision on where to build
planes in the future. In an interview after his speech, Kiga
reportedly stated that his strike zone comments had been
cleared by Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Scott Carson. Kiga
noted that he and Carson grew up in and shared a love for the
Northwest; Kiga then said that they would hate to lose a
treasure like Boeing.
The strike lasted 57 days and ended on November 1, 2008,
when the parties signed the current contract. During the
negotiations, the Union had proposed to amend Section 21.7 to,
among other things, eliminate the waiver language quoted
above. Boeing refused to agree to such an amendment, and the
language remained in the contract.
In early 2009,2
the media again began publishing reports
that Boeing needed to establish a second 787 assembly line.
On February 9, the Seattle Times reported that Washington
Senator Patty Murray had met with Boeings Senior Vice
President of Government Operations; he had informed her that
the CEO was sick and tired of the unions strikes and was
looking to put the second 787 line elsewhere.
On April 16, Boeing and IAM officials held their annual
summit in Chicago. Management officials attending included
CEO McNerney, Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Carson,
Integrated Defense Systems CEO Jim Albaugh, and for the first
time, Vice President and General Manager of Supply Chain
Management & Operations Ray Conner. IAM representatives
included International President Tom Buffenbarger, General
Vice President Rich Michalski, and the Directing Business
Representatives who represented Boeing employees, including
District 751 DBR Tom Wroblewski. This was the first
opportunity for the parties to meet since the strike had
ended. McNerney and Buffenbarger were the lead speakers.
McNerney stated that Boeings customers were losing confidence
his that the occurred 1989 (48
2
Dates 1
In

e-mail, CEO McNerney exaggerated the number of times


Union had struck. In actuality, prior strikes
in 1948 (140 days), 1965 (19 days), 1977 (45 days),
days), 1995 (69 days), and 2005 (28 days).

are in 2009 unless otherwise noted.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001406

Case 19-CA-32431
- 5 -

in the Company because of past strikes and the possibility of


future strikes. He said that the parties had to come up with
a way to stop having labor disputes. The general theme was
that management and labor should continue to meet to find ways
to avoid the problems of the past.
As a follow-up to this summit, Wroblewski and IAM
Aerospace Coordinator Mark Blondin met on June 23 in Seattle
with Conner and Boeings Vice President of Human Resources
Doug Kight. The parties focused on how to build a better
relationship and improve communication. While Wroblewski had
an established relationship with Kight, Conner was new to
labor relations. Wroblewski thought that one of the purposes
of the meeting was to get to know Conner. At a subsequent
meeting on June 30 between Wroblewski and Conner, Conner
expressed Boeings concern that its customers did not have
confidence it could make timely deliveries because it had
experienced two strikes in the last five years and had
supplier issues. For the first time, Conner raised the
prospect of a long-term collective-bargaining agreement as a
way to gain the customers confidence that they would get
their aircraft on time.
In early July, Boeing announced its intent to purchase
the Vought plant in North Charleston, South Carolina. IAM
Local Lodge 183 represented the Vought production,
maintenance, and quality employees. Boeing agreed to
recognize the Union but wanted to negotiate a new collective-
bargaining agreement.
On July 8, the Seattle Times reported that Boeings CEO
had informed Washington Congressmen Norm Dicks and Jay Inslee
that as a result of past strikes, the Company would place the
second line outside the Puget Sound area unless it could reach
a long-term contract with the Union. Boeing told the
Congressmen that South Carolina was the main competitor.
Wroblewski, Blondin, Kight, and Conner met again twice in
July, on July 7 and July 23. At each of these meetings,
Conner and Kight emphasized that strikes had to stop for
Boeing to be viable. They stated that Boeing needed a long-
term agreement with no-strike language to satisfy their
customers. At this point, Boeing was two years behind
schedule and had approximately 850 787 planes on back order as
a result of supplier and software problems.
Then, on July 30, the same date that Boeing announced
that it had purchased Voughts plant, a South Carolina
employee filed a decertification petition. During August,
Boeing denied the Union access to the employees in the North
Charleston plant and wrote a memorandum to the employees
stating that it preferred to deal with employees directly

NLRB-FOIA-U00001407

Case 19-CA-32431
- 6 -

without intermediaries.3
Boeing also issued a FAQ document
to the employees stating that the mass layoffs that took place
at the Vought plant in late 2008 were due to the unique
situation created by the Everett strike. Meanwhile, the
South Carolina press was reporting that a decertification
decision could influence where Boeing located the second 787
assembly line. For example, The Post and the Courier reported
that South Carolinas low unionization rate is viewed as an
advantage in the 787 chase[.] An article in the Charleston
Business Journal asserted that Charleston might be a better
choice in the event of decertification because of its
potentially tamer work force instead of the Washington
workers with a history of walk[ing] off the job.
On August 26, Boeing e-mailed its managers and human
resource professionals that it had notified South Carolina
that it intended to file permits for the construction of a
second 787 line but that it had not yet made a decision as to
where to locate the second line. The following day, Boeing
and Union officials met in Portland to discuss the prospect of
a long-term agreement. Carson informed the Union that the
only way Boeing would place the second line in Washington was
if the Union agreed to a twenty-year no-strike agreement.
Boeing suggested a series of three-year agreements with an
overarching twenty-year no-strike pledge until 2032 and
binding interest arbitration if no agreement was reached at
the end of each of the three-year contracts. The Union said
that this was not possible, but the Union would consider a
longer agreement than the current four-year contract in return
for some sort of neutrality agreement. At the end of the
meeting, the parties agreed to schedule negotiations for a
long-term agreement.
Meanwhile, the decertification election in South Carolina
was scheduled for September 10. In reporting on Boeings
permit filings in South Carolina, the Puget Sound Business
Journal characterized this vote as [a] wild card in Boeings
decision about where to locate the second line. On September
2, Kight presented an hour-long video on Boeings website
(later quoted in a September 29 article in the Seattle Times).
In regard to the second line, he stated:
What do you do with the 787 second line so that we can
build up to rate and meet our commitment to customers?
... Theres a lot of issues to look at, a lot being
studied, no decision has been made. But truthfully, it
is very clear that this triennial disruption, our

3
The

Union filed a Section 8(a)(5) charge alleging that


Boeing unilaterally changed its access rules but withdrew the
charge following the election.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001408

Case 19-CA-32431
- 7 -

customers cant live with it anymore. So weve become an


unreliable supplier.... So we look at how do we become a
reliable supplier. How do we ensure production
continuity so that we can meet our commitments to our
customers in a timely way and thats what were trying to
do.
The Union lost the election in South Carolina eight days later
and was decertified on September 18.
As a follow-up to the parties August 27 meeting in
Portland, CEO McNerney wrote to IAM International President
Buffenbarger on September 21 that Boeing planned to make a
decision on the second lines location by the end of October
and wanted the Unions input within the next three to four
weeks. He stated, I look forward to our respective teams
engaging in fruitful dialog. Two days later, Boeing filed an
application for a storm water permit with the City of North
Charleston and an overall site plan with the State of South
Carolina. On October 1, Boeing applied to North Charleston
for a site clearing permit.

The Parties Meet over a Long-Term Agreement

The parties opened negotiations for a long-term agreement


on October 1. At the start of negotiations, Boeing explained
that placement of the second line in Washington depended on a
long-term agreement to insure no further disruptions in
deliveries to customers. The Union responded that in exchange
for giving up the right to strike, the parties would need to
resolve economic issues for the long term rather than through
interest arbitration every three years.
The parties met again on October 7, 8, and 15. The Union
maintains that Boeing never submitted a written proposal or
counter-proposal, that it was in the dark as to what Boeing
wanted, and that in effect it was negotiating against itself.
For example, with respect to the length of the agreement, at
various points Boeing requested a contract ending in 2020 or
2022 but at other times, demanded a twenty-year agreement. In
terms of wages, Boeing wanted to reduce general wage increases
and move toward a profit-sharing incentive program. The Union
was not adverse to this concept but requested information to
insure that Boeings measures of productivity were tied to
employee performance and not events beyond the employees
control. At one point, Boeing stated that the general wage
increase and COLA could not exceed 3.5%. When a Union
negotiator asked what would happen if the cost of living
increased more than 3.5%, Boeing responded that employees
would get more. On October 15, for the first time, Boeing
said that it wanted a lower wage structure for new hires and a

NLRB-FOIA-U00001409

Case 19-CA-32431
- 8 -

defined contribution plan for them rather than the defined


benefit pension plan that the existing employees enjoyed.
The Union repeatedly raised the issues of job security
and Employer opposition to the Union elsewhere. The Union
argued that in return for giving up the right to strike during
the long-term, employees needed enhanced job security. Also,
if the parties relationship were to improve, the Union did
not want to face the type of anti-union conduct Boeing had
engaged in during the decertification campaign in South
Carolina.
At the October 15 session, Conner informed the Union that
the Board of Directors would be meeting on October 26 and he
wanted to give the Board a progress report on the
negotiations. The Union asserts that Boeing never described
the Board of Directors meeting as a deadline for resolving the
outstanding bargaining issues. Moreover, Boeing never
provided a concrete proposal that could be put to the unit
employees for a vote.
The parties met again on October 20 and 21. Conner
stated that Boeing was getting close to making its decision on
the location of the second line and it would be discussed at
the Board meeting on October 26. By the end of the parties
October 21 session, the Union orally had proposed the
following: an extension of the existing contract to 2020, 3%
annual wage increases plus a 1% COLA, ratification bonuses for
unit employees, an incentive pay program, health cost sharing
towards the end of the contract, annual increases in pension
benefits starting in 2013, and neutrality in connection with
Union organizing campaigns. In addition, the Union presented
Boeing with a two-page document entitled Rough Draft on
Concepts for a long-term agreement and a joint partnership
committee. This Draft called for retention of current unit
work; location of the second line in the Puget Sound area; and
six-month advance notice and good-faith bargaining over any
decision to establish an assembly operation for any next
generation product. Boeing asserts that this rough draft
was the Unions last and final offer, but the Union
disagrees and also maintains that its negotiators had no idea
that this would be the parties final session. Indeed, the
Union negotiator involved in working out the details of the
incentive pay program sent an e-mail to Kight on October 27
requesting further information. Kight responded that he would
get back to him.
Meanwhile, on October 21, Boeing posted its quarterly
earnings conference call on its intranet site for employees.
With respect to locating the second line in South Carolina,
CEO McNerney stated:

NLRB-FOIA-U00001410

Case 19-CA-32431
- 9 -

[T]here would be some duplication. We would obviously


work to minimize that. But I think having said all of
that, diversifying our labor pool and our labor
relationship has some benefits. ... And so some of the
modest inefficiencies, for example, associated with the
move to Charleston, are certainly more than overcome by
strikes happening every three or four years in Puget
Sound. And the very negative financial impact of [sic]
the company, our balance sheet would be a lot stronger
today had we not had a strike last year. Our customers
would be a lot happier today had we not had a strike last
year, and the 787 program would be in better shape....
And I dont blame this totally on the union. We just
havent figured out a way - the mix doesnt - isnt
working well yet. So, weve either got to satisfy
ourselves that the mix is different or we have to
diversify our labor base.
McNerney stated that a decision would be made in the next
couple of weeks.
Two days later, IAM General Vice President Michalski
called Conner to ask about the status of the negotiations.
Conner stated that the Unions economic terms and demand for
neutrality were unacceptable to Boeing. Michalski explained
that the Union was not asking for a traditional neutrality
agreement but rather, as explained during negotiations, a code
of conduct. Michalski stated that the Union was willing to
meet at any time for additional negotiations, but Conner did
not respond. On October 24, Michalski called Senior Vice
President of Operations Tim Keating to reiterate that the
Union was not seeking a true neutrality agreement. He wanted
to clear up any misunderstanding if that issue was blocking
the parties ability to reach an agreement. Keating did not
respond, and no further negotiations were ever scheduled.
Meanwhile, the governmental bodies in South Carolina were
moving quickly to facilitate the second lines placement in
their State. On October 23, North Charleston approved
Boeings request for a storm water permit, and the State of
South Carolina approved Boeings overall site plan. On
October 27, the South Carolina legislature, in a special
session, approved $170 million in taxpayer-backed bonds for
Boeings startup costs and tax breaks totaling $450 million in
exchange for Boeings agreement to create at least 3,800 jobs
and invest more than $750 million in the State within the next
seven years. That same day, North Charleston approved
Boeings site clearing permit.
Boeing contends that it entered these negotiations with a
good-faith intention to reach a long-term agreement that would
have resulted in placing the second line in Washington, but

NLRB-FOIA-U00001411

Case 19-CA-32431
- 10 -

the Unions economic demands were too costly and its


insistence upon neutrality and job security were unacceptable.
The Union asserts, however, that Boeings failure to submit
any proposals, its rejection of the Unions serious efforts to
address Boeings purported concerns, and then its precipitous
halting of negotiations as soon as the South Carolina
legislature awarded it a generous tax and subsidy package
demonstrate that the negotiations were in fact a sham.

Boeing Announces its Decisions to Locate the Second Line in


South Carolina and to Establish a Dual-Sourcing Program

On October 28, Boeing announced its decision to locate


the second 787 assembly line in South Carolina. In a press
release and internal e-mails, Boeing stated that the Board of
Directors had just approved the selection of North Charleston.
Boeing also announced that it intended to build a surge line
in Everett - a temporary second assembly line that would be
phased out once the South Carolina line was up and running.
Boeing issued a memo to its managers on October 28 that
provided answers to anticipated questions from employees and
talking points regarding its decision. The managers were
advised to inform employees, among other things, that the
decision to locate the second line in Charleston would
provide economic advantages by improving our competitiveness
and reducing vulnerability to delivery disruptions due to a
host of factors, from natural disasters to homeland security
issues and work stoppages. The memo further stated, In the
final analysis, this came down to ensuring our long-term
global competitiveness and diversifying the company to protect
against the risk of production disruption ... from natural
disasters, to homeland security threats, to work stoppages.
On December 3, Boeing notified its fabrication managers
that it intended to create a dual-sourcing program and
contract separate suppliers for the South Carolina assembly
line. As a result, employees in the Puget Sound and Portland
units who produce parts for the 787 assembly line are likely
to suffer a loss of work. Articles that appeared in the
Seattle Times on December 7 and the Puget Sound Business
Journal on December 8 discussed this announcement. The
Seattle Times quoted Boeing spokesman Jim Proulx as stating,
Repeated labor disruptions have affected our performance in
our customers eyes. We have to show our customers we can be
a reliable supplier to them. [The second production] line has
to be able to go on regardless of whats happening over here.
The Puget Sound Business Journal quoted Conner as follows:
Dual-sourcing and co-production will allow us to maintain
production stability and be a reliable supplier to our
customers.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001412

Case 19-CA-32431
- 11 -

On March 2, 2010, a Seattle Times journalist conducted a


videotaped interview of Boeings new Commercial Airplanes CEO,
Jim Albaugh. (Albaugh had moved over from his position as
Integrated Defense Systems CEO to replace Carson.) The
interviewer asked Albaugh some hard questions on behalf of
the Washington community about Boeings decision to locate the
second 787 line in Charleston. In explaining Boeings
decision, Albaugh repeatedly referenced the Unions strike
history. For example, he stated:

The issue last fall was really about, you know, how
we could ensure production stability and how we
could ensure that we were competitive over the long
haul. And we had some very productive discussions
with the union. And unfortunately, we just didnt
come to an agreement where we felt we could ensure
production stability. And read [sic] that is [sic]
getting away from the frequent strikes that we were
having and also could we stop the rate of escalation
of wages. And we just could not get to a place
where we both felt it was a win for both ourselves
and the union so we made the decision to go to
Charleston.
[W]eve had strikes three out of the last four times
weve had a labor negotiation with the IAM. ... And
weve got to get to a position where we can ensure
our customers that every three years theyre not
going to have a protracted shutdown.
It was about ensuring to our customers that when we
commit to deliver airplanes on certain dates that we
actually do deliver. And we have lost our
customers have lost confidence in our ability to do
that, because of the strikes.

When asked whether going to Charleston, in light of the


expense and risk, made business sense, he responded:
Theres no question that whenever you go to a green field
site, theres risk involved. At the same time, with the
protracted labor stoppage that we had ... the fall of
2008, I mean that cost the company billions of dollars.
And I think if you compare, you know, what it cost
because of the stoppages versus the cost and the risk of
starting a new line in Charleston, I think the investment
certainly is the right one for us to make.4

4
Once

again, a Boeing CEO grossly exaggerated the burden of


the Unions strike activity. Boeing had alleged elsewhere
that the 2008 strike reduced its earnings by $1.8 million, far

NLRB-FOIA-U00001413

Case 19-CA-32431
- 12 -

At one point, Albaugh summed up the basis of Boeings


decision as follows:
[t]he overriding factor was not the business climate.
And it was not the wages were paying today. It was that
we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every
three years. We cannot afford to continue the rate of
escalation of wages....
Albaugh also implicitly threatened the loss of additional work
because of Union strikes, stating, [w]ell do work here if we
can make sure that we have the stability of the production
lines and that we can be competitive over the long haul.
Production is now approximately three years behind
schedule. Approximately 2,900 Puget Sound unit employees
currently work on the 787 assembly line. Approximately 1,740
of them are working on out-of-sequence assembly work, away
from the main assembly line. Once supply issues are resolved
and assembly can be accomplished in sequence on the line, it
is anticipated that the number of employees will drop by
approximately 60%. Boeing asserts that the South Carolina
plant will be ready to begin assembly work in mid 2011.
Approximately 1,000 mechanic and flight line jobs will be
added in South Carolina at that time.

ACTION

This case involves Boeings transfer of work from an


experienced unionized workforce to a new, nonunion facility.
Boeings decision was motivated by antiunion considerations.
From the time of the Unions strike in the fall of 2008,
Boeing made clear to its unionized workforce that it would not
countenance further strikes. Time and again, in e-mails to
employees, on its intranet site, in the media, and in talks
with the Union, Boeing tied its ability to compete to the
avoidance of future strike activity. Then, when Boeing
purchased the Vought facility in South Carolina, its officials
denied the Union access to employees at the facility. It also
let the employees know that it preferred to deal with them
directly rather than through their Union and their receipt of
the second line hinged on their vote in a decertification
election. Simultaneously, Boeing officials told the Puget
Sound unit employees that they could retain all of the 787
assembly work only by waiving their right to strike for twenty
years. Although the Union entered negotiations with Boeing
less than the billions of dollars that Albaugh claimed in
this interview.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001414

Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -

and made major concessions in an effort to address its stated


concerns, once the Union was decertified in South Carolina,
Boeing courted the South Carolina legislature and applied for
the necessary permits from the South Carolina regulatory
bodies - even as it continued the motions of negotiating with
the Union. As soon as South Carolina approved the financial
incentives for Boeing, Boeing called off negotiations and
announced its decision. Boeings CEO admitted that the
overriding factor for moving work to South Carolina was the
employees strike activity. Moreover, to reinforce the
message to unit employees, he intimated that the continuation
of any work in Washington was contingent on the stability of
the production lines, a veiled threat designed to coerce
employees to abstain from future strikes. Nor could Boeing
credibly blame the 787 production delays on employees 2008
strike activity, which halted production for approximately two
months. Rather, the delay resulted primarily from its own
business decision to outsource the manufacture of the aircraft
components to various suppliers and from unexpected software
problems.
Further, the fact that it made little practical sense to
locate this second line in South Carolina, despite a two-and-
a-half-year delay in the production of its new 787 aircraft,
rather than its existing facilities in Washington, supports a
finding of unlawful motivation. While South Carolina would
not be ready for production for two years because of the need
for substantial capital improvements and the hiring and
training of a new workforce, Washington was already up and
running, with the space, the necessary equipment, and a
significant complement of trained employees.
On these facts, we conclude that the Region should issue
a complaint alleging: independent violations of Section
8(a)(1) based upon Boeings coercive and threatening
statements to employees on the intranet and through the media;
and a violation of Section 8(a)(3) based upon Boeings
decision to place the second line in South Carolina and to
establish a dual-sourcing supply program in order to retaliate
against the unit employees for engaging in protected Union
activity. We would also argue, in the alternative, that
Boeings actions were inherently destructive of employee
rights. But the Region should dismiss the Section 8(a)(5)
allegations because the Union waived its right to bargain
about Boeings decision to offload unit work to a facility not
covered by the parties agreement. Finally, to remedy the
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) violations, the Region should seek: a
notice reading by a high-level Boeing official in addition to
the traditional remedies; and an order requiring Boeing to
assemble in the Puget Sound area the first ten 787 aircraft
that it produces each month and to maintain the supply lines
for those aircraft in the Puget Sound and Portland facilities.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001415

Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -

I. The Employer Violated Section 8(a)(1)

The Supreme Court long ago delineated the line between


employer speech protected under Section 8(c) of the Act and
threats of reprisals violative of Section 8(a)(1).5
The Court
ruled in Gissel that an employer may make a prediction as to
the effects of unionization but that prediction must be
carefully phrased on the basis of objective fact to convey an
employers belief as to demonstrably probable consequences
beyond his control[.]6
On the other hand, threats of
economic reprisal to be taken solely on [the employers] own
volition violate Section 8(a)(1).7
In General Electric Company, the Board applied the Gissel
test to set aside an election because the employer threatened
a long-term loss of work based on the possibility of a strike
at some future time.8
Faced with a union organizing drive,
the employer gave multiple speeches touting its two-source
supplier strategy.9
The employer stated that it had
established its nonunion plant so that customers could get the
motors they needed during the seven strikes at its union
plant. The employer also made clear that the plants nonunion
status was the reason it had experienced a rise in
employment.10
And the employer conveyed the message that the
plant remaining nonunion was an important, if not a decisive,
factor in any company decision to choose that plant as a
second manufacturing facility for the new motor the employer
planned to introduce.11
The Board concluded that although the
employer might want to insure itself against production
interruptions caused by employee concerted activity, no such
insurance is legally possible, for the simple reason that
employees have a federally protected right to engage in such
activity.12
The Board expressly distinguished an employers
right to take defensive action when threatened with an

5
See

NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969).

6
Ibid.
7
Id. 8
See 9
See 10
See 11
See 12
See

at 619 (citation omitted).


215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
id. at 520.
id. at 520-21.
id. at 521.
id. at 522.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001416

Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -

imminent strike from threats to transfer work merely because


of the possibility of a strike at some speculative future
date.13
The Board repeatedly has held that an employer violates
Section 8(a)(1) by threatening to withhold work opportunities
because of the exercise of Section 7 rights.14
Thus, telling
employees that they will lose their jobs if they join a strike
violates Section 8(a)(1).15
Similarly, in Kroger Co., the
employer unlawfully threatened to put its plan to build a new
freezer facility for its distribution center on hold because
of intraunion unrest and labor disputes.16
Further, where an employer unconditionally predicts a
loss of customers due to unionization or strike disruptions
without any factual basis, its predictions amount to
unlawful threats.17
Rather, an employers predictions of
customer disaffection must be based on objective facts.18
Thus, in Curwood, Inc., an employer lawfully related its

13
See

id. at 522, fn. 6.

14
See,

e.g., Kroger Co., 311 NLRB 1187, 1200 (1993), affd.


th
mem. 50 F.3d 1037 (11
Cir. 1995); General Electric Co., 321
NLRB 662, fn. 5 (1996), enf. denied 117 F.3d 627 (D.C. Cir.
1997).
Corp., 326 NLRB 1262, 1265 (1998). See also Dorsey
Trailers, Inc., 327 NLRB 835, 851 (1999), enfd. in pertinent
th
part 233 F.3d 831 (4
Cir. 2000) (threat to close the plant if
the employees went out on strike).

15
Aelco

16
311

NLRB at 1200. See also General Electric Co., 321 NLRB


at 662, fn. 5 (employer conveyed to employees that
unionization could result in the withholding of further
investment in the plant or its closure).
e.g., Tawas Industries, 336 NLRB 318, 321 (2001) (no
objective basis for prediction that customers, fearing
strikes, would not give their business to the employer if the
employees independent union affiliated with the UAW);
Tradewaste Incineration, 336 NLRB 902, 907-08 (2001)
(prediction that 90% of the customers would not deal with a
union facility because of fear of a work stoppage was not
based on objective facts); Debbie Reynolds Hotel, 332 NLRB
466, 466 (2000) (no factual basis for statements about having
to move productions and equipment elsewhere because customers
would not be able to afford employers facilities if employees
unionized).
Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).

17
See,

18
Curwood,

NLRB-FOIA-U00001417

Case 19-CA-32431
- 16 -

customers concerns about strikes, where the employer produced


written inquiries from customers seeking information about its
contingency plans in the event of a strike.19
An employer may
also reference the possibility that unionization, including
strikes, might harm relationships with consumers, as opposed
to predicting unavoidable consequences.20
Here, the Union has alleged that several statements by
Boeing officials violated Section 8(a)(1). Some statements
were posted by Boeing on its website or intranet. Others were
reprinted in newspaper articles as direct quotes; although
such a quotation is hearsay, it would be admissible as an
admission (an exception to the hearsay rule), if the reporter
testifies.21
By contrast, reporter summaries cannot form the
basis for a Section 8(a)(1) violation. And statements
recounted by political figures within newspaper articles are
in effect double hearsay and inherently unreliable.
Based on these principles, we find that the following
constitute unlawful threats under the Gissel standard:
(1) Boeing posted its quarterly earnings conference call
on its intranet for employees on October 21. During the call,
CEO McNerney made an extended statement about diversifying
our labor pool and moving work to South Carolina because of
strikes happening every three or four years in Puget
Sound.22
His comments were indistinguishable from the
comments regarding a two-source supplier strategy found
violative in General Electric.23
(2) Boeings October 28 memo to managers advised them to
inform employees that it decided to locate the second line in
South Carolina in order to reduce vulnerability to delivery
disruptions caused by, among other things, strikes. The
thrust of Boeings message to employees was that Boeing had

19
See

id. 339 NLRB at 1137.

20
E.g.,

Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc., 342 NLRB


1074, 1075-76 (2004) (employer did not predict unavoidable
consequences).

21
Cf.

Sheet Metal Workers Local 15 (Brandon Regional Medical


Center), 346 NLRB 199, 201-02 (2006), enf. denied on other
grounds 491 F.3d 429 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (newspaper report of
party admission is inadmissible hearsay because the reporter
was not available for cross-examination).
same comments were quoted in the Seattle Times.

22
These 23
See

215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).

NLRB-FOIA-U00001418

Case 19-CA-32431
- 17 -

removed jobs from Puget Sound because employees had struck and
that they would lose work if they struck again.24
(3) In articles that appeared in the Seattle Times and
the Puget Sound Business Journal on December 7 and 8
respectively, Boeing officials attributed the plan to use a
dual-sourcing system and contract separate suppliers for the
South Carolina line to past strikes and implicitly threatened
the loss of future work opportunities in the event of future
strikes.25
(4) In a video-taped interview on March 2, Boeing
Commercial Airplanes CEO Albaugh expressly attributed the
Employers decision to locate the second line in South
Carolina to employee strikes and threatened the loss of future
work opportunities in retaliation for such protected
activity.26
The above statements, disseminated through various
channels to unionized and nonunionized employees nationwide,
drove home the message: union activity could cost them their
jobs, while a decision to reject union representation could
bring those jobs to their communities.

II. The Employer Violated Section 8(a)(3)

The Employers decision to locate the second 787 line at


a nonunion facility and to establish a dual-sourcing program
to support that line violated Section 8(a)(3) because the
Employer acted in retaliation for the employees Union
activity and not for a legitimate business reason.
Initially, despite Boeings assertions that its decision
to locate a second 787 assembly line in South Carolina will
not adversely impact any current unit employees, there is no
question that the decision will direct work away from Puget
Sound employees with consequent adverse effects. Instead of

24
The

Region should insure that this message was communicated


to employees.

25
The

authors of these articles will need to testify. If


they resist testifying, and it becomes necessary to seek
subpoena enforcement, the Region should contact Advice.
President Kights video-taped comments that Boeings
customers could not live with this triennial disruption and
that Boeing was looking to insure production continuity
cannot be alleged as an independent violation because they
were first posted on Boeings website on September 2, outside
the Section 10(b) period.

26
Vice

NLRB-FOIA-U00001419

Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -

assembling all of the 787 planes in Washington as originally


planned, once the second line opens in South Carolina, a
significant portion of the remaining 787 orders will be filled
by planes produced in North Charlestown. Future work
opportunities will be lost for employees on the surge line,
as well as unit employees waiting to transfer into the more
desirable 787 jobs. There are likely to be transfers to
older, less desirable aircraft assembly lines, demotions, and
layoffs. Moreover, Boeings adoption of its new dual-
sourcing program means that the Puget Sound and Portland unit
employees will produce parts only for planes assembled in
Washington and not for those planes assembled in South
Carolina, also causing the loss of employment opportunities
for unit employees and the likelihood of demotions and
layoffs. If no unit employees have been harmed yet, it is
merely because Boeings retaliatory decision has not yet been
implemented.
Recently, in Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co., the
Board expressly reaffirmed that an actual financial loss is
not necessary to establish a Section 8(a)(3) violation.27
In
that case, the employer revised its bonus policy in
retaliation for the employees use of contractual memorial
days to engage in work stoppages. Even though no employees
thereafter suffered a diminution of their bonuses, the Board
found a Section 8(a)(3) violation based upon the employers
retaliatory motive.28
Moreover, the Board specifically has held that an
employer may not, for unlawfully motivated reasons, divert
unit work to a nonunion plant even where there is no immediate
impact on unit employees.29
In Adair Standish Corp., the
employer refused to take delivery of a new press ordered for
its newly-organized Standish plant and installed it instead at
its nonunion plant. The Board noted that diversion of the
press from Standish could reasonably result in diversion of
new work from Standish and therefore violated Section 8(a)(3)
even though there was no immediate impact on the unit
employees.30
Similarly, in Cold Heading Co., the employer
unlawfully relocated equipment to a newly-purchased nonunion
facility and changed its plans to install new equipment in its

27
See

355 NLRB No. 197, slip op. at 5, fn. 8 (2010).

28
Ibid.
29
See

Adair Standish Corp., 290 NLRB 317, 318-19 (1988), enfd


th
in pertinent part 912 F.2d 854 (6
Cir. 1990).
id. at 319.

30
See

NLRB-FOIA-U00001420

Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -

union facility after its employees independent union


representative sought to affiliate with the UAW.31
Here, as in Adair Standish and Cold Heading, there is a
diversion of unit work that the unit employees otherwise would
have performed. And as in Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co.,
the fact that unit employees may not yet have experienced the
financial impact of Boeings decision is no defense to a
Section 8(a)(3) violation.
Further, Boeing made this decision for unlawful reasons.
Boeing admits that the overriding factor in its decision to
place the second line in a nonunion facility was the
employees strike history. An employers discouragement of
its employees participation in a legitimate strike
constitutes discouragement of union membership within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3).32
This applies to employer
conduct designed to retaliate against employees for having
engaged in a strike in the past,33
as well as employer conduct
designed to forestall employees from exercising their right to
strike in the future.34
Indeed, the Board recently reaffirmed
that an employer violates the Act when it acts to prevent
future protected activity.35
Comparing such conduct to the

332 NLRB 956, fn. 5, 975-76 (2000). See also


Associated Constructors, 325 NLRB 998, 998-1000 (1998), enfd.
sub nom. ODovero v. NLRB, 193 F.3d 532 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
(double-breasted employer unlawfully diverted work from its
union entity to its nonunion entity in retaliation for the
unions efforts to organize the nonunion entity and to escape
the collective-bargaining agreement).

32
Capehorn 33
See

31
See

Industry, 336 NLRB 364, 365 (2001).

id. at 365-67 (employer violated Section 8(a)(3) by


failing to immediately reinstate strikers upon unconditional
offer to return to work where there was no legitimate business
justification for entering into a permanent subcontract).

Century Air Freight, 284 NLRB 730, 732 (1987) (employer


violated Section 8(a)(3) by permanently subcontracting unit
work and discharging unit employees in order to forestall the
exercise of their right to strike); Westpac Electric, 321 NLRB
1322, 1374 (1996) (employer violated Section 8(a)(3) by
isolating employee in retaliation for his previous striking
activities and also in anticipation that he would participate
in a strike in the future).

35
See

34
See

Parexel International, LLC, 356 NLRB No. 82, slip op.


at 4 and cases cited therein (2011) (employer violated Section

NLRB-FOIA-U00001421

Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -

erection of a dam at the source of supply of potential,


protected activity, the Board reasoned that, the suppression
of future protected activity is exactly what lies at the heart
of most unlawful retaliation against past protected
activity.36
Boeing concedes that it is removing work from the unit
employees based upon their past exercise of their right to
strike. However, Boeing relies upon the Supreme Courts
decision in NLRB v. Brown Food Store37
to argue that it is
privileged to move work outside the unit to avoid the
disruptive consequences of future strikes and that this is a
sufficient business justification to permit its actions.
In Brown Food Store, the Court held that an employer was
privileged to lock out its employees and use temporary
replacements to carry on its business in the face of a whipsaw
strike.38
Specifically, the Court found that the use of a
lockout and the hiring of temporary replacements to bring
pressure to bear in support of its bargaining position after
an impasse in negotiations was not an unfair labor practice.39
Rather than finding the use of this economic weapon
discriminatory, the Court concluded that it was a legitimate
defensive measure to preserve the multiemployer group in the
face of a whipsaw strike.40
Boeings attempt to extend the holding of Brown to
legitimatize any action that an employer takes to protect
itself against future, wholly speculative, strikes would
vitiate the Section 13 right to strike. And the Board has
made it clear that an employer cannot rely upon Brown to
justify discriminatory conduct based upon the exercise of the
right to strike. Thus, in National Fabricators, the Board
expressly rejected the employers attempt to use Brown and
other lockout cases to justify its decision to lay off those
employees who were likely to honor a union picket line in the

8(a)(1) by discharging an employee to prevent her from


discussing wages with other employees).

36
Ibid. 37
380 38
See 39
See 40
See

(citation omitted).

U.S. 278 (1965).


id. at 283-85.
id. at 284.
ibid.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001422

Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -

future.41
Instead, the Board found that disfavoring employees
who were likely to engage in protected union activities was
proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and the employers business
justification - to avoid investing money in employees who
were going to cease work later -- was neither legitimate nor
substantial.42
Boeings concession that choosing South Carolina will
result in duplication and economic inefficiencies further
demonstrates that Boeings actions were retaliatory and not a
legitimate business decision. In addition, Commercial
Airplanes CEO Albaugh conceded that going to South Carolina,
a green field site, involves significant risks. Boeing has
the capacity, equipment, and trained workforce to handle the
second assembly line in the Puget Sound area. The substantial
investment required to build and equip the South Carolina
facility therefore will be duplicative. In addition, Boeing
will have to recruit and train a new workforce in South
Carolina, while ultimately laying off experienced employees in
Washington. Exaggerating the disruptive effects of prior
strikes, Boeing maintains that the inefficiencies associated
with moving work to South Carolina will be counterbalanced by
the avoidance of strike disruptions in the future. However,
there are other nonretaliatory and less costly means of
dealing with the potential of relatively short disruptions
caused by employee strikes, such as concluding negotiations
with the Union for a long-term no-strike agreement. In
addition, Boeings claim that it took this action to avoid
strike disruptions is belied by Boeings rejection of the
Unions efforts to negotiate a long-term no strike agreement.
Accordingly, the Region should proceed on the theory that
Boeing violated Section 8(a)(3) by retaliating against the
unit employees for engaging in the protected activity of
striking.
We also conclude that Boeings conduct was inherently
destructive of employee interests.43
Conduct is inherently
destructive when it carries with it unavoidable
consequences which the employer not only foresaw but which he
must have intended and thus bears its own indicia of

41
See

295 NLRB 1095, 1095 (1989), enfd. 903 F.2d 396 (5


1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
295 NLRB at 1095-96.

th

Cir.

42
See 43
See

NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26, 33


(1967) (citation omitted).

NLRB-FOIA-U00001423

Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -

intent.44
In International Paper Co., the Board set forth
four fundamental guiding principles for determining whether
employer conduct is inherently destructive of employee
rights.45
First, the Board looks to the severity of the harm
to employees Section 7 rights. Second, the Board considers
the temporal impact of the employers conduct, i.e. whether
the conduct merely influences the outcome of a particular
dispute or whether it has far reaching effects which would
hinder future bargaining. Third, the Board distinguishes
between conduct intended to support an employers bargaining
position as opposed to conduct demonstrating hostility to the
process of collective bargaining. And finally, the Board
assesses whether the employees conduct discourages collective
bargaining by making it seem a futile exercise in the eyes of
the employees.46
Even if the employees conduct is
inherently destructive, the Board weighs the employers
asserted business justification against the invasion of
employee rights.47
Boeings actions were inherently destructive of employee
rights under the four principles articulated in International
Paper. First, the harm to employees Section 7 rights was
severe; employees got the distinct message that if they engage
in another strike, unit work will be moved to a nonunion
facility and unit jobs will be lost. Second, Boeings
decision was designed to have far-reaching effects and not
just to influence the outcome of a particular dispute, namely,
to take away employee support for the Unions most effective
economic weapon, and for the Union itself, and thereby hinder
any future collective bargaining. Third, Boeings conduct
demonstrated hostility to the very process of collective
bargaining and not just to support a specific bargaining
position. Finally, bargaining was made to seem a futile

44
Ibid.,

quoting NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U.S. 221,


228, 231 (1963). See also Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 327 NLRB
835, 863-64 (1999), enf. denied in pertinent part 233 F.3d 831
th
(4
Cir. 2000).
319 LRB 1253, 1269 (1995), enf. denied 115 F.3d 1045
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
at 1269-70 (citations omitted).

45
See

46
Id. 47
Id.

at 1273 (finding no justification for employers


inherently destructive conduct of permanently subcontracting
bargaining unit work during a lawful lockout). See also
Dorsey Trailers, 327 NLRB at 863-64 (employers closing of
facility during strike and relocation of unit work to newly
purchased facility outside the unions jurisdiction was
inherently destructive of employee rights).

NLRB-FOIA-U00001424

Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -

exercise without the possibility of a strike to support the


Unions position at the bargaining table.
The unavoidable consequence of Boeings decision to place
the second line in its newly-purchased, nonunion facility,
accompanied by official comments on the intranet and in the
media, was to severely chill its employees exercise of
Section 7 rights in the future - whether it be the Puget
Sound employees, the South Carolina employees, or Boeing
employees elsewhere. Employees will correctly fear that
engaging in such protected activity could cause them to lose
their jobs to nonunionized workers. Others may be encouraged
to file or support decertification petitions. And the many
unrepresented Boeing employees will be discouraged from
organizing or voting in support of union representation if
they believe that exercising their right to concerted activity
justifies moving commercial production elsewhere.
Moreover, even if the effect on employee rights was only
comparatively slight, Boeing had no legitimate business
justification. Its only justification was its desire to insure
against its employees exercise of their Section 7 rights, and
that is not a legitimate justification.
The Board recently held in Arc Bridges, Inc. that an
employers conduct was inherently destructive where its stated
reason for withholding a regularly-scheduled wage increase
from represented employees was that it was in negotiations
with the union.48
The Board found that the employers stated
reason - that it wanted to enhance its bargaining position
with the union -- was an admission that it withheld the
increase because employees chose union representation.49
Likewise, Boeings stated reason for its decision - that it
wanted to avoid strike disruptions - was an admission that it
decided to locate the second line in South Carolina because
the Puget Sound employees chose union representation and the
South Carolina employees did not. Accordingly, Boeings
decision coupled with its public pronouncements emphasizing
the motivation for its decision was inherently destructive of
its employees rights to engage in union activity and violated
Section 8(a)(3).

III. The Union Waived its Right to Bargain

The Unions allegation that Boeing failed to bargain in


good faith over its decision as to where to locate the second
787 line raises two preliminary issues: (1) whether Boeings
decision was a mandatory subject of bargaining; and (2) if so,

48
See 49
See

355 NLRB No. 199, slip op. at 3-4 (2010).


id., slip op. at 3.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001425

Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -

whether the Union waived its right to bargain over that


subject. Although we conclude that the decision was a
mandatory subject of bargaining and there is substantial
evidence that Boeing did not bargain in good faith to a valid
impasse, the Region should dismiss the Section 8(a)(5)
allegations on the ground that the Union waived it right to
bargain, applying Provena.50

A. Mandatory Subject of Bargaining

Under Dubuque Packing Co., a decision to relocate unit


work that is not accompanied by a basic change in the
employers operation is a mandatory subject of bargaining
unless the employer can establish that: the work performed at
the new location varies significantly from the work performed
at the prior location; the work performed at the former
location is discontinued entirely and not moved to the new
location; or the employers decision involved a change in the
enterprises scope and direction.51
Alternatively, the
employer can defend by showing that: labor costs were not a
factor in the decision; or if labor costs were a factor, the
union could not have offered sufficient concessions to change
the employers decision.52
Applying the Dubuque test, the
Board repeatedly has found relocation decisions to constitute
a mandatory subject of bargaining.53
In addition, the Board has held that a decision may be a
mandatory subject even though there is no immediate loss of
unit jobs.54
For example, in Quickway Transportation, Inc.,

50
Provena 51
303

St. Joseph Medical Center, 350 NLRB 808 (2007).

NLRB 386, 391 (1991), enfd. sub nom. Food & Commercial
Workers Local 150-A v. NLRB, 1 F.3d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

52
Ibid.
53
See,

e.g., Titan Tire Corp., 333 NLRB 1156, 1164-65 (2001)


(decision to permanently relocate equipment and jobs in
reaction to strike); Owens-Brockway Plastic Products, 311 NLRB
519, 521-23 (1993) (decision to close plant and transfer work
to other facilities).

54
See,

e.g., Overnite Transportation Co., 330 NLRB 1275, 1276


(2000), revd. mem. 248 F.3d 1131 (3d Cir. 2000) (We think it
plain that the bargaining unit is adversely affected whenever
bargaining unit work is given away to nonunion employees,
regardless of whether the work would otherwise have been
performed by employees already in the unit or by new
employees).

NLRB-FOIA-U00001426

Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -

the Board found that the employers decision to contract with


independent owner-operators rather than expand the unit, as it
had originally planned, was mandatory because that decision
obviously constrained the work opportunities available to the
bargaining unit.55
Likewise, in Spurlino Materials, LLC, the
Administrative Law Judge, in a decision adopted by the Board,
found that even though no unit employees suffered a loss of
work as a result of the employers subcontracting, existing
employees might have otherwise been given overtime or the
employer might have hired additional unit employees, resulting
in benefits for the Union and current unit employees in having
an expanded unit.56
And in Dorsey Trailers, Inc., the Board
found that subcontracting work to reduce a backlog in orders
was a mandatory subject because the potential loss of
overtime or reasonably anticipated work opportunities poses a
detriment to unit employees even if no employees lost their
jobs.57
Here, the decision to locate the second 787 assembly line
in South Carolina amounted to a relocation of unit work. Even
though no unit employees have yet to lose work, as in Dorsey
Trailers the assignment of unit work to nonunit employees in
order to reduce an order backlog presents a potential loss of
overtime or reasonably anticipated work opportunities and
therefore poses a detriment to unit employees.58
The work
that will be performed in South Carolina is identical to that
performed on the first line and the surge line in Everett by
unit employees. The decision did not involve a basic change
in Boeings operation or any change in the enterprises scope
or direction; Boeing does not intend to change its production
methods or its products.59
Boeing did not demonstrate that
labor costs were not a factor in the decision. In fact,
according to Boeings CEO, the decision was motivated
primarily by a desire to avoid strikes and secondarily because
the Employer cannot afford the rate at which unit wages are
escalating. Boeing also did not demonstrate that the Union
could not have offered sufficient concessions to change its

55
See

355 NLRB No. 140 (2010), incorporating by reference the


rationale of 354 NLRB No. 80, slip op. at 2 (2009).

56
See

355 NLRB No. 77 (2010), incorporating by reference the


rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).

57
See

321 NLRB 616, 617 (1996), enf. denied in relevant part


134 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998). Accord Acme Die Casting, 315
NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 (1994).
321 NLRB at 617.
Owens-Brockway Plastic Products, 311 NLRB at 522.

58
See 59
See

NLRB-FOIA-U00001427

Case 19-CA-32431
- 26 -

decision; the Union the strike and wage 2009. Accordingly, where to locate the bargaining.

B.

was willing to make concessions on both


issues during negotiations in the fall of
we conclude that Boeings decision as to
second 787 line was a mandatory subject of

Waiver of the Right to Bargain

The Board applies a clear and unmistakable waiver


standard to determine whether a union has waived its right to
bargain about a mandatory subject of bargaining during the
term of a collective-bargaining agreement.60
The Board will
find a waiver if the contract either expressly or by
necessary implication confers on management a right to
unilaterally take the action in question.61
In interpreting
the parties agreement, the relevant factors include: (1) the
wording of pertinent contractual provisions; (2) the parties
bargaining history; and (3) the parties past practice.62
The Board has found a waiver based on contract language
where there is an express reference to the specific type of
decision that the employer has implemented unilaterally.63
Thus, in Ingham Regional Medical Center, the Board adopted an
Administrative Law Judges decision that the union waived its
right to bargain about a subcontracting decision where the
contractual management-rights clause expressly reserved to
management the right to use outside assistance or engage
independent contractors to perform any of the Employers
operations or phases thereof (subcontracting)[.]64
This
right was vested exclusively in the Employer and was not

60
See 61
See 62
See

Provena St. Joseph Medical Center, 350 NLRB at 810-11.


id. at 812, fn. 19.

Johnson-Bateman Co., 295 NLRB 180, 184-89 (1989) (no


waiver of right to bargain about drug/alcohol testing
requirement where the management rights clause was generally
worded, issue was not fully discussed and consciously
explored during negotiations, and past practice of union
acquiescence to other unilateral work rule changes did not
waive the right to bargain about such changes for all time).
e.g., Ingham Regional Medical Center, 342 NLRB 1259,
1261-62 (2004) (under the management-rights clause, the
employer expressly reserved the right to subcontract); Allison
Corp., 330 NLRB 1363, 1364-65 (2000) (management-rights clause
specifically, precisely, and plainly granted the employer
the exclusive right ... to subcontract).

63
See,

64
See

342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001428

Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -

subject to arbitration.65
Although another contractual
provision required the employer to provide 60 days notice and
discuss with the union any subcontracting decision that
would cause unit employees to be laid off, the words discuss
and bargain were found not synonymous in the parties
contract.66
In this case, Section 21.7 of the parties agreement
specifically, precisely, and plainly67
granted Boeing the
right to offload work to a facility not covered by the
agreement. As in Ingham Regional Medical Center, the other
provisions of Section 21.7 that required Boeing to provide the
Union notice and an opportunity to review and recommend
alternatives did not require the Employer to bargain over an
offloading decision.
The Union does not dispute that Section 21.7 contains a
waiver but asserts instead that the Employer may not take
advantage of the waiver. Specifically, the Union maintains
that a contractual waiver cannot be applied to a decision that
is unlawfully motivated. But there is no authority for the
proposition that an unlawful motive negates a contractual
waiver; rather, the cases on which the Region and Union rely
hold that a contractual waiver is no defense to a Section
8(a)(3) violation.68
The Unions other arguments against application of the
waiver are also unavailing. Thus, the Union asserts that the
contractual waiver does not apply because the parties entered
negotiations for a new contract. However, during those mid-
term negotiations, their existing contract -- including
Section 21.7 -- continued in effect. The Union also contends

65
Id. 66
Id. 67
See 68
See

at 1260.
at 1262.
Allison Corp., 330 NLRB at 1365.

Reno Hilton, 326 NLRB 1421, 1430 (1998), enfd. 196 F.3d
1275 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (merely because the Respondent has
negotiated the unfettered right in a collective-bargaining
agreement to contract out work at any time, such right ...
does not unfetter and insulate the Respondent from the
sanctions of the Act prohibiting it from discriminating); RGC
th
(USA) Mineral Sands, Inc. v. NLRB, 281 F.3d 442, 450 (4
Cir.
2002) (enforcing Board decision finding Section 8(a)(3)
violation on grounds that, even if contract authorized
employer to unilaterally alter shift assignments, an employer
cannot exercise contractual rights to punish employees for
protected activity).

NLRB-FOIA-U00001429

Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -

that the waiver cannot extend to work transferred after the


contracts expiration in September 2012, but Boeing made its
final decision in 2009 and expects to open the second line in
South Carolina in mid 2011.69
The Unions estoppel argument
also lacks merit. While Boeing took the position that the
notice and review provisions in Article 21.7 did not apply
because no employees will be laid off, Boeing is not thereby
estopped from asserting the waiver provision.
Moreover, Boeings request to negotiate mid-term changes
to the parties agreement did not subject it to the
traditional Section 8(a)(5) bargaining obligations.70
Absent
a contractual reopener provision, parties are under no
obligation to bargain over proposals for mid-term
modifications.71
For this reason, we do not reach the
question of whether Boeing engaged in surface bargaining in
the fall of 2009, bargained to a valid impasse, or unlawfully
failed to provide information relevant to those negotiations.

IV. The Appropriate Remedy

We conclude that special remedies must be fashioned in


the unusual circumstances of this case.
First, with respect to the Section 8(a)(1) violations,
which had a particularly chilling impact upon employees, the
Region should seek a notice reading by a high-level Boeing
official, to insure that employees learn about their statutory
if there is a duty to bargain over a relocation
decision, it arises when the decision is announced and not
when it is ultimately implemented. See, e.g., Bell Atlantic
Corp., 336 NLRB 1076, 1086-89 (2001) (union waived right to
bargain over employers decision to close facility and
transfer work to nonunion facility where it received notice of
decision in August and did not request bargaining until
December, even though no unit work would be relocated before
the following April).

70
See 69
Thus,

St. Barnabas Medical Center, 341 NLRB 1325, 1325 (2004)


(union did not incur traditional bargaining obligations by
requesting that employer meet to discuss feasibility of wage
reopener, and employer violated Section 8(a)(5) by
unilaterally implementing wage increases after an impasse in
those negotiations).
Boeing Co., 337 NLRB 758, 763 (2002) (employer did not
incur bargaining obligation by agreeing to unions request to
consider midterm modification); Connecticut Power Co., 271
NLRB 766, 766-67 (Section 8(d) does not require an employer
who suggests a midterm contract change to negotiate about it).

71
See

NLRB-FOIA-U00001430

Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -

rights and gain assurance that Boeing will respect those


rights.72
The notice reading is particularly effective if
read by an official who personally committed some of the
violations, or read by a Board agent in his presence, in order
to dispel the atmosphere of intimidation he created.73
Finally, to remedy the Section 8(a)(3) violation, the
Region should seek an order requiring Boeing to maintain the
second line in Washington. At the time of the discriminatory
conduct, Boeing intended to use the second line to assemble
three 787 aircraft each month, while assembling seven 787
aircraft each month on the first line in Everett. At present,
even the first line is not producing up to capacity because of
problems with suppliers and FAA certification. Thus, the
Region should seek an order requiring that, as Boeing
production increases, the first ten aircraft assembled each

e.g., Homer D. Bronson Co., 349 NLRB 512, 515 (2007),


enfd. 273 F. Appx 32 (2d Cir. 2008) (notice reading is an
effective but moderate way to let in a warming wind of
information, and more important, reassurance); Federated
Logistics & Operations, 340 NLRB 255, 258 (2003), affd. 400
F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (employees will perceive that the
Respondent and its managers are bound by the requirements of
the Act).

73
Three

72
See,

Sisters Sportswear Co., 312 NLRB 853, 853 (1993),


enfd. mem. 55 F3d 684 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S.
1093 (1996). See also, e.g., Homer D. Bronson Co., 349 NLRB
at 515 (reading by president of manufacturing, who personally
delivered speeches threatening plant closure or relocation);
Texas Super Foods, 303 NLRB 209, 209 (1991) notice reading by
owner and president who signed unlawful letters to unit
employees, drafted unlawful speech threatening job losses, and
personally gave the speech to at least two groups of
employees).

NLRB-FOIA-U00001431

Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -

month be assembled by the Puget Sound unit employees and that


the supply lines for these aircraft be maintained in the Puget
Sound and Portland facilities.74

B.J.K.

ROFs - 9
H:ADV.19-CA-32431.Response2.Boeing.dlw

74
At

this time, we do not reach a decision on the Unions


request for preliminary injunctive relief. The Region should
reassess whether Section 10(j) relief is warranted after the
case is tried before the Administrative Law Judge. In the
meantime, the Region should put evidence in the record
regarding the chilling impact of Boeings violative statements
and conduct to support the notice-reading remedy. This will
facilitate use of the administrative record to demonstrate in
a subsequent Section 10(j) proceeding that preliminary
injunctive relief is just and proper.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001432

United States Government

National Labor Relations Board

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

The Boeing Company, an international corporation


engaged primarily in developing and producing military and
commercial aircraft, has a long-established collective-
bargaining relationship with the International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) and certain IAM
District and Local Lodges, covering production and
maintenance employees in Washington, Oregon, and Kansas.
This case involves Boeings transfer of work from its
unionized workforce in Washington to a new, nonunion
facility in South Carolina because union employees in
Washington had exercised their right to strike, a right
protected by the National Labor Relations Act.
Historically, the Washington employees have performed
the final assembly of all Boeing planes. In late 2003,
Boeing announced that it would place the assembly line for
its new 787 Dreamliner airplane in Everett, Washington
after the Washington State Legislature passed a tax and
subsidy incentive package totaling more than $3.2 billion.
That line opened in May 2007, with the capacity for
producing seven planes each month.
With the 787, Boeing departed from its previous
practice of manufacturing most of the aircraft parts with
its own employees and instead outsourced parts production
to other suppliers in the southeast U.S. and abroad.
Boeing repeatedly has had to postpone the delivery dates
for the aircraft, due primarily to problems with suppliers
and software issues. As a result, sometime in late 2008 or
early 2009, Boeing determined that it would have to
establish a second assembly line.
Meanwhile, in the fall of 2008, after negotiations for
a successor collective-bargaining agreement broke down, the
Union struck for approximately two months until the parties
were able to agree on a new contract. countenance further strikes. Thereafter, Boeing
made clear to its unionized workforce that it would not
Time and again, in e-mails to
employees, on its intranet site, in the media, and in talks
with the Union, Boeing tied its ability to compete to the
avoidance of future strike activity.
In late July, 2009, Boeing purchased the Vought
facility in South Carolina and immediately raised the
possibility that the second line would be located in South

NLRB-FOIA-U00001433

- 2 -

Carolina.

Although that facility had been unionized, on


In mid-September, the Union lost

the date of the purchase an employee filed a


decertification petition. the decertification election and was decertified.
At the same time, Boeing officials told the Washington
unit employees that they could retain all of the 787
assembly work only by waiving their right to strike for
twenty years. If agreement could not be reached, the
The Union
The
second line would be put in South Carolina.

entered negotiations with Boeing in late September, and the


parties continued bargaining through much of October. stated concerns. Union made concessions in an effort to address Boeings
During the negotiations, Boeing applied
for the necessary permits from the South Carolina
regulatory bodies, and as soon as the South Carolina
legislature approved financial incentives for Boeing on
October 27, Boeing called off negotiations and announced
its decision.
Thus, on October 28, Boeing announced that it would
locate the second 787 assembly line in South Carolina.
Boeing also stated that it intended to build a surge line
in Everett - a temporary second assembly line that would
be phased out once the South Carolina line was up and
running. In addition, on December 3, Boeing announced that
it would create a dual-sourcing program and contract
separate suppliers for the South Carolina assembly line.
As a result, unionized employees in Washington and Oregon
who produce parts for the 787 assembly line are likely to
suffer a loss of work. Boeings CEO admitted that the
overriding factor for moving work to South Carolina was
the employees strike activity
On these facts, the Acting General Counsel issued a
complaint alleging independent violations of Section
8(a)(1) based upon Boeings statements to employees on the
intranet and through the media that drove home the message
that union activity could cost them their jobs. The Acting
General Counsels complaint further alleges a violation of
Section 8(a)(3) based upon Boeings decision to place the
second line in South Carolina and to establish a dual-
sourcing supply program in order to retaliate against
bargaining unit employees for engaging in protected Union
activity. To remedy the Section 8(a)(3) violation, the
Acting General Counsel will seek an order that would
require Boeing to maintain the surge line in Washington.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001434

- 3 -

Since Boeing intended for the second line to assemble three


aircraft each month in South Carolina, while assembling
seven planes on the first line, the Acting General Counsel
will seek an order requiring Boeing to assemble in
Washington the first ten 787 aircraft that it produces each
month and to maintain the supply lines for those aircraft
where they currently exist, in the Washington and Oregon
facilities.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001435

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Farrell, Ellen
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:59 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: time to decide
Importance: High

Exemption 5

The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00001439

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Farrell, Ellen
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:05 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:59 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: time to decide
Importance: High

Exemption 5

The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00001440

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00001441

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:09 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; W agner,
Anthony R.
RE: time to decide

Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:05 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00001442

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:59 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: time to decide
Importance: High

Exemption 5

The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00001443

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Farrell, Ellen
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:12 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.;
W agner, Anthony R.
RE: time to decide

Your best judgment is very good!


Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:09 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Wagner, Anthony R.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:05 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00001444

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:59 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: time to decide
Importance: High

Exemption 5

The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00001445

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Finch, Peter G.
Sunday, May 22, 2011 7:06 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Gov. Gregoire

Exemption 5

________________________________________
From: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 9:28 AM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise; Finch, Peter G.; Harvey, Rachel
Subject: Gov. Gregoire
News
1 new result for National labor relations board

Sunday Buzz Air show delegation will be wearing their smiley


faces<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sundaybuzz/20151
08942_sundaybuzz22.html&ct=ga&cad=CAEQARgAIAAoATAAOABA2tDi7gRIAVAAWABiAmVu&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&usg=AFQjCNEpuLlBum63N2-ce4FpFFtL1TS3tg>
The Seattle Times
Last month the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against Boeing
spurred by the Machinists. Arguing that Boeing executives chose to locate a second production
line for the 787 Dreamliner in North Charleston, SC, ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://news.google.com/news/story%3Fncl%3Dhttp://seattleti
mes.nwsource.com/html/sundaybuzz/2015108942_sundaybuzz22.html%26hl%3Den%26geo%3Dus&ct=ga&cad=
CAEQARgAIAAoBjAAOABA2tDi7gRIAVAAWABiAmVu&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&usg=AFQjCNE0dh9Gzip45z_9_uqGq6YjYsVlPw>

________________________________
Tip: Use quotes ("like this") around a set of words in your query to match them exactly.
Learn
more<http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=136861&hl=en&source=alertsm
ail&cd=We-Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE>.
Remove<http://www.google.com/alerts/remove?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&s=AB2Xq4ixgae4U9XJPW
N_8lOOaVEEbn_MHk9Cwtg&cd=We-Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> this alert.
Create<http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> another alert.
Manage<http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> your alerts.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001451

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Sunday, May 22, 2011 11:52 PM
Finch, Peter G.
Re: Gov. Gregoire

Right on!
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message -----


From: Finch, Peter G.
To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Sun May 22 19:05:47 2011
Subject: RE: Gov. Gregoire

Exemption 5

________________________________________
From: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 9:28 AM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise; Finch, Peter G.; Harvey, Rachel
Subject: Gov. Gregoire
News
1 new result for National labor relations board

Sunday Buzz Air show delegation will be wearing their smiley


faces<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sundaybuzz/20151
08942_sundaybuzz22.html&ct=ga&cad=CAEQARgAIAAoATAAOABA2tDi7gRIAVAAWABiAmVu&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&usg=AFQjCNEpuLlBum63N2-ce4FpFFtL1TS3tg>
The Seattle Times
Last month the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint against Boeing
spurred by the Machinists. Arguing that Boeing executives chose to locate a second production
line for the 787 Dreamliner in North Charleston, SC, ...
See all stories on this topic
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://news.google.com/news/story%3Fncl%3Dhttp://seattleti
mes.nwsource.com/html/sundaybuzz/2015108942_sundaybuzz22.html%26hl%3Den%26geo%3Dus&ct=ga&cad=
CAEQARgAIAAoBjAAOABA2tDi7gRIAVAAWABiAmVu&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&usg=AFQjCNE0dh9Gzip45z_9_uqGq6YjYsVlPw>

________________________________
Tip: Use quotes ("like this") around a set of words in your query to match them exactly.
Learn
more<http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=136861&hl=en&source=alertsm
ail&cd=We-Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE>.
Remove<http://www.google.com/alerts/remove?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&s=AB2Xq4ixgae4U9XJPW
N_8lOOaVEEbn_MHk9Cwtg&cd=We-Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> this alert.
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00001452

Create<http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> another alert.
Manage<http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> your alerts.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001453

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Solomon, Lafe E.
W ednesday, April 20, 2011 9:14 AM
Schiff, Robert; Garza, Jose
Boeing call log
Boeing call log-Lafe.doc; Boeing call log--Barry.doc

I have attached 2 files: one is a summary of my conversations and the other is Barry Kearneys conversation with
Boeings outside lawyer. Lafe

NLRB-FOIA-U00001456

3/18/11
Mike Luttig, Boeings GC, called me at 2 pm. He told me that he was miffed that
although he had done what I asked (gotten Boeing to agree that no unit ees would be laid
off between now and the end of the contract expiration in Sept, 2012), I was still
considering issuing complaint. I told him that the Machinists had proposed that the
parties meet for a 2-week period with a mediator and that I thought that if Boeing
accepted that offer, the parties might well reach a settlement. He told me that rather than
accept that offer, he thought that he would go to the Hill to prevent me from litigating the
case. I told him that he would have to get such a rider through the Senate. I said that I had
the CEO on tape saying that the move to SC was not because of economics but because
the Machinists strike. I said I had a triable case and that I would do whatever I thought
was right under the NLRA. But I reiterated that I thought the parties should meet and try
to reach a settlement.
3/28/11
Luttig called and I asked Barry Kearney to be on the call with me. Luttig said that Boeing
would not agree to a conversation with the Machinists with a mediator, but that he was
willing to talk to them. He said he would call them this week.
4/8/11
Senator Graham called me at 11:15 am. I was in the Museum of Modern Art in NYC and
talked to him on my cell phone. He told me that the retaliatory charge of the Machinists
against Boeing would have huge economic and political consequences. He said that the
charge would scare Boeings customers and could affect orders. He said that the political
fallout would be huge and that he was more reasonable than his Senate counterpart (Sen.
De Mint).
I explained to him that I had been trying to settle this case for the last 6 months, and I
asked for his help in getting Boeing to agree to the Machinists request for a 2-week
mediated conversation. I told him that this case had every potential to settle as Boeings
business was booming and that the parties had both indicated to me that their futures
were tied to a successful relationship in the future, but that I had been unsuccessful in
getting the parties to talk to each other, rather than to me. I also told him that I would not
be seeking the dismantling of the S.C plant and that I had made it clear to the Machinists
that that plant was here to stay.
He said that he was pessimistic that the Machinists and Boeing could work things out, but
that he never thought it was a bad idea to talk. I thanked him for being willing to help.
4/11/11
I left a message for Debbie Durkin, the aide to Senator Graham who place the call on Fri.
I received a call back from Walt Kuhn at noon. I told him that I was following up on my

NLRB-FOIA-U00001457

conversation with the Senator on Fri and that I wanted to know if he had been successful
in contacting Boeing. He said that the Senator would call me back later this week. I told
Walt that I was ready to begin the complaint process and that I could not hold it up
indefinitely. I said that I wanted to talk to the Senator today if possible, and he said that
he would see what he could do.
4/11/11
Senator Graham called me at 3 pm. He said that he had talked to Boeing, and they had no
interest in mediating the complaint, which was totally without merit. He said that he
agreed with Boeing and understood their position. He said that if a complaint was filed, it
will be nasty, very, very nasty. He said that this was a case of how not to grow the
economy. He said that we had to do what we had to do, and he had to do what he had to
do. It was up to us. He said that if complaint issued, he was going full guns a-blazing.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001458

April 14, 2011

Telephone conversation with Bill Kilberg, Boeing attorney, on Thursday,


April 7. Kilberg called me (Barry Kearney) because in an earlier conversation we
had concluded that Boeing and the Union were interested in discussing different
issues and further efforts to bring the parties together would be fruitless. At the
start of the conversation he told me that Boeing concurred that nothing more to
discuss and he understood that meant complaint was likely to issue. Kilberg said
that Boeing was going to the Hill to see if they could forestall issuing a complaint.
I said I was very disappointed to hear that. I told him the Agency realized last
October that this was a big deal and that is why we reached out to Boeing so that
they would have every opportunity to address the concerns we had about the
case. After that process I said we again reached out to Boeing to try to resolve
this before any public decision was made. We tried in good faith to work with this
situation and give Boeing every opportunity. I said it doesn't appear to account
for anything. Kilberg response was we have to do what we have to do and you
do what you have to do. The conversation ended.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001459

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Farrell, Ellen
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:59 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: time to decide
Importance: High

Exemption 5

The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00001468

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:10 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; W agner,
Anthony R.
RE: time to decide

Nancy, If you get fired, please take me with you!


Rich

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:09 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Wagner, Anthony R.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:05 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

NLRB-FOIA-U00001469

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:59 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: time to decide
Importance: High

Exemption 5

The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00001470

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Farrell, Ellen
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:12 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.;
W agner, Anthony R.
RE: time to decide

Your best judgment is very good!


Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:09 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Wagner, Anthony R.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:05 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00001471

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:59 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: time to decide
Importance: High

Exemption 5

The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00001472

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:12 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; W agner,
Anthony R.
RE: time to decide

Ditto!

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:12 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Wagner, Anthony R.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Your best judgment is very good!


Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:09 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Wagner, Anthony R.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:05 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00001473

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:59 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: time to decide
Importance: High

Exemption 5

The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00001474

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Garza, Jose
Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:56 PM
Cleeland, Nancy
Re: time to decide

Great job Nancy!!

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Wagner, Anthony R.
Sent: Thu Apr 28 18:08:46 2011
Subject: RE: time to decide

Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:05 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00001475

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:59 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: time to decide
Importance: High

Exemption 5

The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00001476

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Todd, Dianne
Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:03 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Merritt, Susannah C.
FW : 19-CA-32431

Should we talk?

From: Carson Glickman-Flora [mailto:flora@workerlaw.com]


Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:35 AM
To: Todd, Dianne
Cc: David Campbell; Jude Bryan
Subject: 19-CA-32431

Diane,
Unfortunately, Exemption 6, 7(C), (D) will not be available tomorrow as planned. We are working on getting alternative dates for his
testimony. I will keep you informed as I know more. will provide his affidavit
Exemption 6, 7(C), (D) Exemption 6, 7(C), (D) tomorrow as planned, and can provide testimony regarding
- Carson

NLRB-FOIA-U00001522

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:11 PM
Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Merritt, Susannah C.
RE: 19-CA-32431

GreatI guess Susannah can leave on time!


Should Dianne express our disappointment to Carson and our expectation rescheduling will be VERY soon and not later
than next week?
Rich

From: Todd, Dianne


Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:03 PM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Merritt, Susannah C.
Subject: FW: 19-CA-32431

Should we talk?

From: Carson Glickman-Flora [mailto:flora@workerlaw.com]


Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:35 AM
To: Todd, Dianne
Cc: David Campbell; Jude Bryan
Subject: 19-CA-32431

Diane,
Unfortunately,
Exemption 6, 7(C), ...

will not be available tomorrow as planned. We are working on getting alternative dates for his

Exemption 6, 7(C), (D)


Exemption 6, 7(C), (D)

testimony. I will keep you informed as I know more. tomorrow as planned, and can provide testimony regarding - Carson

will provide his affidavit

NLRB-FOIA-U00001523

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Todd, Dianne
Thursday, April 22, 2010 4:43 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.
RE: 19-CA-32431

Colleen and I spoke and agree Ill go ahead and email Carson.

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:11 PM
To: Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Merritt, Susannah C.
Subject: RE: 19-CA-32431

GreatI guess Susannah can leave on time!


Should Dianne express our disappointment to Carson and our expectation rescheduling will be VERY soon and not later
than next week?
Rich

From: Todd, Dianne


Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:03 PM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Merritt, Susannah C.
Subject: FW: 19-CA-32431

Should we talk?

From: Carson Glickman-Flora [mailto:flora@workerlaw.com]


Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:35 AM
To: Todd, Dianne
Cc: David Campbell; Jude Bryan
Subject: 19-CA-32431

Diane,
Unfortunately, Exemption 6,
7(C), ...

will not be available tomorrow as planned. We are working on getting alternative dates for his

testimony. I will keep you informed as I know more. tomorrow as planned, and can provide testimony regarding - Carson

Exemption 6, 7(C), (D)


Exemption 6, 7(C), (D)

will provide his affidavit


NLRB-FOIA-U00001524

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Ahearn, Richard L.
W ednesday, December 08, 2010 12:44 PM
Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne; Pomerantz, Anne; Kobe, James
FW : Boeing submission to the General Counsel
Ltr to Lafe Solomon.pdf

NLRB-FOIA-U00001530

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001531

NLRB-FOIA-U00001531

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001532

NLRB-FOIA-U00001532

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001533

NLRB-FOIA-U00001533

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001534

NLRB-FOIA-U00001534

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001535

NLRB-FOIA-U00001535

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001536

NLRB-FOIA-U00001536

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001537

NLRB-FOIA-U00001537

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001538

NLRB-FOIA-U00001538

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001539

NLRB-FOIA-U00001539

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001540

NLRB-FOIA-U00001540

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001541

NLRB-FOIA-U00001541

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001542

NLRB-FOIA-U00001542

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001543

NLRB-FOIA-U00001543

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001544

NLRB-FOIA-U00001544

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001545

NLRB-FOIA-U00001545

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001546

NLRB-FOIA-U00001546

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001547

NLRB-FOIA-U00001547

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001548

NLRB-FOIA-U00001548

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001549

NLRB-FOIA-U00001549

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001550

NLRB-FOIA-U00001550

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001551

NLRB-FOIA-U00001551

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001552

NLRB-FOIA-U00001552

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001553

NLRB-FOIA-U00001553

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001554

NLRB-FOIA-U00001554

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001555

NLRB-FOIA-U00001555

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Todd, Dianne
W ednesday, December 08, 2010 1:07 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.
RE: Boeing submission to the General Counsel
2010 12_03 Ltr to Todd.pdf

Can we meet today to discuss the Unions submission on the newest charge?
Thanks

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 9:44 AM
To: Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne; Pomerantz, Anne; Kobe, James
Subject: FW: Boeing submission to the General Counsel

NLRB-FOIA-U00001556

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001557

NLRB-FOIA-U00001557

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001558

NLRB-FOIA-U00001558

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001559

NLRB-FOIA-U00001559

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001560

NLRB-FOIA-U00001560

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001561

NLRB-FOIA-U00001561

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001562

NLRB-FOIA-U00001562

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001563

NLRB-FOIA-U00001563

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001564

NLRB-FOIA-U00001564

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001565

NLRB-FOIA-U00001565

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001566

NLRB-FOIA-U00001566

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001567

NLRB-FOIA-U00001567

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001568

NLRB-FOIA-U00001568

Arguably Ex. 4 (previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00001569

NLRB-FOIA-U00001569

Microsoft Outlook

Non-Responsive

-----Original Message-----
From: Willen, Debra L
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 4:22 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Katz, Judy; Omberg,
Bob
Subject: Haley: New SC labor chief to fight SC Boeing union - WIS News 10 - Columbia, South
Carolina |
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13636166

NLRB-FOIA-U00001573

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:56 AM
Mattina, Celeste J.

Non-Responsive

Non-Responsive

we met with the IAM in Boeing;


Warm regards,

Exemption 5

Rich
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

Non-Responsive

NLRB-FOIA-U00001590

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:25 AM
Mattina, Celeste J.

Non-Responsive

The meeting lasted 3 hours; based on my experience before, it's very difficult to follow over
the phone; better not to have strained your ears!
Talk soon.
Cheers,
Rich
-----Original Message-----
From: Mattina, Celeste J.
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:10 AM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
Non-Responsive

Non-Responsive

. Cant wait to hear your perspectives on the meeting, so sorry i missed it. busy here you a call at some point next week.
________________________________________
From: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:56 AM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject:
Non-Responsive

probably should have asked to be conferenced in to listen to the discussion, but we have been

Non-Responsive

I will give

Non-Responsive

we met with the IAM in

Boeing; Warm regards,


Rich

Exemption 5

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

Non-Responsive

NLRB-FOIA-U00001591

Non-Responsive

NLRB-FOIA-U00001592

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Kearney, Barry J.
Friday, March 25, 2011 6:02 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
Re: Judge Luttig call

No Luttig dreams this time


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


To: Kearney, Barry J.
Cc: Contee, Ernestine R.
Sent: Fri Mar 25 17:28:47 2011
Subject: RE: Judge Luttig call

Cant wait. Have a good weekend.

From: Kearney, Barry J.


Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 5:26 PM
To: 'WKilberg@gibsondunn.com'
Cc: Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: Re: Judge Luttig call

Monday at 2:30
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Kilberg P.C., William <WKilberg@gibsondunn.com>


To: Kearney, Barry J.
Sent: Fri Mar 25 15:17:51 2011
Subject: Judge Luttig call

Barry:

The Judge's office just forwarded me some times when the Judge
Monday, noon to 1 PM EDT or 2:30 -
Best, Bill

should be available for a call:

4:00 PM EDT; Tuesday, 10 AM to 1 PM EDT.

William J. Kilberg

GIBSON DUNN

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP


1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-5306
Tel +1 202.955.8573 Fax +1 202.530.9559
WKilberg@gibsondunn.com www.gibsondunn.com

NLRB-FOIA-U00001659

3/18/11
Mike Luttig, Boeings GC, called me at 2 pm. He told me that he was miffed that
although he had done what I asked (gotten Boeing to agree that no unit ees would be laid
off between now and the end of the contract expiration in Sept, 2012), I was still
considering issuing complaint. I told him that the Machinists had proposed that the
parties meet for a 2-week period with a mediator and that I thought that if Boeing
accepted that offer, the parties might well reach a settlement. He told me that rather than
accept that offer, he thought that he would go to the Hill to prevent me from litigating the
case. I told him that he would have to get such a rider through the Senate. I said that I had
the CEO on tape saying that the move to SC was not because of economics but because
the Machinists strike. I said I had a triable case and that I would do whatever I thought
was right under the NLRA. But I reiterated that I thought the parties should meet and try
to reach a settlement.
3/28/11
Luttig called and I asked Barry Kearney to be on the call with me. Luttig said that Boeing
would not agree to a conversation with the Machinists with a mediator, but that he was
willing to talk to them. He said he would call them this week.
4/8/11
Senator Graham called me at 11:15 am. I was in the Museum of Modern Art in NYC and
talked to him on my cell phone. He told me that the retaliatory charge of the Machinists
against Boeing would have huge economic and political consequences. He said that the
charge would scare Boeings customers and could affect orders. He said that the political
fallout would be huge and that he was more reasonable than his Senate counterpart (Sen.
De Mint).
I explained to him that I had been trying to settle this case for the last 6 months, and I
asked for his help in getting Boeing to agree to the Machinists request for a 2-week
mediated conversation. I told him that this case had every potential to settle as Boeings
business was booming and that the parties had both indicated to me that their futures
were tied to a successful relationship in the future, but that I had been unsuccessful in
getting the parties to talk to each other, rather than to me. I also told him that I would not
be seeking the dismantling of the S.C plant and that I had made it clear to the Machinists
that that plant was here to stay.
He said that he was pessimistic that the Machinists and Boeing could work things out, but
that he never thought it was a bad idea to talk. I thanked him for being willing to help.
4/11/11
I left a message for Debbie Durkin, the aide to Senator Graham who place the call on Fri.
I received a call back from Walt Kuhn at noon. I told him that I was following up on my

NLRB-FOIA-U00001660

conversation with the Senator on Fri and that I wanted to know if he had been successful
in contacting Boeing. He said that the Senator would call me back later this week. I told
Walt that I was ready to begin the complaint process and that I could not hold it up
indefinitely. I said that I wanted to talk to the Senator today if possible, and he said that
he would see what he could do.
4/11/11
Senator Graham called me at 3 pm. He said that he had talked to Boeing, and they had no
interest in mediating the complaint, which was totally without merit. He said that he
agreed with Boeing and understood their position. He said that if a complaint was filed, it
will be nasty, very, very nasty. He said that this was a case of how not to grow the
economy. He said that we had to do what we had to do, and he had to do what he had to
do. It was up to us. He said that if complaint issued, he was going full guns a-blazing.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001661

3/18/11
Mike Luttig, Boeings GC, called me at 2 pm. He told me that he was miffed that
although he had done what I asked (gotten Boeing to agree that no unit ees would be laid
off between now and the end of the contract expiration in Sept, 2012), I was still
considering issuing complaint. I told him that the Machinists had proposed that the
parties meet for a 2-week period with a mediator and that I thought that if Boeing
accepted that offer, the parties might well reach a settlement. He told me that rather than
accept that offer, he thought that he would go to the Hill to prevent me from litigating the
case. I told him that he would have to get such a rider through the Senate. I said that I had
the CEO on tape saying that the move to SC was not because of economics but because
the Machinists strike. I said I had a triable case and that I would do whatever I thought
was right under the NLRA. But I reiterated that I thought the parties should meet and try
to reach a settlement.
3/28/11
Luttig called and I asked Barry Kearney to be on the call with me. Luttig said that Boeing
would not agree to a conversation with the Machinists with a mediator, but that he was
willing to talk to them. He said he would call them this week.
4/8/11
Senator Graham called me at 11:15 am. I was in the Museum of Modern Art in NYC and
talked to him on my cell phone. He told me that the retaliatory charge of the Machinists
against Boeing would have huge economic and political consequences. He said that the
charge would scare Boeings customers and could affect orders. He said that the political
fallout would be huge and that he was more reasonable than his Senate counterpart (Sen.
De Mint).
I explained to him that I had been trying to settle this case for the last 6 months, and I
asked for his help in getting Boeing to agree to the Machinists request for a 2-week
mediated conversation. I told him that this case had every potential to settle as Boeings
business was booming and that the parties had both indicated to me that their futures
were tied to a successful relationship in the future, but that I had been unsuccessful in
getting the parties to talk to each other, rather than to me. I also told him that I would not
be seeking the dismantling of the S.C plant and that I had made it clear to the Machinists
that that plant was here to stay.
He said that he was pessimistic that the Machinists and Boeing could work things out, but
that he never thought it was a bad idea to talk. I thanked him for being willing to help.
4/11/11
I left a message for Debbie Durkin, the aide to Senator Graham who place the call on Fri.
I received a call back from Walt Kuhn at noon. I told him that I was following up on my

NLRB-FOIA-U00001662

conversation with the Senator on Fri and that I wanted to know if he had been successful
in contacting Boeing. He said that the Senator would call me back later this week. I told
Walt that I was ready to begin the complaint process and that I could not hold it up
indefinitely. I said that I wanted to talk to the Senator today if possible, and he said that
he would see what he could do.
4/11/11
Senator Graham called me at 3 pm. He said that he had talked to Boeing, and they had no
interest in mediating the complaint, which was totally without merit. He said that he
agreed with Boeing and understood their position. He said that if a complaint was filed, it
will be nasty, very, very nasty. He said that this was a case of how not to grow the
economy. He said that we had to do what we had to do, and he had to do what he had to
do. It was up to us. He said that if complaint issued, he was going full guns a-blazing.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001663

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Toner, Jack [JToner@seyfarth.com]


Monday, May 16, 2011 2:57 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
do you have any problem with this summary of your presentation last week?

At the request of the Labor and Employee Relations Practice Group, Lafe Solomon, Acting
General Counsel of the NLRB, recently met with a group of our clients and attorneys to
discuss and respond to questions regarding some of his recent controversial decisions and
initiatives.
Solomon opened the discussion by providing his reasoning behind the much publicized complaint
he authorized against the Boeing Company regarding its decision to produce certain aircraft
in South Carolina. Solomon emphasized that in his view there was nothing "unprecedented"
about the complaint and that it was based on evidence which, in his view, would demonstrate
Boeing's retaliatory, and therefore illegal, motive in making its decision.

Non-Responsive

John J. Toner | Seyfarth Shaw LLP


975 F Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1454
Direct Dial: (202) 828-3575 | Fax: (202) 641-9275 jtoner@seyfarth.com | www.seyfarth.com

__________________________________________________________
Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein (including any attachments) is not
intended to be and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties
that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
(The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax
practice.)
The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and/or confidential
information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001771

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Solomon, Lafe E.
Monday, May 16, 2011 3:07 PM
'Toner, Jack'
RE: do you have any problem with this summary of your presentation last week?

Non-Responsive

-----Original Message-----
From: Toner, Jack [mailto:JToner@seyfarth.com]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:57 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: do you have any problem with this summary of your presentation last week?

At the request of the Labor and Employee Relations Practice Group, Lafe
Solomon, Acting General Counsel of the NLRB, recently met with a group
of our clients and attorneys to discuss and respond to questions
regarding some of his recent controversial decisions and initiatives.
Solomon opened the discussion by providing his reasoning behind the much
publicized complaint he authorized against the Boeing Company regarding
its decision to produce certain aircraft in South Carolina. Solomon
emphasized that in his view there was nothing "unprecedented" about the
complaint and that it was based on evidence which, in his view, would
demonstrate Boeing's retaliatory, and therefore illegal, motive in
making its decision.

Non-Responsive

NLRB-FOIA-U00001772

John J. Toner | Seyfarth Shaw LLP


975 F Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1454
Direct Dial: (202) 828-3575 | Fax: (202) 641-9275
jtoner@seyfarth.com | www.seyfarth.com

__________________________________________________________
Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein (including any attachments) is not
intended to be and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties
that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
(The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax
practice.)
The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and/or confidential
information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001773

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Toner, Jack [JToner@seyfarth.com]


Monday, May 16, 2011 3:09 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: do you have any problem with this summary of your presentation last week?

I told you we wouldn't do anything that you would have a problem with

John J. Toner | Seyfarth Shaw LLP


975 F Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1454
Direct Dial: (202) 828-3575 | Fax: (202) 641-9275 jtoner@seyfarth.com | www.seyfarth.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Solomon, Lafe E. [mailto:Lafe.Solomon@nlrb.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 3:07 PM
To: Toner, Jack
Subject: RE: do you have any problem with this summary of your presentation last week?

Non-Responsive

-----Original Message-----
From: Toner, Jack [mailto:JToner@seyfarth.com]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:57 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: do you have any problem with this summary of your presentation last week?

At the request of the Labor and Employee Relations Practice Group, Lafe
Solomon, Acting General Counsel of the NLRB, recently met with a group
of our clients and attorneys to discuss and respond to questions
regarding some of his recent controversial decisions and initiatives.
Solomon opened the discussion by providing his reasoning behind the much
publicized complaint he authorized against the Boeing Company regarding
its decision to produce certain aircraft in South Carolina. Solomon
emphasized that in his view there was nothing "unprecedented" about the
complaint and that it was based on evidence which, in his view, would
demonstrate Boeing's retaliatory, and therefore illegal, motive in
making its decision.

Non-Responsive

NLRB-FOIA-U00001774

Non-Responsive

John J. Toner | Seyfarth Shaw LLP


975 F Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-1454
Direct Dial: (202) 828-3575 | Fax: (202) 641-9275
jtoner@seyfarth.com | www.seyfarth.com

__________________________________________________________
Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein (including
any attachments) is not intended to be and cannot be used by any
taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed
on the taxpayer.
(The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury
Regulations governing tax practice.)
The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged
and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual
or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited.
__________________________________________________________
Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein (including any attachments) is not
intended to be and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties
that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
(The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax
practice.)
The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and/or confidential
information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

NLRB-FOIA-U00001775

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Sophir, Jayme
W ednesday, February 23, 2011 10:05 AM
Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
RE: staff meeting

March 7. Sorry! Barry did tell me that he told Campbell about the meeting, and that the union might want to come in as
well depending on whats discussed/decided on March 7.

Exemption 5

From: Szapiro, Miriam


Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:00 AM
To: Sophir, Jayme; Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: staff meeting

So when are they coming in, March, April, May?

From: Sophir, Jayme


Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 9:56 AM
To: Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L; Dodds, Amy L.; Merberg, Elinor; Colangelo, David (Advice)
Subject: RE: staff meeting

Non-Responsive

I just spoke with Barry and Boeing is coming in another date (Miriam and Deb we can discuss

later).

Non-Responsive

Non-Responsive

NLRB-FOIA-U00002174

Non-Responsive

NLRB-FOIA-U00002175

NLRB-FOIA-U00002175

Non-Responsive

NLRB-FOIA-U00002176

NLRB-FOIA-U00002176

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:14 PM
Sophir, Jayme
Fw: Boeing - time to decide

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Wagner, Anthony R.
Sent: Thu Apr 28 18:08:46 2011
Subject: RE: time to decide

Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:05 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: time to decide

NLRB-FOIA-U00002188

Exemption 5
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:59 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: time to decide
Importance: High

Exemption 5

The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00002189

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Sophir, Jayme
W ednesday, February 23, 2011 10:05 AM
Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
RE: staff meeting

March 7. Sorry! Barry did tell me that he told Campbell about the meeting, and that the union might want to come in as
well depending on whats discussed/decided on March 7.

Exemption 5

From: Szapiro, Miriam


Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:00 AM
To: Sophir, Jayme; Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: staff meeting

So when are they coming in, March, April, May?

From: Sophir, Jayme


Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 9:56 AM
To: Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L; Dodds, Amy L.; Merberg, Elinor; Colangelo, David (Advice)
Subject: RE: staff meeting

Non-Responsive

I just spoke with Barry and Boeing is coming in another date (Miriam and Deb we can discuss

later).

Non-Responsive

Non-Responsive

NLRB-FOIA-U00002196

Non-Responsive

NLRB-FOIA-U00002197

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Szapiro, Miriam
Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:30 AM
Advice Attorney W illen, Debra L
RE: Boeing's labour problems: Moving factories to flee unions | The Economist

Exactly; it just shows you how incredibly reactionary the US is, that the conservative Economist thinks were Neanderthal.

From:

Advice Attorney

Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:28 AM


To: Willen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: FW: Boeing's labour problems: Moving factories to flee unions | The Economist

Well, who knew the Economist would endorse you?!

From: To:
Advice Attorney

Exemption 6 Privacy

Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:22 AM



Subject: Boeing's labour problems: Moving factories to flee unions | The Economist

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/boeings_labour_problems

Tracking:
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00002202

Recipient
Compton, Kayce R. Willen, Debra L

Read

Read: 4/28/2011 10:32 AM


Read: 4/28/2011 12:45 PM

NLRB-FOIA-U00002203

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Farrell, Ellen
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:26 AM
W illen, Debra L; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
RE: NPR Morning Edition

Also - Interesting NYT article covering settlement possibilities and a mgt lawyer who agrees with Lafe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/business/14boeing.html?_r=1&ref=business
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Willen, Debra L


Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:23 AM
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: NPR Morning Edition

Nice piece on NPR this morning with quotes from Lafe, David Campbell, among others.
Can be heard again at 9:10 a.m. or on the website.

NLRB-FOIA-U00002210

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Szapiro, Miriam
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:34 AM
Farrell, Ellen; W illen, Debra L; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: NPR Morning Edition

Sounds familiar.

Scott Hamilton, managing director of the Leeham Company, an aviation consulting firm, sees one possible
route toward a settlement. He said production demands were so great for the Dreamliner that Boeing
could expand its long-term production of aircraft to at least 10 a month in the Puget Sound area, from the
planned seven, while still keeping the production line in South Carolina. That way, he said, Boeing could
say the union cannot complain that its members had been hurt by creating the South Carolina production
line. He said Boeing has recently talked of assembling 17 Dreamliners a month.

Miriam Szapiro
Supervisory attorney
NLRB Division of Advice
202-273-0998

Miriam.Szapiro@nlrb.gov

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:26 AM
To: Willen, Debra L; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE: NPR Morning Edition

Also - Interesting NYT article covering settlement possibilities and a mgt lawyer who agrees with Lafe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/business/14boeing.html?_r=1&ref=business
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Willen, Debra L


Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:23 AM
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: NPR Morning Edition

Nice piece on NPR this morning with quotes from Lafe, David Campbell, among others.
Can be heard again at 9:10 a.m. or on the website.

Tracking:
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00002211

Recipient
Farrell, Ellen Willen, Debra L Kearney, Barry J. Sophir, Jayme

Read

Read: 6/14/2011 8:54 AM


Read: 6/14/2011 9:05 AM
Read: 6/14/2011 9:04 AM
Read: 6/14/2011 8:49 AM

NLRB-FOIA-U00002212

Non-Responsive

From: Jablonski, Colleen G.


Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 11:49 AM
To: Eskenazi, Martin; Merritt, Susannah C.
Cc: Todd, Dianne; Kobe, James; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: Boeing

Thanks so much guys!!!

From: Eskenazi, Martin


Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 2:27 PM
To: Jablonski, Colleen G.
Subject: Boeing

Hi there-
Susannah will reschedule another affidavit on Friday so that she can help out and take the Boeing statement on
Friday.

NLRB-FOIA-U00002213

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Todd, Dianne
Thursday, April 22, 2010 4:43 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.
RE: 19-CA-32431

Colleen and I spoke and agree Ill go ahead and email Carson.

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:11 PM
To: Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Merritt, Susannah C.
Subject: RE: 19-CA-32431

GreatI guess Susannah can leave on time!


Should Dianne express our disappointment to Carson and our expectation rescheduling will be VERY soon and not later
than next week?
Rich

From: Todd, Dianne


Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:03 PM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Merritt, Susannah C.
Subject: FW: 19-CA-32431

Should we talk?

From: Carson Glickman-Flora [mailto:flora@workerlaw.com]


Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:35 AM
To: Todd, Dianne
Cc: David Campbell; Jude Bryan
Subject: 19-CA-32431

Diane,
Unfortunately, Exemption 6,
7(C), ...

will not be available tomorrow as planned. We are working on getting alternative dates for his

Exemption 6, 7(C), (D)


Exemption 6, 7(C), (D)

testimony. I will keep you informed as I know more. tomorrow as planned, and can provide testimony regarding - Carson

will provide his affidavit


NLRB-FOIA-U00002214

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:44 PM
Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: CNN questions on correction

Thanks all,
Im thinking of something like this for the 2
question

nd

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:28 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

Wilma, I had just finished this message as I saw yours coming in:
On number #2,

Exemption 5

Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00002810

202-273-0013

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

NLRB-FOIA-U00002811

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
3

NLRB-FOIA-U00002812

You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002813

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:58 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose
Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: CNN questions on correction

Thanks for the great ideas everyone. I will try to consolidate them into a couple of answers and circulate them for
suggestions.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:55 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

#1

Exemption 5

#2

Exemption 5

Rich

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00002814

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00002815

process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002816

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Cleeland, Nancy
Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:21 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
FW : question for daily story
BAI11235.pdf; image001.jpg

Hi - hope the talk went well.


You probably know that Sens Alexander and Graham introduced an amendment to section 14 of the NLRA. They say it
would prevent something like the Boeing complaint from being issued.
Exemption 5

Wanted you to see it. Reporters are asking

Exemption 5

for comment, but I think we should say

From: Lauren Smith [LaurenSmith@cqrollcall.com]


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:12 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: question for daily story

Here is a copy of the amendment:


They say it: "Strengthen the existing protection in the National Labor relations Act of state right-to-work law to ensure that
state laws cannot be pre-empted by union contracts or the NLRB. It provides necessary clarity to prevent the NLRB from
moving forward in their case against Boeing or attempting a similar strategy against other companies. It updates the
current law with the following:
Nothing in the Act shall be construed to limit the application of any State law that prohibits, or otherwise places restraints
upon, agreements between labor organizations and employers, or that require the payment of dues or fees to such
organizations, a condition of employment either before or after hiring."

From: Cleeland, Nancy [mailto:Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov]


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:05 PM
To: Lauren Smith
Subject: RE: question for daily story
Hi Lauren,
I realize I was mistaken. I'd gotten the idea that this was a national right to work bill from another reporter; it turns out
that's not what this is. We're trying to figure out exactly what it would do.

From: Lauren Smith [LaurenSmith@cqrollcall.com]


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:03 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: question for daily story

Hey Nancy -- Thanks for helping me out with this. I really appreciate it!
For the daily story about Sens. Alexander and Graham's right-to-work legislation, I'd love to get a comment on the
ramifications of the language, both for labor and for the NLRB. Something similar to what we talked about over the phone:

NLRB-FOIA-U00002822

That this is an attempt to mandate all states adopt right-to-work policies. That this legislation is really nothing new and has
been introduced by the GOP many times before.
To give you a better sense of what I'm looking into for my feature story: I'm writing about the natural oscillation of the
board and it's pro-union vs. pro-business decisions depending on which party is controlling the White House. My
argument is that the Boeing case provides ammunition to those that are trying to prove the NLRB has an activist agenda,
but in reality, the NLRB under Obama is no more pro-union than it was pro-business under the previous Bush
administration. The NLRB is also under much greater scrutiny on the whole due to the larger labor environment. I would
love to get a comment about the natural progression of the board becoming politicized, and how it's historically seesawed
between pro-union and pro-business decisions based on the administration.
Thanks so much and please let me know if you have any questions! I'm on my cell today: 617-633-0425
Best,
Lauren
Lauren Smith
Staff Writer
lsmith@cq.com
(o): 202-650-6604 **please note new number!
(m): 617-633-0425

Congressional Quarterly

77 K St., NE
Washington, DC 20002

----------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal
views which are not the views of CQ Roll Call or its owner, The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network. For company information go to
http://legal.economistgroup.com.

NLRB-FOIA-U00002823

NLRB-FOIA-U00002824

BA I11235

S.L.C.

A MENDMENT NO.l l l l

Calendar No.l l l

Purpose: To amend the National Labor Relations A and


ct the Railw Labor A to clarify the applicability of
ay ct such A w respect to States that hav right to w ct ith e ork
law in effect.
s
IN THE SENA TE OF THE UNITED STA TES112th Cong., 1st Sess.

S. 493
To reauthorize and improv the SBIR and STTR programs,
e and for other purposes.
Referred to the Committee on l l l l l and
l l l l l ordered to be printed
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
A MENDMENT intended to be proposed by Mr. A LEX NDER
A (for himself and Mr. GRA M)
HA V iz:
1
A the appropriate place, insert the follow t ing:

2
SEC. l . PROTECTION OF RIGHT TO WORK.
l 3
(a) A PPLICA BILITY OF NLRA TO STA TE RIGHT
TO

4
ORK L A S.Section 14 of the National Labor Rela-
W W tions A (29 U.S.C. 164) is amended by striking sub-
ct 5
6
section (b) and inserting the follow ing:
7
(b) Nothing in this A shall be construed to limit
ct

8
application of any State law that prohibits, or other-
the w een 9
ise places restraints upon, agreements betw labor or-
10 ganizations and employ that make membership in the
ers

NLRB-FOIA-U00002825

BA I11235

S.L.C.

2
labor organization, or that require the pay ment of dues
1
2
fees to such organization, a condition of employ or ment
either before or after hiring..
3
4
(b) A PPLICA BILITY
TO OF

RA A L ABOR A ILW Y CT

TO

S 5
TATE RIGHT

W ORK L A S.Title II of the Railw


W ay

6
Labor A (45 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) is amended by adding
ct at ing:
7
the end the follow 8
SEC. 209. EFFECT ON STA TE RIGHT TO WORK LA WS.
9
Nothing in this A shall be construed to limit the
ct

10
application of any State law that prohibits, or otherw ise
places restraints upon, agreements betw een labor organi-
11
12
zations and carriers that make membership in the labor
organization, or that require the pay ment of dues or fees
13
14
such organization, a condition of employ to ment either be-
15 fore or after hiring..

NLRB-FOIA-U00002826

Microsoft Outlook

Non-Responsive

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:18 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: comment on boeing letter?

Lafe, do you have time to meet with me and Nancy this afternoon? Sometime before 4?
Getting a lot of questions from the hill and the press.
Sorry to be a bother.

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


To: Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Wed May 04 13:55:46 2011
Subject: RE: comment on boeing letter?
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00002827

Except that I am not the Acting Attorney General.

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:24 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: RE: comment on boeing letter?

I think it strikes the right tone.

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:15 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Subject: comment on boeing letter?

Id like to send this or something like it to the AP and Examiner.

Exemption 5

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00002828

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Solomon, Lafe E.
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:20 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
FW : CNN questions on correction

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00002849

the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00002850

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002851

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Farrell, Ellen
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.;
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: CNN questions on correction

We agree with Lafe. W e can also point out that

Exemption 5

As to #2,

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

As to 1,

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5

.
On #2,

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00002855

Exemption 5
Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00002856

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002857

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:58 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose
Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: CNN questions on correction

Thanks for the great ideas everyone. I will try to consolidate them into a couple of answers and circulate them for
suggestions.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:55 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

#1

Exemption 5

#2

Exemption 5

Rich

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00002858

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00002859

process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002860

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Sophir, Jayme
Friday, April 29, 2011 4:01 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn,
Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.
RE: CNN questions on correction

One further point on #1

Exemption 5

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir,
Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

We agree with Lafe. W e can also point out that

Exemption 5

As to #2,

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

As to 1,

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM

NLRB-FOIA-U00002861

To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00002862

Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
3

NLRB-FOIA-U00002863

and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002864

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 4:38 PM
Sophir, Jayme; Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn,
Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.
RE: CNN questions on correction

My proposed response:

Exemption 5

Thoughts?

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00002865

From: Sophir, Jayme


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:01 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry
J.
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

One further point on #1

Exemption 5

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir,
Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

We agree with Lafe. W e can also point out that

Exemption 5

As to #2, i

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

As to 1,

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00002866

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
3

NLRB-FOIA-U00002867

Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
4

NLRB-FOIA-U00002868

after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002869

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Friday, April 29, 2011 5:04 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.;
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
FW : CNN questions on correction

My suggestions in red: Rich

Exemption 5

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00002870

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Sophir, Jayme


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:01 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry
J.
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

One further point on #1

Exemption 5

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir,
Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

We agree with Lafe. W e can also point out that

Exemption 5

As to #2,

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

As to 1,

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00002871

To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
3

NLRB-FOIA-U00002872

Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
4

NLRB-FOIA-U00002873

and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002874

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Farrell, Ellen
Friday, April 29, 2011 5:04 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Sophir, Jayme; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn,
Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.
RE: CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:38 PM
To: Sophir, Jayme; Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry
J.
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

My proposed response:

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00002875

Exemption 5

Thoughts?

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Sophir, Jayme


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:01 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry
J.
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

One further point on #1

Exemption 5

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir,
Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

We agree with Lafe. W e can also point out that

Exemption 5

As to #2,

Exemption 5
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00002876

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

As to 1,

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
3

NLRB-FOIA-U00002877

Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


4

NLRB-FOIA-U00002878

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002879

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 5:15 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir,
Jayme
RE: CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:04 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: FW: CNN questions on correction

My suggestions in red: Rich

Exemption 5

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00002880

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Sophir, Jayme


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:01 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry
J.
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

One further point on #1

Exemption 5

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir,
Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

We agree with Lafe. W e can also point out that

Exemption 5

As to #2,

Exemption 5
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00002881

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

As to 1,

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
3

NLRB-FOIA-U00002882

Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


4

NLRB-FOIA-U00002883

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002884

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Farrell, Ellen
Friday, April 29, 2011 5:24 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.;
Sophir, Jayme
Re: CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Fri Apr 29 17:16:44 2011
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

Fine with me.


Rich

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 2:15 PM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:04 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: FW: CNN questions on correction

My suggestions in red: Rich

Exemption 5

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00002890

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Sophir, Jayme


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:01 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry
J.
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

One further point on #1

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00002891

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir,
Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

We agree with Lafe. W e can also point out that

Exemption 5

As to #2,

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

As to 1,

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

NLRB-FOIA-U00002892

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
4

NLRB-FOIA-U00002893

who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002894

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Friday, April 29, 2011 5:27 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir,
Jayme
RE: CNN questions on correction

Even better.

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 2:24 PM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: Re: CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Fri Apr 29 17:16:44 2011
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

Fine with me.


Rich

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 2:15 PM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:04 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: FW: CNN questions on correction

NLRB-FOIA-U00002895

My suggestions in red:
Rich

Exemption 5

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Sophir, Jayme


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:01 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry
J.
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

NLRB-FOIA-U00002896

One further point on #1

Exemption 5

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir,
Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

We agree with Lafe. W e can also point out that

Exemption 5

As to #2,

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

As to 1,

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00002897

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
4

NLRB-FOIA-U00002898

General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
5

NLRB-FOIA-U00002899

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Liebman, W ilma B.
Friday, April 29, 2011 6:24 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney,
Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir,
Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

We agree with Lafe. W e can also point out that

Exemption 5

As to #2,

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

As to 1,

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00002900

To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00002901

Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
3

NLRB-FOIA-U00002902

and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002903

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Kearney, Barry J.
Saturday, April 30, 2011 12:56 AM
Farrell, Ellen
Fw: CNN questions on correction

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Kearney, Barry J.


To: Ferguson, John H.
Sent: Sat Apr 30 00:55:07 2011
Subject: Fw: CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Liebman, Wilma B.


To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Fri Apr 29 18:23:35 2011
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir,
Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

We agree with Lafe. W e can also point out that

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00002904

As to #2,

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

As to 1,

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.

NLRB-FOIA-U00002905

It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

NLRB-FOIA-U00002906

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002907

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Farrell, Ellen
Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:51 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
RE: question for daily story
image001.jpg

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Kearney, Barry J.


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:39 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L
Subject: FW: question for daily story

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:23 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: FW: question for daily story

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 12:18 PM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: FW: question for daily story
From a Congressional Quarterly reporter, in case this sheds any light on the amendment

From: Lauren Smith [LaurenSmith@cqrollcall.com]


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:12 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: question for daily story

Here is a copy of the amendment:


They say it: "Strengthen the existing protection in the National Labor relations Act of state right-to-work law to ensure that
state laws cannot be pre-empted by union contracts or the NLRB. It provides necessary clarity to prevent the NLRB from
moving forward in their case against Boeing or attempting a similar strategy against other companies. It updates the
current law with the following:

NLRB-FOIA-U00002908

Nothing in the Act shall be construed to limit the application of any State law that prohibits, or otherwise places restraints
upon, agreements between labor organizations and employers, or that require the payment of dues or fees to such
organizations, a condition of employment either before or after hiring."

From: Cleeland, Nancy [mailto:Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov]


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:05 PM
To: Lauren Smith
Subject: RE: question for daily story
Hi Lauren,
I realize I was mistaken. I'd gotten the idea that this was a national right to work bill from another reporter; it turns out
that's not what this is. We're trying to figure out exactly what it would do.

From: Lauren Smith [LaurenSmith@cqrollcall.com]


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:03 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: question for daily story

Hey Nancy -- Thanks for helping me out with this. I really appreciate it!
For the daily story about Sens. Alexander and Graham's right-to-work legislation, I'd love to get a comment on the
ramifications of the language, both for labor and for the NLRB. Something similar to what we talked about over the phone:
That this is an attempt to mandate all states adopt right-to-work policies. That this legislation is really nothing new and has
been introduced by the GOP many times before.
To give you a better sense of what I'm looking into for my feature story: I'm writing about the natural oscillation of the
board and it's pro-union vs. pro-business decisions depending on which party is controlling the White House. My
argument is that the Boeing case provides ammunition to those that are trying to prove the NLRB has an activist agenda,
but in reality, the NLRB under Obama is no more pro-union than it was pro-business under the previous Bush
administration. The NLRB is also under much greater scrutiny on the whole due to the larger labor environment. I would
love to get a comment about the natural progression of the board becoming politicized, and how it's historically seesawed
between pro-union and pro-business decisions based on the administration.
Thanks so much and please let me know if you have any questions! I'm on my cell today: 617-633-0425
Best,
Lauren
Lauren Smith
Staff Writer
lsmith@cq.com
(o): 202-650-6604 **please note new number!
(m): 617-633-0425

Congressional Quarterly

77 K St., NE
Washington, DC 20002

NLRB-FOIA-U00002909

----------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal
views which are not the views of CQ Roll Call or its owner, The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network. For company information go to
http://legal.economistgroup.com.

NLRB-FOIA-U00002910

NLRB-FOIA-U00002911

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

NLRB-FOIA-U00002926

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00002927

You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002928

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Liebman, W ilma B.
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:26 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: CNN questions on correction

On the second question


Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00002929

NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00002930

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002931

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Garza, Jose
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:28 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: CNN questions on correction

Wilma, I had just finished this message as I saw yours coming in:
On number #2,

Exemption 5

Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

NLRB-FOIA-U00002932

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00002933

Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002934

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:44 PM
Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: CNN questions on correction

Thanks all,
Im thinking of something like this for the 2
question

nd

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:28 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

Wilma, I had just finished this message as I saw yours coming in:
On number #2,

Exemption 5

Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00002935

202-273-0013

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

NLRB-FOIA-U00002936

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
3

NLRB-FOIA-U00002937

You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002938

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:55 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose
RE: CNN questions on correction

#1

Exemption 5

#2

Exemption 5

Rich

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.

NLRB-FOIA-U00002939

It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

NLRB-FOIA-U00002940

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002941

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Farrell, Ellen
Friday, April 29, 2011 5:24 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.;
Sophir, Jayme
Re: CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Fri Apr 29 17:16:44 2011
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

Fine with me.


Rich

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 2:15 PM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:04 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: FW: CNN questions on correction

My suggestions in red:
Rich

Exemption 5

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00002942

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Sophir, Jayme


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:01 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry
J.
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

One further point on #1

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00002943

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir,
Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

We agree with Lafe. W e can also point out that

Exemption 5

As to #2,

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

As to 1,

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

NLRB-FOIA-U00002944

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
4

NLRB-FOIA-U00002945

who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00002946

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Garza, Jose
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 2:18 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy
Re: comment on boeing letter?

Lafe, do you have time to meet with me and Nancy this afternoon? Sometime before 4?
Getting a lot of questions from the hill and the press.
Sorry to be a bother.

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


To: Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Wed May 04 13:55:46 2011
Subject: RE: comment on boeing letter?

Except that I am not the Acting Attorney General.

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:24 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: RE: comment on boeing letter?

I think it strikes the right tone.

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:15 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Subject: comment on boeing letter?

Id like to send this or something like it to the AP and Examiner.

Exemption 5

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00002947

Microsoft Outlook

Non-Responsive

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:18 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: comment on boeing letter?

Lafe, do you have time to meet with me and Nancy this afternoon? Sometime before 4?
Getting a lot of questions from the hill and the press.
Sorry to be a bother.

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


To: Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Wed May 04 13:55:46 2011
Subject: RE: comment on boeing letter?

Except that I am not the Acting Attorney General.

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:24 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: RE: comment on boeing letter?

I think it strikes the right tone.

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:15 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Subject: comment on boeing letter?

Id like to send this or something like it to the AP and Examiner.

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00002948

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00002949

Microsoft Outlook

Non-Responsive

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:18 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: comment on boeing letter?

Lafe, do you have time to meet with me and Nancy this afternoon? Sometime before 4?
Getting a lot of questions from the hill and the press.
Sorry to be a bother.

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


To: Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Wed May 04 13:55:46 2011
Subject: RE: comment on boeing letter?

Except that I am not the Acting Attorney General.

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:24 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: RE: comment on boeing letter?

I think it strikes the right tone.

NLRB-FOIA-U00002950

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:15 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Subject: comment on boeing letter?

Id like to send this or something like it to the AP and Examiner.

Exemption 5

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00002951

Microsoft Outlook

Non-Responsive

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:18 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: comment on boeing letter?

Lafe, do you have time to meet with me and Nancy this afternoon? Sometime before 4?
Getting a lot of questions from the hill and the press.
Sorry to be a bother.

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


To: Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Wed May 04 13:55:46 2011
Subject: RE: comment on boeing letter?
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00002952

Except that I am not the Acting Attorney General.

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:24 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: RE: comment on boeing letter?

I think it strikes the right tone.

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:15 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Subject: comment on boeing letter?

Id like to send this or something like it to the AP and Examiner.

Exemption 5

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00002953

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Solomon, Lafe E.
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:20 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
FW : CNN questions on correction

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00003140

the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00003141

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00003142

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Garza, Jose
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:28 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: CNN questions on correction

Wilma, I had just finished this message as I saw yours coming in:
On number #2,

Exemption 5

Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

NLRB-FOIA-U00003143

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00003144

Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00003145

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Cleeland, Nancy
Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:21 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
FW : question for daily story
BAI11235.pdf; image001.jpg

Hi - hope the talk went well.


You probably know that Sens Alexander and Graham introduced an amendment to section 14 of the NLRA. They say it
would prevent something like the Boeing complaint from being issued.
Exemption 5

Wanted you to see it. Reporters are asking

Exemption 5

for comment, but I think we should say .

From: Lauren Smith [LaurenSmith@cqrollcall.com]


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:12 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: question for daily story

Here is a copy of the amendment:


They say it: "Strengthen the existing protection in the National Labor relations Act of state right-to-work law to ensure that
state laws cannot be pre-empted by union contracts or the NLRB. It provides necessary clarity to prevent the NLRB from
moving forward in their case against Boeing or attempting a similar strategy against other companies. It updates the
current law with the following:
Nothing in the Act shall be construed to limit the application of any State law that prohibits, or otherwise places restraints
upon, agreements between labor organizations and employers, or that require the payment of dues or fees to such
organizations, a condition of employment either before or after hiring."

From: Cleeland, Nancy [mailto:Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov]


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:05 PM
To: Lauren Smith
Subject: RE: question for daily story
Hi Lauren,
I realize I was mistaken. I'd gotten the idea that this was a national right to work bill from another reporter; it turns out
that's not what this is. We're trying to figure out exactly what it would do.

From: Lauren Smith [LaurenSmith@cqrollcall.com]


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:03 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: question for daily story

Hey Nancy -- Thanks for helping me out with this. I really appreciate it!
For the daily story about Sens. Alexander and Graham's right-to-work legislation, I'd love to get a comment on the
ramifications of the language, both for labor and for the NLRB. Something similar to what we talked about over the phone:

NLRB-FOIA-U00003146

That this is an attempt to mandate all states adopt right-to-work policies. That this legislation is really nothing new and has
been introduced by the GOP many times before.
To give you a better sense of what I'm looking into for my feature story: I'm writing about the natural oscillation of the
board and it's pro-union vs. pro-business decisions depending on which party is controlling the White House. My
argument is that the Boeing case provides ammunition to those that are trying to prove the NLRB has an activist agenda,
but in reality, the NLRB under Obama is no more pro-union than it was pro-business under the previous Bush
administration. The NLRB is also under much greater scrutiny on the whole due to the larger labor environment. I would
love to get a comment about the natural progression of the board becoming politicized, and how it's historically seesawed
between pro-union and pro-business decisions based on the administration.
Thanks so much and please let me know if you have any questions! I'm on my cell today: 617-633-0425
Best,
Lauren
Lauren Smith
Staff Writer
lsmith@cq.com
(o): 202-650-6604 **please note new number!
(m): 617-633-0425

Congressional Quarterly

77 K St., NE
Washington, DC 20002

----------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal
views which are not the views of CQ Roll Call or its owner, The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network. For company information go to
http://legal.economistgroup.com.

NLRB-FOIA-U00003147

BA I11235

S.L.C.

A MENDMENT NO.l l l l

Calendar No.l l l

Purpose: To amend the National Labor Relations A and


ct the Railw Labor A to clarify the applicability of
ay ct such A w respect to States that hav right to w ct ith e ork
law in effect.
s
IN THE SENA TE OF THE UNITED STA TES112th Cong., 1st Sess.

S. 493
To reauthorize and improv the SBIR and STTR programs,
e and for other purposes.
Referred to the Committee on l l l l l and
l l l l l ordered to be printed
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
A MENDMENT intended to be proposed by Mr. A LEX NDER
A (for himself and Mr. GRA M)
HA V iz:
1
A the appropriate place, insert the follow t ing:

2
SEC. l . PROTECTION OF RIGHT TO WORK.
l 3
(a) A PPLICA BILITY OF NLRA TO STA TE RIGHT
TO

4
ORK L A S.Section 14 of the National Labor Rela-
W W tions A (29 U.S.C. 164) is amended by striking sub-
ct 5
6
section (b) and inserting the follow ing:
7
(b) Nothing in this A shall be construed to limit
ct

8
application of any State law that prohibits, or other-
the w een 9
ise places restraints upon, agreements betw labor or-
10 ganizations and employ that make membership in the
ers

NLRB-FOIA-U00003148

BA I11235

S.L.C.

2
labor organization, or that require the pay ment of dues
1
2
fees to such organization, a condition of employ or ment
either before or after hiring..
3
4
(b) A PPLICA BILITY
TO OF

RA A L ABOR A ILW Y CT

TO

S 5
TATE RIGHT

W ORK L A S.Title II of the Railw


W ay

6
Labor A (45 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) is amended by adding
ct at ing:
7
the end the follow 8
SEC. 209. EFFECT ON STA TE RIGHT TO WORK LA WS.
9
Nothing in this A shall be construed to limit the
ct

10
application of any State law that prohibits, or otherw ise
places restraints upon, agreements betw een labor organi-
11
12
zations and carriers that make membership in the labor
organization, or that require the pay ment of dues or fees
13
14
such organization, a condition of employ to ment either be-
15 fore or after hiring..

NLRB-FOIA-U00003149

NLRB-FOIA-U00003150

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Garza, Jose
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 2:18 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy
Re: comment on boeing letter?

Lafe, do you have time to meet with me and Nancy this afternoon? Sometime before 4?
Getting a lot of questions from the hill and the press.
Sorry to be a bother.

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


To: Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Wed May 04 13:55:46 2011
Subject: RE: comment on boeing letter?

Except that I am not the Acting Attorney General.

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:24 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: RE: comment on boeing letter?

I think it strikes the right tone.

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:15 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Subject: comment on boeing letter?

Id like to send this or something like it to the AP and Examiner.

Exemption 5

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00003151

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

rich ahearn Rich Ahearn's personal email W ednesday, May 04, 2011 9:41 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
Re: seattletimes.com: Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787 case

Lafe,

Thanks for the heads up;

Exemption 5

May 16 is the conference call with ALJ Lana Parke; might learn more then. Still
expect bunch of motions...we'll see.
I too am astonished at the level of vitriol...really underscores how powerful interests can
get politicians to do their bidding. At least Kilberg remains very professional, courteous in
our dealings.
I am speaking with Chuck Cohen and Susan Davis; will be curious about their observations.
I tip my hat to you for remaining calm and steadfast in the face of all this...pretty
impressive.
Cheers,
Rich
On May 4, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Solomon, Lafe E. wrote:
> Rich, before I forget, I wanted you to know that
Exemption 5

Even I
> underestimated the vitriol that the complaint generated but hopefully
> your attys are able to withstand the attacks to come. Hope the
> conference goes well. Lafe
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: > To: Solomon, Lafe E.
> Sent: Wed May 04 19:35:14 2011
> Subject: seattletimes.com: Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787
> case
>
> This message was sent to you by http://www.seattletimes.com.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787 case
>

E 6 privacy
E 6 privacy

E...

as a service of The Seattle Times

> In a forceful letter to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), top Boeing lawyer
Michael Luttig rejected the labor agency's complaint against the company's opening of a South
Carolina 787 plant, writing that its charges "fundamentally misquote or mischaracterize
statements by Boeing executives."
>
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014961873_bo
> eing05.html
>
>
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00003152

> ======================================================================
>
> TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SEATTLE TIMES PRINT EDITION
> Call (206) 464-2121 or 1-800-542-0820, or go to
> http://seattletimes.com/subscribe
>
> HOW TO ADVERTISE WITH THE SEATTLE TIMES COMPANY ONLINE For information
> on advertising in this e-mail newsletter, or other online marketing
> platforms with The Seattle Times Company, call (206) 464-3237 or
> e-mail websales@seattletimes.com
>
> TO ADVERTISE IN THE SEATTLE TIMES PRINT EDITION Please go to
> http://www.seattletimescompany.com/advertise
> for information.
>
> ======================================================================
>
> >
> www.seattletimes.com Copyright (c) 2009 The Seattle Times Company

NLRB-FOIA-U00003153

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Sophir, Jayme
W ednesday, April 20, 2011 10:46 AM
W illen, Debra L
FW : latest news release
boeingreleasefinal.doc

FYI

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 8:36 AM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Solomon,
Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Wagner, Anthony R.
Subject: latest news release
Attached is the latest, and perhaps final, version of the Boeing release with some nice additions by Rich and Celeste. Fact
sheet will be coming soon. We'll link to that in the release if it's ready. Thanks everyone.

Tracking:
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00003667

Recipient
Willen, Debra L

Delivery

Delivered: 4/20/2011 10:46 AM

NLRB-FOIA-U00003668

National Labor Relations Board issues complaint against Boeing


Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility

NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon today issued a complaint against the
Boeing Company alleging that it violated federal labor law by deciding to transfer a
second production line to a non-union facility in South Carolina for discriminatory
reasons.
Boeing announced in 2007 that it planned to assemble seven 787 Dreamliner airplanes
per month in the Puget Sound area of Washington state, where its employees have long
been represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
The company later said that it would create a second production line to assemble an
additional three planes a month to address a growing backlog of orders. In October 2009,
Boeing announced that it would locate that second line at the non-union facility.
In repeated statements to employees and the media, company executives cited the
unionized employees past strike activity and the possibility of strikes occurring
sometime in the future as the overriding factors in deciding to locate the second line in
the non-union facility.
The NLRB launched an investigation of the transfer of second line work in response to
charges filed by the Machinists union and found reasonable cause to believe that Boeing
had violated two sections of the National Labor Relations Act because its statements
were coercive to employees and its actions were motivated by a desire to retaliate for past
strikes and chill future strike activity.
A worker's right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor
Relations Act, Mr. Solomon said. We also recognize the rights of employers to make
business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law.
I have worked with the parties to encourage settlement in the hope of avoiding costly
litigation, and my door remains open to that possibility.
To remedy the alleged unfair labor practices, the Acting General Counsel seeks an order
that would require Boeing to maintain the second production line in Washington state.
The complaint does not seek closure of the South Carolina facility, nor does it prohibit
Boeing from assembling planes there.
Absent a settlement between the parties, the next step in the process will be a hearing
before an NLRB administrative law judge in Seattle, set for June 14, at which both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments.
For more information about the National Labor Relations Board, please see our website
at
www.nlrb.gov.

NLRB-FOIA-U00003669

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Farrell, Ellen
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.;
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: Boeing - CNN questions on correction

We agree with Lafe. W e can also point out that

Exemption 5

As to #2,

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

As to 1,

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00003670

Exemption 5
Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00003671

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00003672

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:58 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose
Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: Boeing - CNN questions on correction

Thanks for the great ideas everyone. I will try to consolidate them into a couple of answers and circulate them for
suggestions.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:55 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

#1

Exemption 5

#2

Exemption 5

Rich

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00003673

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00003674

process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00003675

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Sophir, Jayme
Friday, April 29, 2011 4:01 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn,
Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.
RE: CNN questions on correction

One further point on #1

Exemption 5

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir,
Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

We agree with Lafe. W e can also point out that

Exemption 5

As to #2,

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

As to 1,

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM

NLRB-FOIA-U00003676

To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00003677

Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
3

NLRB-FOIA-U00003678

and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

Tracking:
4

NLRB-FOIA-U00003679

Recipient
Farrell, Ellen Solomon, Lafe E. Cleeland, Nancy Liebman, Wilma B. Garza, Jose Ahearn, Richard L. Kearney, Barry J.

Delivery

Delivered: 4/29/2011 4:01 PM


Delivered: 4/29/2011 4:01 PM
Delivered: 4/29/2011 4:01 PM
Delivered: 4/29/2011 4:01 PM
Delivered: 4/29/2011 4:01 PM
Delivered: 4/29/2011 4:01 PM
Delivered: 4/29/2011 4:01 PM

NLRB-FOIA-U00003680

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 5:15 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir,
Jayme
RE: Boeing - CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 5:04 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: FW: CNN questions on correction

My suggestions in red:
Rich

Exemption 5

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00003681

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Sophir, Jayme


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:01 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry
J.
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

One further point on #1

Exemption 5

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir,
Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

We agree with Lafe. W e can also point out that

Exemption 5

As to #2, i

Exemption 5
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00003682

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

As to 1,

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
3

NLRB-FOIA-U00003683

Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


4

NLRB-FOIA-U00003684

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00003685

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Liebman, W ilma B.
Friday, April 29, 2011 6:24 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney,
Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: Boeing - CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir,
Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

We agree with Lafe. W e can also point out that

Exemption 5

As to #2,

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

As to 1,

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00003686

To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction

The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,

Exemption 5

On #2,

Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
2

NLRB-FOIA-U00003687

Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland

NLRB Director of Public Affairs


(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]


Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements

Dear Ms. Cleeland,


I am the executive producer of State of the Union. Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am the correct person to deal
with.
You say there are some errors, and:

Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us


to balance your piece with Sen. Graham?

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
3

NLRB-FOIA-U00003688

and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag

NLRB-FOIA-U00003689

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Sophir, Jayme
Saturday, April 30, 2011 10:22 AM
Kearney, Barry J.
RE: CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5

________________________________________
From: Kearney, Barry J.
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 12:56 AM
To: Sophir, Jayme
Subject: Fw: CNN questions on correction
Am I off base???
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
________________________________
From: Kearney, Barry J.
To: Ferguson, John H.
Sent: Sat Apr 30 00:55:07 2011
Subject: Fw: CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
________________________________
From: Liebman, Wilma B.
To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.;
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Fri Apr 29 18:23:35 2011
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction

Exemption 5

________________________________
From: Farrell, Ellen
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00003690

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.;
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction
We agree with Lafe. We can also point out that

Exemption 5

As to #2,
Exemption 5

Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Division of Advice, NLRB
202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov
________________________________
From: Solomon, Lafe E.
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.;
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction
As to 1,

Exemption 5

________________________________
From: Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint
about last weeks show, where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his
remarks as if they were true. Now theyre coming back to us with the other sides responses.
Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00003691

On #2,
Exemption 5

Thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
________________________________
From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Sunday, but it will be very short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being
ordered to close its plant when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners.
That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen. Graham (among others) contend that the purpose
of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to
I can only point to your news release
Everyone we turn to for
I understand your point, but isnt it
Well do something on

the shows title as being NLRB rules against Boeing.

which uses this headline: National Labor Relations Board issues complaint against Boeing
Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. called a complaint by the NLRB. ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for
you. Were going to try to get past it. Tom
And FYI the White House declines comment.
guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be
Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not

On 4/27/11 3:52 PM, "Cleeland, Nancy" <Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov> wrote:


Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns.
Yesterday, we put out a Fact Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen
out there, which was repeated on your show not only by Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley
herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor
Relations Board has ordered the Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In
3

NLRB-FOIA-U00003692

fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General Counsel


<http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-
company-unlawfully-transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed.
It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of production work due to allegations that
the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing may place
work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not
made for discriminatory reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint.
Under the NLRBs statute, the General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent,
with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and the Board functioning as a court. The
case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the Boards
authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.

These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. When the shows
title said NLRB rules against Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political
decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel who is a career NLRB
attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in
the process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB
judge and perhaps ultimately the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had
to close the South Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of
work in question basically 3 planes a month. Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could
locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair
amount lately, and probably will continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just
left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer, and have been here at
the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to
write that comment.
Thanks again,

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
________________________________
From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements
Dear Ms. Cleeland,
I am the executive producer of State of the Union. the correct person to deal with.
You say there are some errors, and:
Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us to balance your
piece with Sen. Graham?
4

Your e-mail was passed to me, and I am

NLRB-FOIA-U00003693

There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow
guests to have their say, and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say
if the record needs correcting. We made it clear after we aired Senator Grahams statements
that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth of the matter is
that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up,
and there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this
further. Tom Bettag What is it in Sen. Grahams statements that you consider to errors?

NLRB-FOIA-U00003694

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

W illen, Debra L
W ednesday, April 20, 2011 11:01 AM
Szapiro, Miriam
FW : latest news release
boeingreleasefinal.doc

From: Sophir, Jayme


Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 10:46 AM
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: FW: latest news release

FYI

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 8:36 AM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Solomon,
Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Wagner, Anthony R.
Subject: latest news release
Attached is the latest, and perhaps final, version of the Boeing release with some nice additions by Rich and Celeste. Fact
sheet will be coming soon. We'll link to that in the release if it's ready. Thanks everyone.

NLRB-FOIA-U00003697

National Labor Relations Board issues complaint against Boeing


Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility

NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon today issued a complaint against the
Boeing Company alleging that it violated federal labor law by deciding to transfer a
second production line to a non-union facility in South Carolina for discriminatory
reasons.
Boeing announced in 2007 that it planned to assemble seven 787 Dreamliner airplanes
per month in the Puget Sound area of Washington state, where its employees have long
been represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
The company later said that it would create a second production line to assemble an
additional three planes a month to address a growing backlog of orders. In October 2009,
Boeing announced that it would locate that second line at the non-union facility.
In repeated statements to employees and the media, company executives cited the
unionized employees past strike activity and the possibility of strikes occurring
sometime in the future as the overriding factors in deciding to locate the second line in
the non-union facility.
The NLRB launched an investigation of the transfer of second line work in response to
charges filed by the Machinists union and found reasonable cause to believe that Boeing
had violated two sections of the National Labor Relations Act because its statements
were coercive to employees and its actions were motivated by a desire to retaliate for past
strikes and chill future strike activity.
A worker's right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor
Relations Act, Mr. Solomon said. We also recognize the rights of employers to make
business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law.
I have worked with the parties to encourage settlement in the hope of avoiding costly
litigation, and my door remains open to that possibility.
To remedy the alleged unfair labor practices, the Acting General Counsel seeks an order
that would require Boeing to maintain the second production line in Washington state.
The complaint does not seek closure of the South Carolina facility, nor does it prohibit
Boeing from assembling planes there.
Absent a settlement between the parties, the next step in the process will be a hearing
before an NLRB administrative law judge in Seattle, set for June 14, at which both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments.
For more information about the National Labor Relations Board, please see our website
at
www.nlrb.gov.

NLRB-FOIA-U00003698

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Sophir, Jayme
W ednesday, April 20, 2011 10:46 AM
W illen, Debra L
FW : latest news release
boeingreleasefinal.doc

FYI

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 8:36 AM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Solomon,
Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Wagner, Anthony R.
Subject: latest news release
Attached is the latest, and perhaps final, version of the Boeing release with some nice additions by Rich and Celeste. Fact
sheet will be coming soon. We'll link to that in the release if it's ready. Thanks everyone.

NLRB-FOIA-U00003704

National Labor Relations Board issues complaint against Boeing


Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility

NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon today issued a complaint against the
Boeing Company alleging that it violated federal labor law by deciding to transfer a
second production line to a non-union facility in South Carolina for discriminatory
reasons.
Boeing announced in 2007 that it planned to assemble seven 787 Dreamliner airplanes
per month in the Puget Sound area of Washington state, where its employees have long
been represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
The company later said that it would create a second production line to assemble an
additional three planes a month to address a growing backlog of orders. In October 2009,
Boeing announced that it would locate that second line at the non-union facility.
In repeated statements to employees and the media, company executives cited the
unionized employees past strike activity and the possibility of strikes occurring
sometime in the future as the overriding factors in deciding to locate the second line in
the non-union facility.
The NLRB launched an investigation of the transfer of second line work in response to
charges filed by the Machinists union and found reasonable cause to believe that Boeing
had violated two sections of the National Labor Relations Act because its statements
were coercive to employees and its actions were motivated by a desire to retaliate for past
strikes and chill future strike activity.
A worker's right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor
Relations Act, Mr. Solomon said. We also recognize the rights of employers to make
business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law.
I have worked with the parties to encourage settlement in the hope of avoiding costly
litigation, and my door remains open to that possibility.
To remedy the alleged unfair labor practices, the Acting General Counsel seeks an order
that would require Boeing to maintain the second production line in Washington state.
The complaint does not seek closure of the South Carolina facility, nor does it prohibit
Boeing from assembling planes there.
Absent a settlement between the parties, the next step in the process will be a hearing
before an NLRB administrative law judge in Seattle, set for June 14, at which both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments.
For more information about the National Labor Relations Board, please see our website
at
www.nlrb.gov.

NLRB-FOIA-U00003705

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Farrell, Ellen
Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:51 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
RE: question for daily story
image001.jpg

Exemption 5

Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Kearney, Barry J.


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:39 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L
Subject: FW: question for daily story

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:23 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: FW: question for daily story

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 12:18 PM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: FW: question for daily story
From a Congressional Quarterly reporter, in case this sheds any light on the amendment

From: Lauren Smith [LaurenSmith@cqrollcall.com]


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:12 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: question for daily story

Here is a copy of the amendment:


They say it: "Strengthen the existing protection in the National Labor relations Act of state right-to-work law to ensure that
state laws cannot be pre-empted by union contracts or the NLRB. It provides necessary clarity to prevent the NLRB from
moving forward in their case against Boeing or attempting a similar strategy against other companies. It updates the
current law with the following:

NLRB-FOIA-U00003711

Nothing in the Act shall be construed to limit the application of any State law that prohibits, or otherwise places restraints
upon, agreements between labor organizations and employers, or that require the payment of dues or fees to such
organizations, a condition of employment either before or after hiring."

From: Cleeland, Nancy [mailto:Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov]


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:05 PM
To: Lauren Smith
Subject: RE: question for daily story
Hi Lauren,
I realize I was mistaken. I'd gotten the idea that this was a national right to work bill from another reporter; it turns out
that's not what this is. We're trying to figure out exactly what it would do.

From: Lauren Smith [LaurenSmith@cqrollcall.com]


Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:03 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: question for daily story

Hey Nancy -- Thanks for helping me out with this. I really appreciate it!
For the daily story about Sens. Alexander and Graham's right-to-work legislation, I'd love to get a comment on the
ramifications of the language, both for labor and for the NLRB. Something similar to what we talked about over the phone:
That this is an attempt to mandate all states adopt right-to-work policies. That this legislation is really nothing new and has
been introduced by the GOP many times before.
To give you a better sense of what I'm looking into for my feature story: I'm writing about the natural oscillation of the
board and it's pro-union vs. pro-business decisions depending on which party is controlling the White House. My
argument is that the Boeing case provides ammunition to those that are trying to prove the NLRB has an activist agenda,
but in reality, the NLRB under Obama is no more pro-union than it was pro-business under the previous Bush
administration. The NLRB is also under much greater scrutiny on the whole due to the larger labor environment. I would
love to get a comment about the natural progression of the board becoming politicized, and how it's historically seesawed
between pro-union and pro-business decisions based on the administration.
Thanks so much and please let me know if you have any questions! I'm on my cell today: 617-633-0425
Best,
Lauren
Lauren Smith
Staff Writer
lsmith@cq.com
(o): 202-650-6604 **please note new number!
(m): 617-633-0425

Congressional Quarterly

77 K St., NE
Washington, DC 20002

NLRB-FOIA-U00003712

----------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal
views which are not the views of CQ Roll Call or its owner, The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network. For company information go to
http://legal.economistgroup.com.

NLRB-FOIA-U00003713

NLRB-FOIA-U00003714

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Importance:

Mattina, Celeste
Thursday, October 14, 2010 5:07 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
boeing
High

Your Boeing case is going to an Advice agenda on Monday afternoon, at 2 pm. the memo what you recommended and on what basis.

I cant tell from


thanks!!

Until I figure out how and if I would

recommend changes to the agenda system, can you e mail me your advice submission.

NLRB-FOIA-U00003857

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Mattina, Celeste
Friday, October 15, 2010 7:15 AM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: boeing

Are you in Seattle today?


Exemption 6 - Privacy

I will try to give you a call before

Exemption 6 - Privacy

If we dont get to talk today, we should try to talk Monday morning, 202-273-

3700.
________________________________________
From: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:17 PM
To: Mattina, Celeste
Subject: Re: boeing
Will do; am in Portland today.
R
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message -----


From: Mattina, Celeste
To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Thu Oct 14 17:07:22 2010
Subject: boeing
Your Boeing case is going to an Advice agenda on Monday afternoon, at 2 pm. the memo what you recommended and on what basis. I cant tell from
thanks!!

Until I figure out how and if I would

recommend changes to the agenda system, can you e mail me your advice submission.

NLRB-FOIA-U00003858

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Todd, Dianne
Monday, December 06, 2010 6:11 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Rich,
Did you want to talk about this today?
Thanks

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 4:16 PM
To: Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Subject: RE: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Monday?

From: Todd, Dianne


Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:25 PM
To: Jablonski, Colleen G.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: FW: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Rich,
Attached are the Unions responses to the Regions questions regarding the status of the S. Carolina
site, the surge line, the history of the unit, and the staffing of the new line.
David Campbell has asked if he should send a copy to Advice and if we will need affidavit testimony
regarding this data. Would you like to meet to discuss?
Thanks,
Dianne

From: Jude Bryan [mailto:bryan@workerlaw.com]


Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:08 PM
To: Todd, Dianne
Cc: Glickman-Flora
Subject: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D)

David Campbell; Carson

Ms. Todd,
Attached is David Campbells response to your request for additional information.

Jude Bryan, Paralegal | Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP | 18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400, Seattle, WA 98119-3971; Phone:
206.285.2828 Ext. 21; Fax: 206-378-4132 | www.workerlaw.com
This communication is intended for a specific recipient and may be protected by the attorney client and work-product privilege.
If you receive this message in error, please permanently delete it and notify the sender.

NLRB-FOIA-U00003866

NLRB-FOIA-U00003867

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Todd, Dianne
Monday, December 06, 2010 6:38 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
Jablonski, Colleen G.
RE: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Okay!

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 3:32 PM
To: Todd, Dianne
Subject: RE: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

How about tomorrow when Colleen is back?

From: Todd, Dianne


Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 3:11 PM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Rich,
Did you want to talk about this today?
Thanks

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 4:16 PM
To: Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Subject: RE: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Monday?

From: Todd, Dianne


Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:25 PM
To: Jablonski, Colleen G.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: FW: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Rich,
Attached are the Unions responses to the Regions questions regarding the status of the S. Carolina
site, the surge line, the history of the unit, and the staffing of the new line.
David Campbell has asked if he should send a copy to Advice and if we will need affidavit testimony
regarding this data. Would you like to meet to discuss?
Thanks,
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00003868

Dianne

From: Jude Bryan [mailto:bryan@workerlaw.com]


Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:08 PM
To: Todd, Dianne
Cc: Glickman-Flora
Subject: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D)

; David Campbell; Carson

Ms. Todd,
Attached is David Campbells response to your request for additional information.

Jude Bryan, Paralegal | Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP | 18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400, Seattle, WA 98119-3971; Phone:
206.285.2828 Ext. 21; Fax: 206-378-4132 | www.workerlaw.com
This communication is intended for a specific recipient and may be protected by the attorney client and work-product privilege.
If you receive this message in error, please permanently delete it and notify the sender.

NLRB-FOIA-U00003869

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Mattina, Celeste J.
W ednesday, December 08, 2010 12:18 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : Boeing submission to the General Counsel
Ltr to Lafe Solomon.pdf

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:18 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Colangelo, David (Advice); Marx, Eric C.
Cc: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: FW: Boeing submission to the General Counsel

Did I miss anyone?


Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Kilberg P.C., William [mailto:WKilberg@gibsondunn.com]


Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:48 AM
To: Farrell, Ellen
Cc: Baumeister, Bryan H; Clarke, Joan C; Gerry, Brett C; rhankins@mckennalong.com; McGill, Matthew D.; Blankenstein,
Paul; Martin, Christopher J.
Subject: Boeing submission to the General Counsel

Ellen: As promised. Best, Bill

William J. Kilberg

GIBSON DUNN

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP


1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-5306
Tel +1 202.955.8573 Fax +1 202.530.9559
WKilberg@gibsondunn.com www.gibsondunn.com
<<Ltr to Lafe Solomon.pdf>>

==============================================================================
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. then immediately delete this message.
============================================================================== If it has
been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and

NLRB-FOIA-U00003870

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003871

NLRB-FOIA-U00003871

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003872

NLRB-FOIA-U00003872

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003873

NLRB-FOIA-U00003873

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003874

NLRB-FOIA-U00003874

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003875

NLRB-FOIA-U00003875

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003876

NLRB-FOIA-U00003876

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003877

NLRB-FOIA-U00003877

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003878

NLRB-FOIA-U00003878

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003879

NLRB-FOIA-U00003879

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003880

NLRB-FOIA-U00003880

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003881

NLRB-FOIA-U00003881

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003882

NLRB-FOIA-U00003882

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003883

NLRB-FOIA-U00003883

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003884

NLRB-FOIA-U00003884

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003885

NLRB-FOIA-U00003885

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003886

NLRB-FOIA-U00003886

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003887

NLRB-FOIA-U00003887

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003888

NLRB-FOIA-U00003888

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003889

NLRB-FOIA-U00003889

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003890

NLRB-FOIA-U00003890

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003891

NLRB-FOIA-U00003891

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003892

NLRB-FOIA-U00003892

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003893

NLRB-FOIA-U00003893

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003894

NLRB-FOIA-U00003894

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003895

NLRB-FOIA-U00003895

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Mattina, Celeste J.
W ednesday, December 08, 2010 1:23 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Boeing submission to the General Counsel

She said, of course, thank you!, when I told her I sent it to you.
The good news is that they admit that the possibility of strikes was a significant consideration in their decision, the bad
news is that they claim that is legitimate and that in any event, there were other substantial economic considerations that
(presumably?) independently justified their decision.
Is there anything new here?
Exemption 5

I look forward to hearing your views on all of this; at the very least, it should be an interesting discussion

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:43 PM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: RE: Boeing submission to the General Counsel

HmmI will have to speak to Ellen about this unforgivable oversight!

From: Mattina, Celeste J.


Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 9:18 AM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: FW: Boeing submission to the General Counsel

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:18 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Colangelo, David (Advice); Marx, Eric C.
Cc: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: FW: Boeing submission to the General Counsel

Did I miss anyone?


Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Kilberg P.C., William [mailto:WKilberg@gibsondunn.com]


Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:48 AM
To: Farrell, Ellen
Cc: Baumeister, Bryan H; Clarke, Joan C; Gerry, Brett C; rhankins@mckennalong.com; McGill, Matthew D.; Blankenstein,
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00003898

Paul; Martin, Christopher J.


Subject: Boeing submission to the General Counsel

Ellen: As promised. Best, Bill

William J. Kilberg

GIBSON DUNN

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP


1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-5306
Tel +1 202.955.8573 Fax +1 202.530.9559
WKilberg@gibsondunn.com www.gibsondunn.com
<<Ltr to Lafe Solomon.pdf>>

==============================================================================
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. then immediately delete this message.
============================================================================== If it has
been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and

NLRB-FOIA-U00003899

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Farrell, Ellen
W ednesday, December 08, 2010 1:13 PM
Baniszewski, Joseph
FW : Boeing submission to the General Counsel
Ltr to Lafe Solomon.pdf

Joe
fyi
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Kilberg P.C., William [mailto:WKilberg@gibsondunn.com]


Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:48 AM
To: Farrell, Ellen
Cc: Baumeister, Bryan H; Clarke, Joan C; Gerry, Brett C; rhankins@mckennalong.com; McGill, Matthew D.; Blankenstein,
Paul; Martin, Christopher J.
Subject: Boeing submission to the General Counsel

Ellen: As promised. Best, Bill

William J. Kilberg

GIBSON DUNN

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP


1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-5306
Tel +1 202.955.8573 Fax +1 202.530.9559
WKilberg@gibsondunn.com www.gibsondunn.com
<<Ltr to Lafe Solomon.pdf>>

==============================================================================
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. then immediately delete this message.
============================================================================== If it has
been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and

NLRB-FOIA-U00003982

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003983

NLRB-FOIA-U00003983

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003984

NLRB-FOIA-U00003984

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003985

NLRB-FOIA-U00003985

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003986

NLRB-FOIA-U00003986

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003987

NLRB-FOIA-U00003987

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003988

NLRB-FOIA-U00003988

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003989

NLRB-FOIA-U00003989

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003990

NLRB-FOIA-U00003990

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003991

NLRB-FOIA-U00003991

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003992

NLRB-FOIA-U00003992

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003993

NLRB-FOIA-U00003993

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003994

NLRB-FOIA-U00003994

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003995

NLRB-FOIA-U00003995

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003996

NLRB-FOIA-U00003996

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003997

NLRB-FOIA-U00003997

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003998

NLRB-FOIA-U00003998

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00003999

NLRB-FOIA-U00003999

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004000

NLRB-FOIA-U00004000

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004001

NLRB-FOIA-U00004001

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004002

NLRB-FOIA-U00004002

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004003

NLRB-FOIA-U00004003

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004004

NLRB-FOIA-U00004004

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004005

NLRB-FOIA-U00004005

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004006

NLRB-FOIA-U00004006

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004007

NLRB-FOIA-U00004007

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
W ednesday, April 27, 2011 8:58 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
Re: Fwd: Chief Organizer Blog

Friends like these...

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


To: Liebman, Wilma B.; Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Wed Apr 27 18:36:21 2011
Subject: Fwd: Chief Organizer Blog

Sent from my mobile


Begin forwarded message:

From: Staff Attorney in Enforcement Lit. Date: April 27, 2011 11:49:25 AM PDT
To: "Solomon, Lafe E." <Lafe.Solomon@nlrb.gov>
Subject: FW: Chief Organizer Blog

Lafe: don't know if you might get this otherwise but thought I would pass on Wade Rathke's
thoughts...he was the former head of Acorn. Also spoke with a labor friend to day (atty with a
union) who unsolicited spoke about how impressed everyone is with all you have
been attempting to do and accomplishing.
Staff Attorney in Enfor...

From: To:
Staff Attorney in Enfor...

Staff Attorney in Enforcement Lit.

Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:44 PM


Subject: Fwd: Chief Organizer Blog

---------- Forwarded message ----------


From: Wade Rathke: Chief Organizer Blog <acorncanada@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:13 PM
Subject: Chief Organizer Blog
To:
Staff Attorney in Enforcement Lit.

Chief Organizer Blog

NLRB-FOIA-U00004019

Labor Board Grows a Set

Posted: 27 Apr 2011 05:54 AM PDT

Seattle As union membership falls to record lows and seems now headed to only

5% of private sector density and with recent assaults on public sector unionization may be pushed below 20% density
there soon as well, it is worth remembering that collective bargaining remains a clearly articulated, foundational
purpose of labor law ensconced directly in the language and purpose of the National Labor Relations Act almost 70
years ago. (For more on this see Bruce Boccardys on-line piece for Social Policy at: http://bit.ly/gP6wUg)

It almost seems that the NLRB and its General Counsel may have been reading the news from Wisconsin, Ohio, New
Hampshire and so many elsewheres, shaken themselves out of their slumber and realized that if they didnt get on
the stick there was no future for that bastion of labor bureaucracy and white collar legalisms. Im not sure this is a
development that will make the new business first White House happy, but the Board may have grown a set.

In a matter of days they have first issued a dramatic complaint arguing that Seattle-based Boeing was so blatant in
relocating production of one of its new planes to company friendly and union baiting South Carolina, that they
committed such severe unfair labor practices that the impact of the complaint could force the company to spend

hundreds of millions to repatriate the work back to union workers and a union contract in Seattle. This case is all the

talk here, and despite the companysunion membership, private sector, Bruce Boccardy, collective bar protestations,
the case is more solid that the business community would like to have the biscuit cookers believe. The NLRB for a
refreshing change is staking out a position that pissing all over the union and its legitimate section 7 rights to strike
and maintain its side of the bargain in collective agreements should not give a company a green light to run away to
greener, anti-union pastures.

Days later the NLRB announced that they are suing state governments in Arizona and North Dakota (whats wrong
with our brothers and sisters of the South here?!?) for promoting ballot propositions that would make card check
(voluntary, non-election procedures where majority support for unions is determined by showing the authorization
cards to employers or neutral third parties) illegal. Clearly state efforts to mess with long established recognition

procedures protected by federal law are preempted, but more usually the NLRB might have pussyfooted around and
waited until such measures were introduced and actually approved by voters before entering the lists and waging

their part of the fight. This one is a slam dunk it would see, though why the NLRB claimed it was not suing Utah and

South Dakota, which are trying to create the same card check bars, because they didnt have enough money, seems
odd.

I would also bet that another shoe is about to drop and that they will also issue a complaint in favor of the NFL
Players Association and against the owners in this marquee labor lockout and bargaining struggle, but no sense in
getting ahead of myself.

NLRB-FOIA-U00004020

The NLRB actually fulfilling its legal mandate and protecting collective bargaining and workers rights would be a

st
novel and refreshing change in the early days of the 21
Century during this dark night for all of us and our unions.

You are subscribed to email updates from Wade Rathke: Chief Organizer Blog
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.

Email delivery powered by Go

Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610

NLRB-FOIA-U00004021

Microsoft Outlook

Non-Responsive

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:43 PM
To: Liebman, Wilma B.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
Subject: from cnn - state of the union - producer

Hi I got this message just now from the executive producer at CNNs State of the Union Sunday show (Candy Crowley).
I wanted you to be aware that they are trying to get a response from the WH since Graham raised the issue. I would
hope the WH would send them right back to us and say theyre not involved in NLRB decisions.
Exemption 5

Theyre also checking up with Boeing on our statement that we did not

tell them they cant build planes in South Carolina.

Nancy,
We clearly will do something on Sunday. We knew that Sen. Grahams statement wasnt going to be the last word. His
direct shot is at the White House whom we are still asking for a response. Were talking to Boeing and Sen. Grahams
office as well. I will get back with you before the end of business Friday to let you know where things stand and can
probably avoid messing up your weekend.
Tom

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004022

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:45 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Re: anybody there???

Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:37:02 2011
Subject: RE: anybody there???

It needs to be shorter

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:36 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: Re: anybody there???

Not at my desk but available by bb e-mail or phone in about 15 when I get off the metro. Thinking through what you sent
over now.

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:34:37 2011
Subject: anybody there???

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004070

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:49 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
RE: anybody there???

I like that. Its short.

Exemption 5

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Kearney, Barry J.


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:45 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: Re: anybody there???

Exemption 5
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:37:02 2011
Subject: RE: anybody there???

It needs to be shorter

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:36 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: Re: anybody there???

Not at my desk but available by bb e-mail or phone in about 15 when I get off the metro. Thinking through what you sent
over now.

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:34:37 2011
Subject: anybody there???
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00004071

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004072

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:52 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Re: anybody there???

Mikey likes it
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:48:31 2011
Subject: RE: anybody there???

I like that. Its short.


Exemption 5

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Kearney, Barry J.


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:45 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: Re: anybody there???

Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:37:02 2011
Subject: RE: anybody there???

It needs to be shorter

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:36 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: Re: anybody there???
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00004073

Not at my desk but available by bb e-mail or phone in about 15 when I get off the metro. Thinking through what you sent
over now.

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:34:37 2011
Subject: anybody there???

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004074

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:57 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Re: anybody there???

Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Kearney, Barry J.


To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:51:38 2011
Subject: Re: anybody there???

Mikey likes it
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:48:31 2011
Subject: RE: anybody there???

I like that. Its short.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Kearney, Barry J.


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:45 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: Re: anybody there???

Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:37:02 2011
Subject: RE: anybody there???

It needs to be shorter

NLRB-FOIA-U00004075

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:36 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: Re: anybody there???

Not at my desk but available by bb e-mail or phone in about 15 when I get off the metro. Thinking through what you sent
over now.

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:34:37 2011
Subject: anybody there???

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004076

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Farrell, Ellen
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:00 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : anybody there???

The other language proposal.


Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Kearney, Barry J.


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:57 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: Re: anybody there???

Exemption 5
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Kearney, Barry J.


To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:51:38 2011
Subject: Re: anybody there???

Mikey likes it
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:48:31 2011
Subject: RE: anybody there???

I like that. Its short.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Kearney, Barry J.


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:45 PM
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00004077

To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: Re: anybody there???

Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:37:02 2011
Subject: RE: anybody there???

It needs to be shorter

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:36 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: Re: anybody there???

Not at my desk but available by bb e-mail or phone in about 15 when I get off the metro. Thinking through what you sent
over now.

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:34:37 2011
Subject: anybody there???

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004078

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011 6:12 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
FW : huffingtonpost

The take on Boeing from Huffington Posts new labor writer:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/right-to-work-senate-nlrb_n_857021.html

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004079

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:43 PM
Liebman, W ilma B.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
from cnn - state of the union - producer

Hi I got this message just now from the executive producer at CNNs State of the Union Sunday show (Candy Crowley).
I wanted you to be aware that they are trying to get a response from the WH since Graham raised the issue. I would
hope the WH would send them right back to us and say theyre not involved in NLRB decisions.
Exemption 5

Theyre also checking up with Boeing on our statement that we did not

tell them they cant build planes in South Carolina.

Nancy,
We clearly will do something on Sunday. We knew that Sen. Grahams statement wasnt going to be the last word. His
direct shot is at the White House whom we are still asking for a response. Were talking to Boeing and Sen. Grahams
office as well. I will get back with you before the end of business Friday to let you know where things stand and can
probably avoid messing up your weekend.
Tom

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004101

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Liebman, W ilma B.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:53 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
RE: from cnn - state of the union - producer

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:43 PM
To: Liebman, Wilma B.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
Subject: from cnn - state of the union - producer

Hi I got this message just now from the executive producer at CNNs State of the Union Sunday show (Candy Crowley).
I wanted you to be aware that they are trying to get a response from the WH since Graham raised the issue. I would
hope the WH would send them right back to us and say theyre not involved in NLRB decisions.
Exemption 5

Theyre also checking up with Boeing on our statement that we did not

tell them they cant build planes in South Carolina.

Nancy,
We clearly will do something on Sunday. We knew that Sen. Grahams statement wasnt going to be the last word. His
direct shot is at the White House whom we are still asking for a response. Were talking to Boeing and Sen. Grahams
office as well. I will get back with you before the end of business Friday to let you know where things stand and can
probably avoid messing up your weekend.
Tom

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004102

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Liebman, W ilma B.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:54 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
RE: from cnn - state of the union - producer

PS one of the stories I read last week did say that when asked the WH said they werent involved, it
was the NLRB.

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:43 PM
To: Liebman, Wilma B.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
Subject: from cnn - state of the union - producer

Hi I got this message just now from the executive producer at CNNs State of the Union Sunday show (Candy Crowley).
I wanted you to be aware that they are trying to get a response from the WH since Graham raised the issue. I would
hope the WH would send them right back to us and say theyre not involved in NLRB decisions.
Exemption 5

Theyre also checking up with Boeing on our statement that we did not

tell them they cant build planes in South Carolina.

Nancy,
We clearly will do something on Sunday. We knew that Sen. Grahams statement wasnt going to be the last word. His
direct shot is at the White House whom we are still asking for a response. Were talking to Boeing and Sen. Grahams
office as well. I will get back with you before the end of business Friday to let you know where things stand and can
probably avoid messing up your weekend.
Tom

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004103

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Schiff, Robert
Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:58 PM
Liebman, W ilma B.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
RE: from cnn - state of the union - producer

Exemption 5

From: Liebman, Wilma B.


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:53 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
Subject: RE: from cnn - state of the union - producer

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:43 PM
To: Liebman, Wilma B.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
Subject: from cnn - state of the union - producer

Hi I got this message just now from the executive producer at CNNs State of the Union Sunday show (Candy Crowley).
I wanted you to be aware that they are trying to get a response from the WH since Graham raised the issue. I would
hope the WH would send them right back to us and say theyre not involved in NLRB decisions.
Exemption 5

Theyre also checking up with Boeing on our statement that we did not

tell them they cant build planes in South Carolina.

Nancy,
We clearly will do something on Sunday. We knew that Sen. Grahams statement wasnt going to be the last word. His
direct shot is at the White House whom we are still asking for a response. Were talking to Boeing and Sen. Grahams
office as well. I will get back with you before the end of business Friday to let you know where things stand and can
probably avoid messing up your weekend.
Tom

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004104

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Garza, Jose
Thursday, April 28, 2011 1:09 PM
Schiff, Robert; Liebman, W ilma B.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: from cnn - state of the union - producer

Exemption 5

From: Schiff, Robert


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:58 PM
To: Liebman, Wilma B.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Subject: RE: from cnn - state of the union - producer

Exemption 5

From: Liebman, Wilma B.


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:53 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
Subject: RE: from cnn - state of the union - producer

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:43 PM
To: Liebman, Wilma B.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
Subject: from cnn - state of the union - producer

Hi I got this message just now from the executive producer at CNNs State of the Union Sunday show (Candy Crowley).
I wanted you to be aware that they are trying to get a response from the WH since Graham raised the issue. I would
hope the WH would send them right back to us and say theyre not involved in NLRB decisions.
Exemption 5

Theyre also checking up with Boeing on our statement that we did not

tell them they cant build planes in South Carolina.

Nancy,
We clearly will do something on Sunday. We knew that Sen. Grahams statement wasnt going to be the last word. His
direct shot is at the White House whom we are still asking for a response. Were talking to Boeing and Sen. Grahams
office as well. I will get back with you before the end of business Friday to let you know where things stand and can
probably avoid messing up your weekend.
Tom

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00004105

NLRB-FOIA-U00004106

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Todd, Dianne
Friday, December 03, 2010 5:25 PM
Jablonski, Colleen G.; Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431
2010 12_03 Ltr to Todd.pdf

Rich,
Attached are the Unions responses to the Regions questions regarding the status of the S. Carolina
site, the surge line, the history of the unit, and the staffing of the new line.
David Campbell has asked if he should send a copy to Advice and if we will need affidavit testimony
regarding this data. Would you like to meet to discuss?
Thanks,
Dianne

From: Jude Bryan [mailto:bryan@workerlaw.com]


Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:08 PM
To: Todd, Dianne
Cc: Glickman-Flora
Subject: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D)

David Campbell; Carson

Ms. Todd,
Attached is David Campbells response to your request for additional information.

Jude Bryan, Paralegal | Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP | 18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400, Seattle, WA 98119-3971; Phone:
206.285.2828 Ext. 21; Fax: 206-378-4132 | www.workerlaw.com
This communication is intended for a specific recipient and may be protected by the attorney client and work-product privilege.
If you receive this message in error, please permanently delete it and notify the sender.

NLRB-FOIA-U00004147

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004148

NLRB-FOIA-U00004148

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004149

NLRB-FOIA-U00004149

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004150

NLRB-FOIA-U00004150

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004151

NLRB-FOIA-U00004151

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004152

NLRB-FOIA-U00004152

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004153

NLRB-FOIA-U00004153

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004154

NLRB-FOIA-U00004154

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004155

NLRB-FOIA-U00004155

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004156

NLRB-FOIA-U00004156

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004157

NLRB-FOIA-U00004157

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004158

NLRB-FOIA-U00004158

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004159

NLRB-FOIA-U00004159

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004160

NLRB-FOIA-U00004160

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Friday, December 03, 2010 7:16 PM
Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
RE: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Monday?

From: Todd, Dianne


Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:25 PM
To: Jablonski, Colleen G.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: FW: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Rich,
Attached are the Unions responses to the Regions questions regarding the status of the S. Carolina
site, the surge line, the history of the unit, and the staffing of the new line.
David Campbell has asked if he should send a copy to Advice and if we will need affidavit testimony
regarding this data. Would you like to meet to discuss?
Thanks,
Dianne

From: Jude Bryan [mailto:bryan@workerlaw.com]


Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:08 PM
To: Todd, Dianne
Cc: Glickman-Flora
Subject: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D)

David Campbell; Carson

Ms. Todd,
Attached is David Campbells response to your request for additional information.

Jude Bryan, Paralegal | Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP | 18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400, Seattle, WA 98119-3971; Phone:
206.285.2828 Ext. 21; Fax: 206-378-4132 | www.workerlaw.com
This communication is intended for a specific recipient and may be protected by the attorney client and work-product privilege.
If you receive this message in error, please permanently delete it and notify the sender.

NLRB-FOIA-U00004161

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:18 PM
Mattina, Celeste
Re: boeing

Will do; am in Portland today.


R
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message -----


From: Mattina, Celeste
To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Thu Oct 14 17:07:22 2010
Subject: boeing
Your Boeing case is going to an Advice agenda on Monday afternoon, at 2 pm. the memo what you recommended and on what basis. I cant tell from
thanks!!

Until I figure out how and if I would

recommend changes to the agenda system, can you e mail me your advice submission.

NLRB-FOIA-U00004217

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

W illen, Debra L
Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:54 AM
Omberg, Bob; Katz, Judy
RE: save the date -- Boeing

Exemption 5

From: Omberg, Bob


Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:36 AM
To: Willen, Debra L; Katz, Judy
Subject: RE: save the date -- Boeing

Exemption 5

From: Willen, Debra L


Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:22 AM
To: Omberg, Bob; Katz, Judy
Cc: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: save the date -- Boeing

Boeings counsel has scheduled a meeting with Advice for Wednesday, November 10.
We are looking at November 29 and 30 as the potential dates for their meeting with the General Counsel.

NLRB-FOIA-U00004234

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Friday, December 03, 2010 7:15 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; W illen, Debra L; Omberg, Bob; Katz, Judy
Baniszewski, Joseph
IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431
2010 12_03 Ltr to Todd.pdf

FYI

From: Jude Bryan [mailto:bryan@workerlaw.com]


Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:08 PM
To: Todd, Dianne
Cc: Glickman-Flora
Subject: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D)

David Campbell; Carson

Ms. Todd,
Attached is David Campbells response to your request for additional information.

Jude Bryan, Paralegal | Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP | 18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400, Seattle, WA 98119-3971; Phone:
206.285.2828 Ext. 21; Fax: 206-378-4132 | www.workerlaw.com
This communication is intended for a specific recipient and may be protected by the attorney client and work-product privilege.
If you receive this message in error, please permanently delete it and notify the sender.

NLRB-FOIA-U00004237

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004238

NLRB-FOIA-U00004238

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004239

NLRB-FOIA-U00004239

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004240

NLRB-FOIA-U00004240

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004241

NLRB-FOIA-U00004241

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004242

NLRB-FOIA-U00004242

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004243

NLRB-FOIA-U00004243

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004244

NLRB-FOIA-U00004244

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004245

NLRB-FOIA-U00004245

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004246

NLRB-FOIA-U00004246

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004247

NLRB-FOIA-U00004247

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004248

NLRB-FOIA-U00004248

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004249

NLRB-FOIA-U00004249

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004250

NLRB-FOIA-U00004250

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

W illen, Debra L
W ednesday, December 08, 2010 1:25 PM
Katz, Judy; Omberg, Bob
FW : Boeing submission to the General Counsel
Ltr to Lafe Solomon.pdf

________________________________________
From: Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:24 PM
To: Willen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: FW: Boeing submission to the General Counsel
________________________________
From: Farrell, Ellen
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:18 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Colangelo, David (Advice); Marx, Eric C.
Cc: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: FW: Boeing submission to the General Counsel
Did I miss anyone?
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Division of Advice, NLRB
202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov
________________________________
From: Kilberg P.C., William [mailto:WKilberg@gibsondunn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:48 AM
To: Farrell, Ellen
Cc: Baumeister, Bryan H; Clarke, Joan C; Gerry, Brett C; rhankins@mckennalong.com; McGill,
Matthew D.; Blankenstein, Paul; Martin, Christopher J.
Subject: Boeing submission to the General Counsel

Ellen:

As promised.

Best,

Bill

William J. Kilberg
GIBSON DUNN
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-5306 Tel +1 202.955.8573 Fax +1
202.530.9559 WKilberg@gibsondunn.com www.gibsondunn.com
<<Ltr to Lafe Solomon.pdf>>
==============================================================================
This message may contain confidential and privileged information.
1

If it has

NLRB-FOIA-U00004251

been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and
then immediately delete this message.
==============================================================================

NLRB-FOIA-U00004252

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004253

NLRB-FOIA-U00004253

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004254

NLRB-FOIA-U00004254

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004255

NLRB-FOIA-U00004255

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004256

NLRB-FOIA-U00004256

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004257

NLRB-FOIA-U00004257

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004258

NLRB-FOIA-U00004258

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004259

NLRB-FOIA-U00004259

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004260

NLRB-FOIA-U00004260

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004261

NLRB-FOIA-U00004261

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004262

NLRB-FOIA-U00004262

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004263

NLRB-FOIA-U00004263

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004264

NLRB-FOIA-U00004264

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004265

NLRB-FOIA-U00004265

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004266

NLRB-FOIA-U00004266

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004267

NLRB-FOIA-U00004267

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004268

NLRB-FOIA-U00004268

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004269

NLRB-FOIA-U00004269

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004270

NLRB-FOIA-U00004270

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004271

NLRB-FOIA-U00004271

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004272

NLRB-FOIA-U00004272

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004273

NLRB-FOIA-U00004273

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004274

NLRB-FOIA-U00004274

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004275

NLRB-FOIA-U00004275

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004276

NLRB-FOIA-U00004276

Arguably Ex. 4 (Previously Ex. 7(A))

NLRB-FOIA-U00004277

NLRB-FOIA-U00004277

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Garza, Jose
Thursday, April 28, 2011 1:09 PM
Schiff, Robert; Liebman, W ilma B.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: from cnn - state of the union - producer

Exemption 5

From: Schiff, Robert


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:58 PM
To: Liebman, Wilma B.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Subject: RE: from cnn - state of the union - producer

Exemption 5

From: Liebman, Wilma B.


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:53 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
Subject: RE: from cnn - state of the union - producer

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:43 PM
To: Liebman, Wilma B.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
Subject: from cnn - state of the union - producer

Hi I got this message just now from the executive producer at CNNs State of the Union Sunday show (Candy Crowley).
I wanted you to be aware that they are trying to get a response from the WH since Graham raised the issue. I would
hope the WH would send them right back to us and say theyre not involved in NLRB decisions.
Exemption 5

Theyre also checking up with Boeing on our statement that we did not

tell them they cant build planes in South Carolina.

Nancy,
We clearly will do something on Sunday. We knew that Sen. Grahams statement wasnt going to be the last word. His
direct shot is at the White House whom we are still asking for a response. Were talking to Boeing and Sen. Grahams
office as well. I will get back with you before the end of business Friday to let you know where things stand and can
probably avoid messing up your weekend.
Tom

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00004424

NLRB-FOIA-U00004425

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:53 PM
Sophir, Jayme
Fw: Boeing - anybody there???

--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Kearney, Barry J.


To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:51:38 2011
Subject: Re: anybody there???

Mikey likes it
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:48:31 2011
Subject: RE: anybody there???

I like that. Its short.

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Kearney, Barry J.


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:45 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: Re: anybody there???

Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:37:02 2011
Subject: RE: anybody there???

It needs to be shorter

NLRB-FOIA-U00004521

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:36 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: Re: anybody there???

Not at my desk but available by bb e-mail or phone in about 15 when I get off the metro. Thinking through what you sent
over now.

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:34:37 2011
Subject: anybody there???

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004522

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Farrell, Ellen
Tuesday, December 07, 2010 3:39 PM
W illen, Debra L; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Katz, Judy; Omberg, Bob
RE: Boeing

I got a call from Paul Blankenstein at Gibson Dunn. position statement and we will not have it today. Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Division of Advice, NLRB
202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Willen, Debra L
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 3:20 PM

The client is still reviewing the


He promises it by tomorrow.

To: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Katz, Judy; Omberg,
Bob
Subject: Boeing
I've just finished reviewing the new book Miriam found entitled "Turbulence: Boeing and the
State of American Workers and Managers."
Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00004555

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

W illen, Debra L
Thursday, December 09, 2010 11:23 AM
Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
Katz, Judy; Omberg, Bob
RE: Boeing submission to the General Counsel

Union counsel called me earlier this week; he is preparing a new position statement on 10(j) and a paper on the Unions
inherently destructive theory of violation. He asked me to get back to him if Boeings submission raised any questions
that he should address. After reviewing the Boeing submission, I talked to Miriam briefly and we were thinking that it
Exemption 5 would be useful I would like to ask him to
Exemption 5

Any thoughts?

Thanks, Deb

From: Sophir, Jayme


Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:25 PM
To: Willen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: FW: Boeing submission to the General Counsel

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:18 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Colangelo, David (Advice); Marx, Eric C.
Cc: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: FW: Boeing submission to the General Counsel

Did I miss anyone?


Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel

Division of Advice, NLRB


202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Kilberg P.C., William [mailto:WKilberg@gibsondunn.com]


Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:48 AM
To: Farrell, Ellen
Cc: Baumeister, Bryan H; Clarke, Joan C; Gerry, Brett C; rhankins@mckennalong.com; McGill, Matthew D.; Blankenstein,
Paul; Martin, Christopher J.
Subject: Boeing submission to the General Counsel

Ellen: As promised. Best, Bill

William J. Kilberg

GIBSON DUNN
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00004608

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP


1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-5306
Tel +1 202.955.8573 Fax +1 202.530.9559
WKilberg@gibsondunn.com www.gibsondunn.com
<<Ltr to Lafe Solomon.pdf>>

==============================================================================
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. then immediately delete this message.
============================================================================== If it has
been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and

NLRB-FOIA-U00004609

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Monday, December 06, 2010 6:32 PM
Todd, Dianne
RE: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

How about tomorrow when Colleen is back?

From: Todd, Dianne


Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 3:11 PM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Rich,
Did you want to talk about this today?
Thanks

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 4:16 PM
To: Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Subject: RE: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Monday?

From: Todd, Dianne


Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:25 PM
To: Jablonski, Colleen G.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: FW: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431

Rich,
Attached are the Unions responses to the Regions questions regarding the status of the S. Carolina
site, the surge line, the history of the unit, and the staffing of the new line.
David Campbell has asked if he should send a copy to Advice and if we will need affidavit testimony
regarding this data. Would you like to meet to discuss?
Thanks,
Dianne

From: Jude Bryan [mailto:bryan@workerlaw.com]


Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:08 PM
To: Todd, Dianne
Cc: Glickman-Flora
Subject: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431
1

Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D)

David Campbell; Carson

NLRB-FOIA-U00004653

Ms. Todd,
Attached is David Campbells response to your request for additional information.

Jude Bryan, Paralegal | Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP | 18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400, Seattle, WA 98119-3971; Phone:
206.285.2828 Ext. 21; Fax: 206-378-4132 | www.workerlaw.com
This communication is intended for a specific recipient and may be protected by the attorney client and work-product privilege.
If you receive this message in error, please permanently delete it and notify the sender.

NLRB-FOIA-U00004654

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Solomon, Lafe E.
Thursday, May 05, 2011 11:58 AM
Garza, Jose
Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Re: House Committee on Education and the W orkforce Oversight Request
image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png; image005.png

I am on the plane and it is a 3 hour flight. I am willing to call around 4 your time but feel free to decide everything without
me. I trust my team. . Thanks, Lafe
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

Exemption 5

From: Garza, Jose


To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc: Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Sent: Thu May 05 11:18:07 2011
Subject: Re: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Oversight Request

Barry and Jennifer,


Do you and the rest of your team have a few minutes to meet about this? W e can get Lafe on the phone during or after if
he is available.
Thank you,
Jose

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


To: Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu May 05 11:12:26 2011
Subject: Re: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Oversight Request

I'm on my way to dallas. We can talk by phone if you are available. I forwarded the request to barry kearney, jennifer,
celeste, and ahearn.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Garza, Jose


To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Sent: Thu May 05 11:06:10 2011
Subject: Re: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Oversight Request

Lafe,
I'm on my way into the office now. Do you have time to meet about this today?
Thank you,
Jose

NLRB-FOIA-U00004688

From: Kaplan, Marvin <Marvin.Kaplan@mail.house.gov>


To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc: Garza, Jose; Gilroy, Ed <Ed.Gilroy@mail.house.gov>; Serafin, Kenneth <Kenneth.Serafin@mail.house.gov>; Newell,
Brian <Brian.Newell@mail.house.gov>; Pearce, Krisann <Krisann.Pearce@mail.house.gov>
Sent: Thu May 05 11:00:51 2011
Subject: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Oversight Request

Attached is a request for documents and communications relating to April 20, 2011 complaint against The Boeing
Corporation. We look forward to your timely and complete response.
Marvin E. Kaplan
Professional Staff Member
Committee on Education and the Workforce
2181 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202)225-4527

NLRB-FOIA-U00004689

NLRB-FOIA-U00004690

NLRB-FOIA-U00004691

NLRB-FOIA-U00004692

NLRB-FOIA-U00004693

NLRB-FOIA-U00004694

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Abruzzo, Jennifer
Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:05 PM
Mattina, Celeste J.
FW : House Committee on Education and the W orkforce Oversight Request
image006.gif; image007.gif; image008.gif; image009.gif; image010.gif

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 11:58 AM
To: Garza, Jose
Cc: Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Subject: Re: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Oversight Request

I am on the plane and it is a 3 hour flight. I am willing to call around 4 your time but feel free to decide everything without
Exemption 5 me. I trust my team. Thanks, Lafe
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Garza, Jose


To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc: Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Sent: Thu May 05 11:18:07 2011
Subject: Re: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Oversight Request

Barry and Jennifer,


Do you and the rest of your team have a few minutes to meet about this? W e can get Lafe on the phone during or after if
he is available.
Thank you,
Jose

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


To: Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu May 05 11:12:26 2011
Subject: Re: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Oversight Request

I'm on my way to dallas. We can talk by phone if you are available. I forwarded the request to barry kearney, jennifer,
celeste, and ahearn.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Garza, Jose


To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Sent: Thu May 05 11:06:10 2011
Subject: Re: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Oversight Request

NLRB-FOIA-U00004695

Lafe,
I'm on my way into the office now. Do you have time to meet about this today?
Thank you,
Jose

From: Kaplan, Marvin <Marvin.Kaplan@mail.house.gov>


To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc: Garza, Jose; Gilroy, Ed <Ed.Gilroy@mail.house.gov>; Serafin, Kenneth <Kenneth.Serafin@mail.house.gov>; Newell,
Brian <Brian.Newell@mail.house.gov>; Pearce, Krisann <Krisann.Pearce@mail.house.gov>
Sent: Thu May 05 11:00:51 2011
Subject: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Oversight Request

Attached is a request for documents and communications relating to April 20, 2011 complaint against The Boeing
Corporation. We look forward to your timely and complete response.
Marvin E. Kaplan
Professional Staff Member
Committee on Education and the Workforce
2181 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202)225-4527

NLRB-FOIA-U00004696

NLRB-FOIA-U00004697

NLRB-FOIA-U00004698

NLRB-FOIA-U00004699

NLRB-FOIA-U00004700

NLRB-FOIA-U00004701

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Abruzzo, Jennifer
Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:15 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: House Committee on Education and the W orkforce Oversight Request
image006.gif; image007.gif; image008.gif; image009.gif; image010.gif

Theres a meeting at 3pm in GC suite to discuss. Thanks.

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 11:58 AM
To: Garza, Jose
Cc: Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Subject: Re: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Oversight Request

I am on the plane and it is a 3 hour flight. I am willing to call around 4 your time but feel free to decide everything without
me. I trust my team. Thanks, Lafe
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

Exemption 5

From: Garza, Jose


To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc: Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Sent: Thu May 05 11:18:07 2011
Subject: Re: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Oversight Request

Barry and Jennifer,


Do you and the rest of your team have a few minutes to meet about this? W e can get Lafe on the phone during or after if
he is available.
Thank you,
Jose

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


To: Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu May 05 11:12:26 2011
Subject: Re: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Oversight Request

I'm on my way to dallas. We can talk by phone if you are available. I forwarded the request to barry kearney, jennifer,
celeste, and ahearn.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Garza, Jose


To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Sent: Thu May 05 11:06:10 2011
Subject: Re: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Oversight Request

NLRB-FOIA-U00004702

Lafe,
I'm on my way into the office now. Do you have time to meet about this today?
Thank you,
Jose

From: Kaplan, Marvin <Marvin.Kaplan@mail.house.gov>


To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc: Garza, Jose; Gilroy, Ed <Ed.Gilroy@mail.house.gov>; Serafin, Kenneth <Kenneth.Serafin@mail.house.gov>; Newell,
Brian <Brian.Newell@mail.house.gov>; Pearce, Krisann <Krisann.Pearce@mail.house.gov>
Sent: Thu May 05 11:00:51 2011
Subject: House Committee on Education and the Workforce Oversight Request

Attached is a request for documents and communications relating to April 20, 2011 complaint against The Boeing
Corporation. We look forward to your timely and complete response.
Marvin E. Kaplan
Professional Staff Member
Committee on Education and the Workforce
2181 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202)225-4527

NLRB-FOIA-U00004703

NLRB-FOIA-U00004704

NLRB-FOIA-U00004705

NLRB-FOIA-U00004706

NLRB-FOIA-U00004707

NLRB-FOIA-U00004708

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Abruzzo, Jennifer
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:26 PM
Garza, Jose
Re: Graham response

Thanks. BTW on the Rehberg request, Lafe agrees that we should send our Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in
response.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Garza, Jose


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Tue Jun 21 16:19:38 2011
Subject: Graham response

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/21/boeing-union-files-ethics-complaint-against-sen-gr/

Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013

NLRB-FOIA-U00004718

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Garza, Jose
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:27 PM
Abruzzo, Jennifer
RE: Graham response

Great. We dont have that yet do we?

From: Abruzzo, Jennifer


Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:26 PM
To: Garza, Jose
Subject: Re: Graham response

Thanks. BTW on the Rehberg request, Lafe agrees that we should send our Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in
response.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Garza, Jose


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Tue Jun 21 16:19:38 2011
Subject: Graham response

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/21/boeing-union-files-ethics-complaint-against-sen-gr/

Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013

NLRB-FOIA-U00004719

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Abruzzo, Jennifer
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:35 PM
Garza, Jose
Re: Graham response

Not yet. I'll check on it.


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Garza, Jose


To: Abruzzo, Jennifer
Sent: Tue Jun 21 16:27:12 2011
Subject: RE: Graham response

Great. We dont have that yet do we?

From: Abruzzo, Jennifer


Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:26 PM
To: Garza, Jose
Subject: Re: Graham response

Thanks. BTW on the Rehberg request, Lafe agrees that we should send our Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in
response.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Garza, Jose


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Tue Jun 21 16:19:38 2011
Subject: Graham response

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/21/boeing-union-files-ethics-complaint-against-sen-gr/

Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013

NLRB-FOIA-U00004720

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Garza, Jose
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:45 PM
Abruzzo, Jennifer
RE: Graham response

Thanks!

From: Abruzzo, Jennifer


Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:35 PM
To: Garza, Jose
Subject: Re: Graham response

Not yet. I'll check on it.


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Garza, Jose


To: Abruzzo, Jennifer
Sent: Tue Jun 21 16:27:12 2011
Subject: RE: Graham response

Great. We dont have that yet do we?

From: Abruzzo, Jennifer


Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:26 PM
To: Garza, Jose
Subject: Re: Graham response

Thanks. BTW on the Rehberg request, Lafe agrees that we should send our Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in
response.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Garza, Jose


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Tue Jun 21 16:19:38 2011
Subject: Graham response

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/21/boeing-union-files-ethics-complaint-against-sen-gr/

Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013

NLRB-FOIA-U00004721

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Todd, Dianne
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:53 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Memo to Lafe from Advice

Rich,
I am out of the office from December 23 through January 3 then Im back in the office. See you
tomorrow?
D

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 1:51 PM
To: Todd, Dianne
Subject: Re: Memo to Lafe from Advice

D, Many thanks; btw...can you give me your schedule in the next few weeks...in case Boeing offers to present witnesses
and GC agrees?
Many thanks.
R
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Todd, Dianne


To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Cc: Jablonski, Colleen G.
Sent: Tue Dec 14 13:37:10 2010
Subject: RE: Memo to Lafe from Advice

Rich,
We have an affidavit from employee Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D) who said that he read Boeings memo 787
Second Line
Questions and Answers for Managers 10/28/9 at the time it was released as did the other Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D) employees in his unit.
Good luck!
Dianne

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 10:55 AM
To: Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Subject: Memo to Lafe from Advice

Dianne, Colleen,
Do we have a response to the question in fn. 24? Evidence?
Many thanks.
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00004736

Rich
Richard L Ahearn
Regional Director, Region 19, Seattle
206 220 6310

NLRB-FOIA-U00004737

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Farrell, Ellen
Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:15 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Boeing
ADV.19-CA-32431.GCAgenda.Boeing.dlw.doc

Rich
This is our GC Agenda memo; I think its what youre looking for.
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Division of Advice, NLRB
202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 2:37 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: Boeing

Ellen, I want to prepare for next weeks meeting. I thought I had received the Advice memo, but cant locate it (I could
only find a proposed interim order from Deborah Willen) Could you e mail it to me?
Many thanks.
Rich

NLRB-FOIA-U00004814

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004815

NLRB-FOIA-U00004815

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004816

NLRB-FOIA-U00004816

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004817

NLRB-FOIA-U00004817

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004818

NLRB-FOIA-U00004818

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004819

NLRB-FOIA-U00004819

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004820

NLRB-FOIA-U00004820

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004821

NLRB-FOIA-U00004821

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004822

NLRB-FOIA-U00004822

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004823

NLRB-FOIA-U00004823

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004824

NLRB-FOIA-U00004824

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004825

NLRB-FOIA-U00004825

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004826

NLRB-FOIA-U00004826

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004827

NLRB-FOIA-U00004827

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004828

NLRB-FOIA-U00004828

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004829

NLRB-FOIA-U00004829

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004830

NLRB-FOIA-U00004830

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004831

NLRB-FOIA-U00004831

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004832

NLRB-FOIA-U00004832

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004833

NLRB-FOIA-U00004833

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004834

NLRB-FOIA-U00004834

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004835

NLRB-FOIA-U00004835

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004836

NLRB-FOIA-U00004836

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004837

NLRB-FOIA-U00004837

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004838

NLRB-FOIA-U00004838

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00004839

NLRB-FOIA-U00004839

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ferguson, John H.
Thursday, October 07, 2010 3:55 PM
Kearney, Barry J.
RE: Boeing as a runaway shop?

Sure I would like to see the memo when it is doneas indicated in my email, there is a lot to get your head around in this
area, and I need to dig deeper.
Whatever Scalia does will be ugly, combining Milwaukee Springs II mid contract relocation bargaining and the hardnosed
HK Porter/TWA/Lockout cases perspective that the free play of economic weapons notion makes it easy to understand
why unions want to strike in summer and employers want to lockout in winter and why the IAM loves Seattle and Boeings
new love is Alabama. So far as Scalia is concerned, the fact that one side or the other is seeking higher ground on which
to fight, having been earlier bloodied in the valley, is in the nature of economic warfare and of no concern to the courts.

Exemption 5

From: Kearney, Barry J.


Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 2:55 PM
To: Ferguson, John H.
Subject: RE: Boeing as a runaway shop?

Boeing doesnt at least for now contend that striking makes for higher labor costs and that is why they are moving. In fact
it is cheaper and more efficient to put the work in Puget Sound. They contend that strikes make it harder for them to
deliver planes to their customer and that is a sufficient business justification to move because the Union wont agree now
mid-contract to a 22 year no strike pledge. What do you think Scalia will do with that? Do you want to see the memo
when it is done?

From: Ferguson, John H.


Sent: Thursday, October 07, 2010 2:29 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: Boeing as a runaway shop?

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00004848

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00004849

Microsoft Outlook

Non-Responsive

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 2:17 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Wagner, Anthony R.; Garza, Jose
Subject: first reporter call, and lindsey graham has a statement

I just got a call from a reporter at the Charleston SC paper. Apparently DeMint announced this was going to happen in
Charleston yesterday so they were geared up.
Should be go ahead with the release and fact sheet?

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004891

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Monday, June 06, 2011 9:17 AM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
RE: Congressman Ross

Good morning,
I spoke with the staffer, and all she wanted to know was whether Boeing would have an opportunity to submit evidence
and testimony at the hearing, which I said they did. I told her to be sure to call me or Jose with any other questions, but it
seemed to be a very limited query.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 8:46 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose
Subject: Congressman Ross

Exemption 5

NLRB-FOIA-U00004899

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Garza, Jose
Monday, June 06, 2011 9:49 AM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: npr Boeing NLRB
image001.gif

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:46 AM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Subject: RE: npr Boeing NLRB

Hi I was about to send this and then thought we should probably discuss first.

Hi Wendy,
Im not sure what this labor historian is talking about. We issue complaints all the time having to do with the issue of
retaliation. As part of our case, Im sure our attorneys will discuss precedent. But again, its not something were going to
get into ahead of the hearing.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Wendy Kaufman [mailto:WKaufman@npr.org]


Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:18 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Cc: Wendy Kaufman
Subject: npr Boeing NLRB

Thanks Nancy ---

A labor historian told me that the NLRB used to bring suits like this
( and a case like this ag a high

but hasnt done so for decades


When was the last time the Board brought a case like this profile employer)

Wendy Kaufman | Correspondent | wkaufman@npr.org | Seattle | 206 232 8318

From: Cleeland, Nancy [mailto:Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov]


Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 1:32 PM
To: Wendy Kaufman
Subject: couple of links

Hi Wendy, Here are a couple of links related to committee requests for information I mentioned earlier.
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00004903

http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1290&Itemid=29
http://edworkforce.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=242822

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004904

NLRB-FOIA-U00004905

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Cleeland, Nancy
Monday, June 06, 2011 9:53 AM
Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: npr Boeing NLRB
image001.gif

Well, thats one way of looking at it!

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:49 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: RE: npr Boeing NLRB

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:46 AM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Subject: RE: npr Boeing NLRB

Hi I was about to send this and then thought we should probably discuss first.

Hi Wendy,
Im not sure what this labor historian is talking about. We issue complaints all the time having to do with the issue of
retaliation. As part of our case, Im sure our attorneys will discuss precedent. But again, its not something were going to
get into ahead of the hearing.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Wendy Kaufman [mailto:WKaufman@npr.org]


Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:18 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Cc: Wendy Kaufman
Subject: npr Boeing NLRB

Thanks Nancy ---

A labor historian told me that the NLRB used to bring suits like this

but hasnt done so for decades


1

NLRB-FOIA-U00004906

When was the last time the Board brought a case like this profile employer)

( and a case like this ag a high

Wendy Kaufman | Correspondent | wkaufman@npr.org | Seattle | 206 232 8318

From: Cleeland, Nancy [mailto:Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov]


Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 1:32 PM
To: Wendy Kaufman
Subject: couple of links

Hi Wendy, Here are a couple of links related to committee requests for information I mentioned earlier.
http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1290&Itemid=29
http://edworkforce.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=242822

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004907

NLRB-FOIA-U00004908

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Solomon, Lafe E.
Monday, June 06, 2011 10:11 AM
Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose
RE: npr Boeing NLRB
image001.gif

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:53 AM
To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: RE: npr Boeing NLRB

Well, thats one way of looking at it!

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:49 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: RE: npr Boeing NLRB

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:46 AM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Subject: RE: npr Boeing NLRB

Hi I was about to send this and then thought we should probably discuss first.

Hi Wendy,
Im not sure what this labor historian is talking about. We issue complaints all the time having to do with the issue of
retaliation. As part of our case, Im sure our attorneys will discuss precedent. But again, its not something were going to
get into ahead of the hearing.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004909

From: Wendy Kaufman [mailto:WKaufman@npr.org]


Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:18 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Cc: Wendy Kaufman
Subject: npr Boeing NLRB

Thanks Nancy ---

A labor historian told me that the NLRB used to bring suits like this
( and a case like this ag a high

but hasnt done so for decades


When was the last time the Board brought a case like this profile employer)

Wendy Kaufman | Correspondent | wkaufman@npr.org | Seattle | 206 232 8318

From: Cleeland, Nancy [mailto:Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov]


Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 1:32 PM
To: Wendy Kaufman
Subject: couple of links

Hi Wendy, Here are a couple of links related to committee requests for information I mentioned earlier.
http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1290&Itemid=29
http://edworkforce.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=242822

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004910

NLRB-FOIA-U00004911

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Cleeland, Nancy
Monday, June 06, 2011 10:21 AM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
RE: npr Boeing NLRB
image001.gif

Sounds good, thanks

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:11 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose
Subject: RE: npr Boeing NLRB

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:53 AM
To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: RE: npr Boeing NLRB

Well, thats one way of looking at it!

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Garza, Jose


Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:49 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: RE: npr Boeing NLRB

Exemption 5

From: Cleeland, Nancy


Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 9:46 AM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Subject: RE: npr Boeing NLRB

Hi I was about to send this and then thought we should probably discuss first.
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00004912

Exemption 5
o

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Wendy Kaufman [mailto:WKaufman@npr.org]


Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2011 1:18 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Cc: Wendy Kaufman
Subject: npr Boeing NLRB

Thanks Nancy ---

A labor historian told me that the NLRB used to bring suits like this
( and a case like this ag a high

but hasnt done so for decades


When was the last time the Board brought a case like this profile employer)

Wendy Kaufman | Correspondent | wkaufman@npr.org | Seattle | 206 232 8318

From: Cleeland, Nancy [mailto:Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov]


Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 1:32 PM
To: Wendy Kaufman
Subject: couple of links

Hi Wendy, Here are a couple of links related to committee requests for information I mentioned earlier.
http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1290&Itemid=29
http://edworkforce.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=242822

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222

nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00004913

NLRB-FOIA-U00004914

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Solomon, Lafe E.
Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:20 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose
Re: request re Boeing article

Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu Jun 09 12:31:27 2011
Subject: FW: request re Boeing article

Fyi, I know your both out of the office but any thoughts would be appreciated.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Rosen, James [mailto:jrosen@mcclatchydc.com]


Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 12:21 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: FW: request re Boeing article

Nancy,
Im taking the somewhat unusual step of sharing an email I sent yesterday to Sen. DeMints
communications director. As youll see, it provides the comments of a former NLRB chairman (who you might
know, or know of) who disagrees with Lafe Solomons complaint against Boeing on the merits, but also strongly
criticizes Republican lawmakers for politicizing the NLRB process and interfering with an independent agency.
Could I please get a statement from you or (preferably) from Lafe on this? The article Im working on is a
fairly big enterprise setup for the ALJ hearing in Seattle on Tuesday; its intended to be a broad piece that will
pull things together and help the reader who hasnt been following all the ins and outs of this case the last
couple months. I know that Lafe put out a statement last month, but I would very much appreciate something
fresher and perhaps more focused to respond to Gould below. I.e., why LS believes that his complaint is
justified.
Im writing tomorrow morning. Appreciate your help.
(And grateful if you dont share this email outside your office.)
Jim

From: Rosen, James


Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 4:17 PM
To: 'Denton, Wesley (DeMint)'
Subject: request re Boeing article
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00004928

Hey, W esley,
Im doing a pretty big article to set up next Tuesdays administrative law judge hearing in Seattle on the Boeing-
NLRB case. I did a long interview with W illiam Gould, who chaired the NLRB under Clinton and is now a Stanford law
professor.
Gould thinks Lafe Solomon is wrong on the merits of his complaint i.e., Gould doesnt think that Boeing violated
labor laws by opening the S.C. 787 plant. At the same time, Gould came down very hard on JDM he specifically cited
Sen. DeMints use of thuggery and accused him of politicizing the process to a dangerous extreme. He said the call by
JDM and others for Obama to intervene is unprecedented and would undermine the rule of law. He said Democratic and
Republican presidents for decades havent intervened in NLRB proceedings.
Anyway, could I please get a response from JDM to this claim that he is politicizing the work of an independent
executive agency and thereby undermining the rule of law that separates the United States from most countries?
I know this sounds loaded, but dont shoot the messenger :>) Im just forwarding what this fellow said.
(Please dont share this email or its contents outside your office.)
Thanks.
Jim

NLRB-FOIA-U00004929

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Garza, Jose
Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:24 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
Re: request re Boeing article

Lafe, I am meeting with Celeste, Jennifer, and Barry. Could you give us a call asap? We would to run a few proposals
past you.

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu Jun 09 13:20:16 2011
Subject: Re: request re Boeing article

Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu Jun 09 12:31:27 2011
Subject: FW: request re Boeing article

Fyi, I know your both out of the office but any thoughts would be appreciated.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Rosen, James [mailto:jrosen@mcclatchydc.com]


Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 12:21 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: FW: request re Boeing article

Nancy,
Im taking the somewhat unusual step of sharing an email I sent yesterday to Sen. DeMints
communications director. As youll see, it provides the comments of a former NLRB chairman (who you might
know, or know of) who disagrees with Lafe Solomons complaint against Boeing on the merits, but also strongly
criticizes Republican lawmakers for politicizing the NLRB process and interfering with an independent agency.
Could I please get a statement from you or (preferably) from Lafe on this? The article Im working on is a
fairly big enterprise setup for the ALJ hearing in Seattle on Tuesday; its intended to be a broad piece that will
pull things together and help the reader who hasnt been following all the ins and outs of this case the last
couple months. I know that Lafe put out a statement last month, but I would very much appreciate something
fresher and perhaps more focused to respond to Gould below. I.e., why LS believes that his complaint is
justified.
Im writing tomorrow morning. Appreciate your help.

NLRB-FOIA-U00004930

(And grateful if you dont share this email outside your office.)
Jim

From: Rosen, James


Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 4:17 PM
To: 'Denton, Wesley (DeMint)'
Subject: request re Boeing article

Hey, W esley,
Im doing a pretty big article to set up next Tuesdays administrative law judge hearing in Seattle on the Boeing-
NLRB case. I did a long interview with W illiam Gould, who chaired the NLRB under Clinton and is now a Stanford law
professor.
Gould thinks Lafe Solomon is wrong on the merits of his complaint i.e., Gould doesnt think that Boeing violated
labor laws by opening the S.C. 787 plant. At the same time, Gould came down very hard on JDM he specifically cited
Sen. DeMints use of thuggery and accused him of politicizing the process to a dangerous extreme. He said the call by
JDM and others for Obama to intervene is unprecedented and would undermine the rule of law. He said Democratic and
Republican presidents for decades havent intervened in NLRB proceedings.
Anyway, could I please get a response from JDM to this claim that he is politicizing the work of an independent
executive agency and thereby undermining the rule of law that separates the United States from most countries?
I know this sounds loaded, but dont shoot the messenger :>) Im just forwarding what this fellow said.
(Please dont share this email or its contents outside your office.)
Thanks.
Jim

NLRB-FOIA-U00004931

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Cleeland, Nancy
Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:25 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
RE: request re Boeing article

Exemption 5

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:20 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose
Subject: Re: request re Boeing article

Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu Jun 09 12:31:27 2011
Subject: FW: request re Boeing article

Fyi, I know your both out of the office but any thoughts would be appreciated.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs

(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Rosen, James [mailto:jrosen@mcclatchydc.com]


Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 12:21 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: FW: request re Boeing article

Nancy,
Im taking the somewhat unusual step of sharing an email I sent yesterday to Sen. DeMints
communications director. As youll see, it provides the comments of a former NLRB chairman (who you might
know, or know of) who disagrees with Lafe Solomons complaint against Boeing on the merits, but also strongly
criticizes Republican lawmakers for politicizing the NLRB process and interfering with an independent agency.
Could I please get a statement from you or (preferably) from Lafe on this? The article Im working on is a
fairly big enterprise setup for the ALJ hearing in Seattle on Tuesday; its intended to be a broad piece that will
pull things together and help the reader who hasnt been following all the ins and outs of this case the last
couple months. I know that Lafe put out a statement last month, but I would very much appreciate something
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00004932

fresher and perhaps more focused to respond to Gould below. I.e., why LS believes that his complaint is
justified.
Im writing tomorrow morning. Appreciate your help.
(And grateful if you dont share this email outside your office.)
Jim

From: Rosen, James


Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 4:17 PM
To: 'Denton, Wesley (DeMint)'
Subject: request re Boeing article

Hey, W esley,
Im doing a pretty big article to set up next Tuesdays administrative law judge hearing in Seattle on the Boeing-
NLRB case. I did a long interview with W illiam Gould, who chaired the NLRB under Clinton and is now a Stanford law
professor.
Gould thinks Lafe Solomon is wrong on the merits of his complaint i.e., Gould doesnt think that Boeing violated
labor laws by opening the S.C. 787 plant. At the same time, Gould came down very hard on JDM he specifically cited
Sen. DeMints use of thuggery and accused him of politicizing the process to a dangerous extreme. He said the call by
JDM and others for Obama to intervene is unprecedented and would undermine the rule of law. He said Democratic and
Republican presidents for decades havent intervened in NLRB proceedings.
Anyway, could I please get a response from JDM to this claim that he is politicizing the work of an independent
executive agency and thereby undermining the rule of law that separates the United States from most countries?
I know this sounds loaded, but dont shoot the messenger :>) Im just forwarding what this fellow said.
(Please dont share this email or its contents outside your office.)
Thanks.
Jim

NLRB-FOIA-U00004933

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Abruzzo, Jennifer
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:35 PM
Garza, Jose
Re: Graham response

Not yet. I'll check on it.


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Garza, Jose


To: Abruzzo, Jennifer
Sent: Tue Jun 21 16:27:12 2011
Subject: RE: Graham response

Great. We dont have that yet do we?

From: Abruzzo, Jennifer


Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:26 PM
To: Garza, Jose
Subject: Re: Graham response

Thanks. BTW on the Rehberg request, Lafe agrees that we should send our Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in
response.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Garza, Jose


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Tue Jun 21 16:19:38 2011
Subject: Graham response

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/21/boeing-union-files-ethics-complaint-against-sen-gr/

Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013

NLRB-FOIA-U00004940

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Garza, Jose
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:45 PM
Abruzzo, Jennifer
RE: Graham response

Thanks!

From: Abruzzo, Jennifer


Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:35 PM
To: Garza, Jose
Subject: Re: Graham response

Not yet. I'll check on it.


--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Garza, Jose


To: Abruzzo, Jennifer
Sent: Tue Jun 21 16:27:12 2011
Subject: RE: Graham response

Great. We dont have that yet do we?

From: Abruzzo, Jennifer


Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:26 PM
To: Garza, Jose
Subject: Re: Graham response

Thanks. BTW on the Rehberg request, Lafe agrees that we should send our Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in
response.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Garza, Jose


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Tue Jun 21 16:19:38 2011
Subject: Graham response

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/21/boeing-union-files-ethics-complaint-against-sen-gr/

Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013

NLRB-FOIA-U00004941

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Todd, Dianne
W ednesday, December 15, 2010 3:17 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
Jablonski, Colleen G.
Boeing follow up regarding note taking during neg.

Rich,
Dave Campbell called today and told me that he spoke with
Exemption 6, 7(C) and 7(D)

He is still trying to get hold of Exemption 6, 7(C) and 7(D) Talk to you soon!

Dianne

NLRB-FOIA-U00004953

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Young, Jacqueline
W ednesday, June 29, 2011 3:02 PM
Kearney, Barry J.
FW : FOIA requests

Non-Responsive

From: Kahn, Linda


Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 1:52 PM
To: Shinners, Gary W.
Cc: Young, Jacqueline; Bridge, Diane L.; Miller, Jolynne D.
Subject: FOIA requests

Gary These appear to be the pending requests and our internal due dates. Let us know if you need any other
information. Linda
Jolynne Miller
2011-646 and 2011-669 Crossroads GPS requests include

Non-Responsive

4. 5.

all communications to or from the General Counsels office related to the Complaint and Notice of Hearing
issued by the NLRB against The Boeing Company, Case No. 19-CA-32431, on April 20, 2011.
all communications between the General Counsels office and NLRB board members or their staffs related to
the Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued by the NLRB against The Boeing Company, Case No. 19-CA-
32431, on April 20, 2011.

Non-Responsive
7. all communications between the NLRB General Counsels office and the Boards members or their staffs
related to the Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued by the NLRB against The Boeing Company, Case No.
19-CA-32431, on April 20, 2011.

Non-Responsive

Jolynne has contacted Jose about Congressional inquiries concerning Boeing


Need documents by 7/14
Jolynne Miller
2011-676

Non-Responsive

Linda Kahn
2011-654 Judicial Watch

Non-Responsive

NLRB-FOIA-U00004963

Non-Responsive

Linda Kahn
2011-683

Non-Responsive

Linda Kahn
2011-0682 Judicial W atch

Non-Responsive

N...

NLRB-FOIA-U00004964

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:17 PM
Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne; Pomerantz, Anne
FW : Boeing
ADV.19-CA-32431.GCAgenda.Boeing.dlw.doc

From: Farrell, Ellen


Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 12:15 PM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: Boeing

Rich
This is our GC Agenda memo; I think its what youre looking for.
Ellen

Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Division of Advice, NLRB
202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 2:37 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: Boeing

Ellen, I want to prepare for next weeks meeting. I thought I had received the Advice memo, but cant locate it (I could
only find a proposed interim order from Deborah Willen) Could you e mail it to me?
Many thanks.
Rich

NLRB-FOIA-U00005027

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005028

NLRB-FOIA-U00005028

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005029

NLRB-FOIA-U00005029

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005030

NLRB-FOIA-U00005030

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005031

NLRB-FOIA-U00005031

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005032

NLRB-FOIA-U00005032

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005033

NLRB-FOIA-U00005033

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005034

NLRB-FOIA-U00005034

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005035

NLRB-FOIA-U00005035

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005036

NLRB-FOIA-U00005036

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005037

NLRB-FOIA-U00005037

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005038

NLRB-FOIA-U00005038

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005039

NLRB-FOIA-U00005039

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005040

NLRB-FOIA-U00005040

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005041

NLRB-FOIA-U00005041

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005042

NLRB-FOIA-U00005042

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005043

NLRB-FOIA-U00005043

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005044

NLRB-FOIA-U00005044

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005045

NLRB-FOIA-U00005045

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005046

NLRB-FOIA-U00005046

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005047

NLRB-FOIA-U00005047

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005048

NLRB-FOIA-U00005048

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005049

NLRB-FOIA-U00005049

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005050

NLRB-FOIA-U00005050

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005051

NLRB-FOIA-U00005051

Ex. 5 - 25 pg. Internal Memorandum

NLRB-FOIA-U00005052

NLRB-FOIA-U00005052

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Rich Ahearn's personal email

W ednesday, May 04, 2011 7:35 PM


Solomon, Lafe E.
seattletimes.com: Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787 case

This message was sent to you by http://www.seattletimes.com.

Exemption 6

as a service of The Seattle Times

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787 case
In a forceful letter to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), top Boeing lawyer Michael
Luttig rejected the labor agency's complaint against the company's opening of a South
Carolina 787 plant, writing that its charges "fundamentally misquote or mischaracterize
statements by Boeing executives."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014961873_boeing05.html

======================================================================
TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SEATTLE TIMES PRINT EDITION
Call (206) 464-2121 or 1-800-542-0820, or go to http://seattletimes.com/subscribe
HOW TO ADVERTISE WITH THE SEATTLE TIMES COMPANY ONLINE For information on advertising in this
e-mail newsletter, or other online marketing platforms with The Seattle Times Company, call
(206) 464-3237 or e-mail websales@seattletimes.com
TO ADVERTISE IN THE SEATTLE TIMES PRINT EDITION Please go to
http://www.seattletimescompany.com/advertise
for information.
======================================================================
Copyright (c) 2009 The Seattle Times Company
www.seattletimes.com

NLRB-FOIA-U00005111

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Solomon, Lafe E.
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 8:16 PM

Rich Ahearn's personal email

Re: seattletimes.com: Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787 case

Rich, before I forget, I wanted you to know that


Exemption 5

Even I underestimated

the vitriol that the complaint generated but hopefully your attys are able to withstand the
attacks to come. Hope the conference goes well. Lafe
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

----- Original Message -----


From: To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Sent: Wed May 04 19:35:14 2011
Subject: seattletimes.com: Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787 case
This message was sent to you by http://www.seattletimes.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787 case
In a forceful letter to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), top Boeing lawyer Michael
Luttig rejected the labor agency's complaint against the company's opening of a South
Carolina 787 plant, writing that its charges "fundamentally misquote or mischaracterize
statements by Boeing executives."

Exemption 6
Exemption 6

as a service of The Seattle Times

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014961873_boeing05.html

======================================================================
TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SEATTLE TIMES PRINT EDITION
Call (206) 464-2121 or 1-800-542-0820, or go to http://seattletimes.com/subscribe
HOW TO ADVERTISE WITH THE SEATTLE TIMES COMPANY ONLINE For information on advertising in this
e-mail newsletter, or other online marketing platforms with The Seattle Times Company, call
(206) 464-3237 or e-mail websales@seattletimes.com
TO ADVERTISE IN THE SEATTLE TIMES PRINT EDITION Please go to
http://www.seattletimescompany.com/advertise
for information.
======================================================================
Copyright (c) 2009 The Seattle Times Company
www.seattletimes.com
1

NLRB-FOIA-U00005112

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Garza, Jose
Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:24 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
Re: request re Boeing article

Lafe, I am meeting with Celeste, Jennifer, and Barry. Could you give us a call asap? We would to run a few proposals
past you.

From: Solomon, Lafe E.


To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu Jun 09 13:20:16 2011
Subject: Re: request re Boeing article

Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy


To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu Jun 09 12:31:27 2011
Subject: FW: request re Boeing article

Fyi, I know your both out of the office but any thoughts would be appreciated.

Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov

From: Rosen, James [mailto:jrosen@mcclatchydc.com]


Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 12:21 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: FW: request re Boeing article

Nancy,
Im taking the somewhat unusual step of sharing an email I sent yesterday to Sen. DeMints
communications director. As youll see, it provides the comments of a former NLRB chairman (who you might
know, or know of) who disagrees with Lafe Solomons complaint against Boeing on the merits, but also strongly
criticizes Republican lawmakers for politicizing the NLRB process and interfering with an independent agency.
Could I please get a statement from you or (preferably) from Lafe on this? The article Im working on is a
fairly big enterprise setup for the ALJ hearing in Seattle on Tuesday; its intended to be a broad piece that will
pull things together and help the reader who hasnt been following all the ins and outs of this case the last
couple months. I know that Lafe put out a statement last month, but I would very much appreciate something
fresher and perhaps more focused to respond to Gould below. I.e., why LS believes that his complaint is
justified.
Im writing tomorrow morning. Appreciate your help.

NLRB-FOIA-U00005141

(And grateful if you dont share this email outside your office.)
Jim

From: Rosen, James


Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 4:17 PM
To: 'Denton, Wesley (DeMint)'
Subject: request re Boeing article

Hey, W esley,
Im doing a pretty big article to set up next Tuesdays administrative law judge hearing in Seattle on the Boeing-
NLRB case. I did a long interview with W illiam Gould, who chaired the NLRB under Clinton and is now a Stanford law
professor.
Gould thinks Lafe Solomon is wrong on the merits of his complaint i.e., Gould doesnt think that Boeing violated
labor laws by opening the S.C. 787 plant. At the same time, Gould came down very hard on JDM he specifically cited
Sen. DeMints use of thuggery and accused him of politicizing the process to a dangerous extreme. He said the call by
JDM and others for Obama to intervene is unprecedented and would undermine the rule of law. He said Democratic and
Republican presidents for decades havent intervened in NLRB proceedings.
Anyway, could I please get a response from JDM to this claim that he is politicizing the work of an independent
executive agency and thereby undermining the rule of law that separates the United States from most countries?
I know this sounds loaded, but dont shoot the messenger :>) Im just forwarding what this fellow said.
(Please dont share this email or its contents outside your office.)
Thanks.
Jim

NLRB-FOIA-U00005142

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Advice Attorneys

W ednesday, May 04, 2011 8:38 AM


W illen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
FW : more talk of "defunding"

I guess youve seen this--

From: To:

Advice Attorneys

Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 6:06 PM

Advice Attorneys

Subject: more talk of "defunding"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/right-to-work-senate-nlrb_n_857021.html

NLRB-FOIA-U00005212

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Szapiro, Miriam
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 8:47 AM
Exemption 6 - Advice attorney W illen, Debra L
RE: more talk of "defunding"

Hadnt seen it yet thanks.

From:

Exemption 6 - Advice attorney

Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 8:38 AM


To: Willen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: FW: more talk of "defunding"

I guess youve seen this--

From: Exemption 6 - Advice attorney Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 6:06 PM
To: Subject: more talk of "defunding"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/right-to-work-senate-nlrb_n_857021.html
Exemption 6 - Advice attorneys

NLRB-FOIA-U00005213

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

W illen, Debra L
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 9:55 AM
Advice Attorney Szapiro, Miriam;
RE: more talk of "defunding"

Thanks for forwarding this Advice Atto... -- I hadn't seen it either.


________________________________________
From: Szapiro, Miriam
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 8:53 AM
To:
Advice Attorney

; Willen, Debra L

Subject: RE: more talk of "defunding"


Suddenly were the little engine that could . . . Miriam Szapiro
Supervisory attorney
NLRB Division of Advice
202-273-0998
Miriam.Szapiro@nlrb.gov
________________________________
From:
Advice Attorney

(hopefully)

Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 8:38 AM


To: Willen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: FW: more talk of "defunding"
I guess youve seen this--
________________________________
From: To: Subject: more talk of "defunding"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/right-to-work-senate-nlrb_n_857021.html
Advice Attorney

Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 6:06 PM

Advice Attorneys

NLRB-FOIA-U00005216

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

W illen, Debra L
W ednesday, June 01, 2011 1:23 PM
Szapiro, Miriam
RE: Text of bill to block Boeing relocation

Non-Responsive

From: Szapiro, Miriam


Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 1:18 PM
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: Text of bill to block Boeing relocation

Non-Responsive

From: Willen, Debra L


Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:43 PM
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE: Text of bill to block Boeing relocation

Non-Responsive

From: Szapiro, Miriam


Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:26 PM
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: Text of bill to block Boeing relocation

Non-Responsive

From: Willen, Debra L


Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:14 PM
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE: Text of bill to block Boeing relocation

How ARE you??


Looking forward to actually being in the office while you are there too.

NLRB-FOIA-U00005268

From: Szapiro, Miriam


Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 12:02 PM
To: Compton, Kayce R.; Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: Text of bill to block Boeing relocation

sigh

From: Compton, Kayce R.


Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 10:25 AM
To: Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L
Subject: FW: Text of bill to block Boeing relocation

FYI

From: Martin, Andrew


Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 7:32 AM
Subject: Text of bill to block Boeing relocation

112th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 1976

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to clarify the applicability of such Act with respect to States that
have right to work laws in effect.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 24, 2011

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. GOWDY, Mr. DUNCAN of
South Carolina, and Mr. MULVANEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce

A BILL

To amend the National Labor Relations Act to clarify the applicability of such Act with respect to States that
have right to work laws in effect.

NLRB-FOIA-U00005269

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the Job Protection Act.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION TO CERTAIN SPEECH, BUSINESS DECISIONS.

(a) Unfair Labor Practices.Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3)) is
amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: : Provided further, That an employers
expression of any views, argument, or opinion related to the costs associated with collective bargaining, work
stoppages, or strikes, or the dissemination of such views, arguments, or opinions, whether in written, printed,
graphic, digital, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of antiunion animus or unlawful motive, if
such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.
(b) Prevention of Unfair Labor Practices.Section 10 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160) is
amended
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting after the period at the end the following: : Provided further, That the
Board shall have no power to order any employer to relocate, shut down, or transfer any existing or planned
facility or work or employment opportunity, or prevent any employer from making such relocations,
transfers, or expansions to new or existing facilities in the future, or prevent any employer from closing a
facility, not developing a facility, or eliminating any employment opportunity unless and until the employer
has been adjudicated finally to have unlawfully undertaken such actions
(1) without advance notice to the labor organization, if any, representing the bargaining unit of the affected
employees, of the economic reason(s) for the relocation, shut down, or transfer of existing or future work; or
(2) as a primary and direct response to efforts by a labor organization to organize a previously
unrepresented workplace; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
(n) Nothing in this Act shall prevent an employer from choosing where to locate, develop, or expand its
business or facilities, or require any employer to move, transfer, or relocate any facility, production line, or
employment opportunity, or require that an employer cease or refrain from doing so, or prevent any employer
from closing a facility or eliminating any employment opportunity unless the employer has been adjudicated
finally to have unlawfully undertaken such actions
(1) without advance notice to the labor organization, if any, representing the bargaining unit of the affected
employees, of the economic reason(s) for the relocation, shut down, or transfer of existing or future work; or
(2) as a primary and direct response to efforts by a labor organization to organize a previously
unrepresented workplace..

Andrew Martin
Librarian (Law)
National Labor Relations Board
3

NLRB-FOIA-U00005270

1099 14th Street NW


Suite 800
Washington, DC 20570
(202) 273-3724
(202) 273-2906 fax
andrew.martin@nlrb.gov

NLRB-FOIA-U00005271

Microsoft Outlook

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Ahearn, Richard L.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:51 PM
Todd, Dianne
Re: Memo to Lafe from Advice

D, Many thanks; btw...can you give me your schedule in the next few weeks...in case Boeing offers to present witnesses
and GC agrees?
Many thanks.
R
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Todd, Dianne


To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Cc: Jablonski, Colleen G.
Sent: Tue Dec 14 13:37:10 2010
Subject: RE: Memo to Lafe from Advice

Rich,
We have an affidavit from employee Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D) who said that he read Boeings memo 787
Second Line
Questions and Answers for Managers 10/28/9 at the time it was released as did the other Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D) employees in his unit.
Good luck!
Dianne

From: Ahearn, Richard L.


Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 10:55 AM
To: Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Subject: Memo to Lafe from Advice

Dianne, Colleen,
Do we have a response to the question in fn. 24? Evidence?
Many thanks.
Rich
Richard L Ahearn
Regional Director, Region 19, Seattle
206 220 6310

NLRB-FOIA-U00005278